Is it just me, or has this forum stalled?

[Malcadon]

My two cents. Anyone who thinks basic D&D or AD&D were streamlined games compared to d20 either hasn't played the former or has a nostalgic memory of the game.

Doesn't anyone remember the "to hit" chart for every class? You didn't just roll a d20 add a bonus and see if that overcame an opponent's AC. No. What you did is roll a d20, add your bonuses and then cross reference the result with the foe's AC on a chart to determine if a PC of your level and class had hit. Each class had a different chart, so the DM couldn't have one chart in front of him. He had four.

Then there were the multiple saving throws. There were different class-dependent saving throw modifiers for poison, wands, paralyzation, petrification, spells and death (if not more.) What a headache compared to d20.

That's not to say earlier versions of D&D weren't great games. They were (ARE!). We just shouldn't have some rosy view of them as superior to d20.

I still play basic D&D, and yes it has its flaws. Namely with the limited choses of races & classes, the To Hit Charts that slows down the game, the fact that 1st level Fighters can start off with less then 4 hp, the cluttered mechanics like: To Hit rolls, Saving Throws, Turn Undead rolls, thieves ability % roll, and rolling d6 to do most other things. But the game is still simple and playable. The only thing that really slows down the game is the To Hit system, as you have to write down the whole spread on the player sheets, and having to look the the chart to get the right number, and having to do backwards math whenever conditions changes.

When I play basic D&D, the only thing I change about it the to way you hit. I basically use D20 AC system (and even before 3e, Gamma World 4e) with To Hit bonuses are given out like 3e but at the same rate as basic D&D. I found that using it really smooths things out a lot, and saves time and space on the player's sheets just by marking down: "AC: XX", "To Hit Melee: +X" & "To Hit Missile: +X". Giving out max hp at 1st level is more common sense then anything else.

I'm more a fan of the system for its simplicity, then nostalgic reasons. I would go with another, more simplistic system with skills and such, but most of my favorite monsters are 1st ED, and converting them all is a real pain in the ass. I just like to take the easiest path to gaming. As it is, someone is making a vision one of my favorite game (1e Gamma World) using the basic D&D mechanics, called Mutant Future. I am really looking forward to this, as I can convert many of my favorite monsters into mutants with vary little trouble (it would be like playing S-3 - Expedition to the Barrier Peaks and GW-2 - Famine in Far-Go back-to-back). Naturally, this game rates high on nostalgia for me.

 

[Majestic7]

It is good for basic, non-serious hifantasy stuff, but not much else.

Non-serious? Really? What are you doing in your games, effecting social change?

Please. :roll:

What's a serious game? Russian roulette?

Well, there are certainly serious and non-serious movies in the sense that the latter are just something you watch for fun and forget after a while, while the first are something you remember and which often deal with something else than just entertaining for a moment. So yes, I think same can be said about RPGs. You know, like the difference between how violence is shown in your typical action movie to what it is in some gritty, dark crime story. What I mean by serious game is something where stories are grim, characters plausible, system aims towards realism rather than gamistic fun and the atmosphere of the game is something else than spending a few hours laughing with other guys. For example, a good horror game is certainly something I'd call a serious RPG since its atmosphere will be disturbing, but still entertaining, without being light-hearted and funny.

So, D20 is good for pulp-style adventures, mindless violence and saving the world from demonic gods, but I wouldn't use it to tell a story about moral dilemmas people living in a totalitaristic state would face in their daily lives. I think it is good to have different systems for different games, because they certainly reinforce certain atmosphere through their core mechanics. I think d20 Conan does a good job at creating Conan-like atmosphere in the game - it is heroic, but level 20 characters are not immortal gods of war. I don't attach values to the word "serious", implying that these "serious games" are somehow better than the more light-hearted ones. That I run Conan campaign should be a proof enough for that.

Oh and I agree with sgstyrsky and Style. I'm afraid many of those who glorify old versions of D&D do it because of nostalgia, mainly. Likewise, I've been in some D&D campaigns that have reached levels 15+ and they have started to break apart. Everything just turns too high magic and the things characters can do become rather insane in capabilities. Combats as well turn in to something different - although they last only a few rounds due to wide abundance of one hit, one kill effects, each turn takes more and more game time due to additional amount of things one is capable of doing. This is another things 4th Ed. is supposed to fix - maintain better balance between different levels. I'm interested in seeing what it has to offer, though I'm not a fanboy at any count.

In regards to Conan d20 I was never complaining about d20 as a core - I was saying that in the Second Edition of this game, that core has been maimed with subsystems that damage its flow and spirit. It is a different thing. My point about floating bonuses and subsystems was not addressed by anyone in their replies.

 

[sgstyrsky]

As it is, someone is making a vision one of my favorite game (1e Gamma World) using the basic D&D mechanics, called Mutant Future. Naturally, this game rates high on nostalgia for me.

I loved GW 1e. The later editions weren't nearly as compelling. When is mutant future coming out?

 

[sgstyrsky]

So, D20 is good for pulp-style adventures, mindless violence and saving the world from demonic gods, but I wouldn't use it to tell a story about moral dilemmas people living in a totalitaristic state would face in their daily lives. I think it is good to have different systems for different games, because they certainly reinforce certain atmosphere through their core mechanics.

I agree. What other systems do you use depending on the mood you want to establish? For horror I like Call of Cthulhu rules (NOT the d20 version) and for fast-paced, comic book action, Mutants and Masterminds cant be beat!

In regards to Conan d20 I was never complaining about d20 as a core - I was saying that in the Second Edition of this game, that core has been maimed with subsystems that damage its flow and spirit. It is a different thing. My point about floating bonuses and subsystems was not addressed by anyone in their replies.

If you haven't already, can you give some examples?

 

[Clovenhoof]

Anyone ever play D&D at epic levels, i.e. 20+? I have recently. I don't know how your experience went, but everyone in the group I was in found it to be ridiculous. It did not hold together.

Very true. I played an Epic D&D campaign once (years ago). We set the level cap at 30. In short, the entire balance goes overboard. In a regular 20 level game, you can multiclass at the expense of your primary class abilities. For example, if you're a Cleric and you want some extra combat feats or a fourth attack per round, you can always take a few levels of Fighter -- but that inevitably means you lose out on the most powerful spells. So you have to consider how much you are willing to cripple your endgame spellcasting in exchange for immediate combat prowess.
In an Epic game, this balancing mechanism is defunct. You just take all the Fighter levels you want, and then continue taking Cleric to 20 and beyond, even getting some Epic Spells and Feats on top of it.

But I digress.
Concerning Conan D20 and griping about things Mongoose did or did not -- from my own business experience I can definitely confirm that no matter what you do, no matter how much effort you make, and no matter how good your product really is (also in comparison to the competition), there will always, repeat ALWAYS be people who keep nagging and carping on and on. Actually the soundest way to deal with this kind of customer is to ignore them, as hard as it sounds. It doesn't pay to have a thin hide in business.

 

[Style]

Like I said earlier, C&C is what D20 should have been. It simplified the game and removed the clunkiness of older editions like D20 did, while not rewarding players who munchkin it up.

 

[Sutek]

I am a D20 advocate because it is system that works no mater how high you are whem you drop it. (lol) It litterally holds together almost no matter what, and except for the usual clunk that just about every complicated game has, it holds together neatly perfectly.

Anyone ever play D&D at epic levels, i.e. 20+? I have recently. I don't know how your experience went, but everyone in the group I was in found it to be ridiculous. It did not hold together.

Epic Levels were an afterthought; and add on. There's a reason that class levels only go up to 20. (lol)

We do play very political, character driven stuff with the D20 system becuse it's what we've always done, so the comment that it can't handle a game "about moral dilemmas [and how] people living in a totalitaristic state would face in their daily lives" I think is bunk. You can do what you want with it. Yes, it works better as a hig-fantasy game setting, but it holds together when you take away rules and it holds together when you add rules, and that is a sign of a robust system to me.

Epic levels are twinky, in my opinion, and probably unless you play all the way through to that high strata (you know...actually level up to Epic as opposed to creating characters already at that level) then there would be a story basis for it first of all, but also there would be a ground work of "underpowering" to make the super powered Epic levels tangible. Sure, if you're handing out +5 swords amd laser vision to everyone things are going to break down.

Actually, I've found D20 to get shakey with too many magic items available o th eparty, so in that regard I can see a chink in the armor. However, it does mean the game is flawed, but instead means that particular GM handed out oo much stuff.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Actually, I've found D20 to get shakey with too many magic items available o th eparty, so in that regard I can see a chink in the armor. However, it does mean the game is flawed, but instead means that particular GM handed out oo much stuff.

D20, i.e. SRD, tells the DM _precisely_ how much stuff (measured in gp) a character is supposed to have at what level. There are tables for calculating Encounter Levels, and the average loot per Encounter of a given level, and so forth. The game works as long as the DM sticks to this progression, and breaks down if he hands out too little or too much.
As you once said so beautifully, in D&D you accumulate a crapload of junk and need it to get by. You need magic trinkets, for example to boost AC (also Saves and DR and Resistances and overcoming DR and and and).
If the party has too much stuff, encounters for their level get too easy and the game gets boring. If the party has too shabby stuff, encounters for their level are impossible, the party is limited to lower level encounters, which btw don't give a lot of XP anymore, and the game gets boring.
You can't go and strip a level 20 hero of his stuff in D&D. He'd be doomed. Won't ever get a foot on the earth again. That's why I always say, D&D high levels are not heroes, they are mobile platforms for magic stuff.

That's why I love Conan D20, the total absence of item dependency. Mongoose really did a great job getting rid of that junk.

 

[Hervé]

D20 is just the perfect example of what a role playing game should not be.

 

[sidkfjjteidlkkf]

The AD&D Verses D20 D&D challenge.

I just did a complete character in first edition in 10 minutes. (10th level)

Do that with D20 by hand....

NUFF SAID...

 

[Majestic7]

I agree. What other systems do you use depending on the mood you want to establish? For horror I like Call of Cthulhu rules (NOT the d20 version) and for fast-paced, comic book action, Mutants and Masterminds cant be beat!

Well, other than d20 Conan, I mainly GM Traveller using old Traveller rules that have been homebrewed towards a more gritty direction. It is good for science fiction. I occasionally dabble in modern horror in a Cthulhu-like style or in the spirit of X-Files, in such cases I tend to use modified version of Traveller as well. I think there are many fine systems for such genres though - such as GURPS - but I've just never got around to buying GURPS basic books, as they'd see so little use.

In regards to Conan d20 I was never complaining about d20 as a core - I was saying that in the Second Edition of this game, that core has been maimed with subsystems that damage its flow and spirit. It is a different thing. My point about floating bonuses and subsystems was not addressed by anyone in their replies.

If you haven't already, can you give some examples?

I haven't bought the Second Edition, only browsed a copy I borrowed from a friend who bought it. So I might not recall things exactly right. However..

1) Like I said before, the poison rules. They are obviously attempt towards realism, with the damage coming at different intervals depending on the poison and so forth. However, it require a lot of administration and keeping track of time and so forth. Like I said before, I usually like gritty, "realistic" systems, but trying to build something like that through a subsystem over d20 core is just doomed to fail.

2) There are many sources, both in AE and 2nd Edition, where one can collect floating +1, +2, +3 bonuses on certain skills. For example, you get bonus at Tumble for variety of races, feats, background options from the Player's Guide etc. This makes it harder to see where exactly your skills come from - and makes it possible to combine floating bonus points for insane skill levels. Combined to certain feats this can be really ridicilous. Like the example about a Pict with True Professional on Bodypaint, who then proceeds to paint picture of Cthulhu on his chest and gets +30 on Intimidate or something like that. These floating, stacking bonus point are definetely a problem with D&D as well.

3) Subsystems within the system. There are feats and maneuvers et cetera which have their own mechanics within core mechanics of the game and require separate book keeping on the side for them to work. Like that feat I mentioned before in my previous posts - where dancing aside from blows of the enemy gives him "endurance penalty" that lasts until he manages to score a hit. It is a cool feat, certainly, but it bogs the game down considerably if you actually use it. Many maneuvers are unfortunately the same - they are rather cool, but bog down the game if anyone even remembers to use them. In my current campaign, we - both players and me as a GM - are completely forgetting that the maneuvers exist all the time. These same systems within the system appear in regular D&D too, in the form of some spells, feats and prestige classes.

 

[Majestic7]

Epic Levels were an afterthought; and add on. There's a reason that class levels only go up to 20. (lol)

It is not just epic levels. Things get bogged down and slower around level 15. The comparable increase in power between, say, levels 5-10 and 10-15 is very different. Around ~15, available options, save or die -stuff and magic trinkets & tricks are just so diverse and overpowering that the time you spend playing one combat round is tenfold the time you spend at level six or ten, in my experience - even if there are less rounds per combat encounter.

We do play very political, character driven stuff with the D20 system becuse it's what we've always done, so the comment that it can't handle a game "about moral dilemmas [and how] people living in a totalitaristic state would face in their daily lives" I think is bunk. You can do what you want with it. Yes, it works better as a hig-fantasy game setting, but it holds together when you take away rules and it holds together when you add rules, and that is a sign of a robust system to me.

Sure, you can play anything with any system imaginable. However, having a system that reinforces the genre you play helps a lot. Let's take an example - imagine that you want a situation in a campaign where group of angry peasants armed with crossbows have trashed party of local nobility. Player characters happen to consist most of the nobility present. GM is trying to build a scene, where the peasants are dangerous due to the set-up where they have lethal weapons and PCs have none, even if the player characters are experienced warriors. The idea is to have the player characters be facing a real danger to their health and lives, not just for them to worry about the other hostages. If the system you use happens to be GURPS, Harn or the like, the peasants are genuinely dangerous. Even if they are not very likely to hit with their crossbows, if they do hit, the bolt will grievously injure or even kill the target. If the system you use is D&D, heavy crossbow does d10 damage and the level one commoners are not even very likely to hit with them. Actually, the level ten noble PCs could just laugh and take several bolts at their chests without it affecting them at any way.

In this case, if you use D&D, your options are either to ignore the way the system works and try to pretend they are dangerous, when they are not - or make the peasant very unplausibly level ten rogues with sneak attacks ready or something like that. Either way, it is not really the scene you wanted to build. Same thing if you want to tell a story about dark magic, which is horrible dangerous but temptingly powerful to use. D&D magic is simply nothing like that. It is easy and costs ~nothing for the caster. Sure, there are corrupt spells and all that - you could modify the magic system, dump the basic spells et cetera... but if you are going so far, why use D&D at all when some other system could do the trick much better? I see systems as tools for different kinds of stories - some fit better for a certain job, while others fit better for something else. Trying to use one system stubbornly for everything is like trying to use a hammer to eat soup when a spoon would do a much better job. Still, there isn't anyone stopping you from using the hammer if you like to do it that way.

Actually, I've found D20 to get shakey with too many magic items available o th eparty, so in that regard I can see a chink in the armor. However, it does mean the game is flawed, but instead means that particular GM handed out oo much stuff.

DMG assumes that player characters have certain amount of wealth considering their level - this assumption is built in CRs of monsters. Even within DMG limits it is easily possibly to build a huge arsenal of magical stuff for every need imaginable. Fourth Edition should fix this by opening the mechanics for GMs, so that if they don't want to give out magic stuff they can just drop stats of monsters by a certain amount or the like.

D20 is not a bad system, I just cringe at the thought of it assimilating all genres of gaming like some die-shaped Borg.

 

[Paladin]

The real downside of my opinion, however, is that it's wreckin' my hobby and it sucks.

Personally, I applaud your "rant". Lined up rather nicely with my own opinions.

 

[Majestic7]

The AD&D Verses D20 D&D challenge.

I just did a complete character in first edition in 10 minutes. (10th level)

Do that with D20 by hand....

NUFF SAID...

I think that just depends on how well you know the system etc. It is easy to create 3.5 D&D 10th level Fighter. Just throw stats in order, add a few increases due to level, discern HP depending on the system you happen to use, choose feats. If you know what you are looking for, you can find feats in that 10 minutes too. Things that take time are assigning skill ranks and buying equipment. If you can somehow ignore those, ten minutes is enough. I guess you could fit in skill ranks in ten minutes too - it is all that magic stuff that really adds in the time - both items and spells.

 

[sidkfjjteidlkkf]

it is all that magic stuff that really adds in the time - both items and spells.

This character was 10th level Mage, 8th level Thief.

I guess no one is going convince me that d20 is the better system.

Like I said before, I think the Power Players begged for better rules, and they got it.

Someone else mentioned C&C, GREAT SYSTEM, what d20 should have been. But I still prefer first.

It is a matter of personal oppinion.

 

[Clovenhoof]

This makes it harder to see where exactly your skills come from - and makes it possible to combine floating bonus points for insane skill levels.

Alright, not seeing where your bonus comes from is rather annoying. But generally, high skill ranks are not much of a problem - within a certain, sane range, of course. In Conan you can easily have a skill total of 9 or so at first level, without skill focus or the like.
The inherent problem is the result range set by the 20-sided die. Especially at low levels, everything hangs on a wildly unpredictable die roll. otoh, at high levels, the rolls become _very_ predictable because you can't mess up anymore.
Here I have to admit that systems like GURPS are at an advantage, because using 2d6 means a) a less wide range of results and b) a bell-shaped result distribution rather than a linear one.
I'm actually considering to replace the d20 with 3d6 for our Conan game for this reason. And I'm not the first to have this idea, though I would use it for skills only. Combat would remain d20.

As it is, I as GM try to set the DCs on the fly according to the characters' skill and what I think their success chance should be. For example, if I know someone has a skill total of 9 and I think it should be a ~70% success, the DC would be around 15.

Combined to certain feats this can be really ridicilous. Like the example about a Pict with True Professional on Bodypaint, who then proceeds to paint picture of Cthulhu on his chest and gets +30 on Intimidate or something like that.

That's the problem with non-core material that I addressed a few days back in a different thread. Splatbook authors sometimes don't stop to think about the possible consequences of optional rules they write up. That's all the more embarassing for an author if he wrote both splats in question. For a huge game like D&D, with tons and tons of extra material, it's quite impossible to keep track of _everything_, but for a rather small game like Conan, where everything comes out of the same house, checking for gamebreaking synergies shouldn't be too much to ask.
And that True Professional Body Painter is really the _prototype_ of an example for gamebreaking synergies.

 

[Malcadon]

D20, i.e. SRD, tells the DM _precisely_ how much stuff (measured in gp) a character is supposed to have at what level. There are tables for calculating Encounter Levels, and the average loot per Encounter of a given level, and so forth. The game works as long as the DM sticks to this progression, and breaks down if he hands out too little or too much.
As you once said so beautifully, in D&D you accumulate a crapload of junk and need it to get by. You need magic trinkets, for example to boost AC (also Saves and DR and Resistances and overcoming DR and and and).
If the party has too much stuff, encounters for their level get too easy and the game gets boring. If the party has too shabby stuff, encounters for their level are impossible, the party is limited to lower level encounters, which btw don't give a lot of XP anymore, and the game gets boring.
You can't go and strip a level 20 hero of his stuff in D&D. He'd be doomed. Won't ever get a foot on the earth again. That's why I always say, D&D high levels are not heroes, they are mobile platforms for magic stuff.

That's why I love Conan D20, the total absence of item dependency. Mongoose really did a great job getting rid of that junk.

My words, exactly! All of the cheap spells & magic items ruin the game as characters just use magic to solve all their problems! How can you have mystery when all you have to do is cast a Detect/Know Whatever spell? How can you have exploration when you can just cast Trail to the Lost City? How can you have heroic action when the heroes are decorated (with magic item) like a Christmas tree, with gulf-bags of magic swords? How can you have risk and heroic sacrifice with all the "Get out of Hell Free Cards" in the game? :evil:

I loved GW 1e. The later editions weren't nearly as compelling. When is mutant future coming out?

Yep, the later editions took the game way too seriously, and lost most of the wackiness & personality that most of the fans loved. I have been playtesting Mutant Future, and it holds true to its roots (wacky art and all), but without any canons. Much like how Majestic7 was talking about "different systems for different games", some settings need the right system to convey the feel for a genre. In the case of Gamma World, a number of systems have been used (like the Marvel Superhero colored-matrix system and Alternity), but being a Science Fantasy, the only things that really worked are systems that have a D&D feel to them (1st, 2nd & 4th editions). Using basic D&D (or Labyrinth Lord as the publisher calls it, but its really the something) seems to be a right fit.

I dont know exactly when its coming out the website says sometime this summer.

Hum...? Converting the Conan system into the game would definitely give it a Thundarr the Barbarian feel! :wink:

 

[Style]

Epic Levels were an afterthought; and add on. There's a reason that class levels only go up to 20. (lol)

It is not just epic levels. Things get bogged down and slower around level 15. The comparable increase in power between, say, levels 5-10 and 10-15 is very different. Around ~15, available options, save or die -stuff and magic trinkets & tricks are just so diverse and overpowering that the time you spend playing one combat round is tenfold the time you spend at level six or ten, in my experience - even if there are less rounds per combat encounter.

In my last session, it took 2 hours for 2 rounds of combat. That was the clincher for me. There wasn't even alot of people. It was me, one other player, and the DM. I had my PC and his cohort, the other guy had his PC and his cohort, and the DM was playing a single epic monster. How ridiculous is that? I was miserable.

Another thing was just the ridiculous power. At one point we were jumped by a group of like 20 demons. My cohort killed all of them. In the suprise round!

Sure, you can play anything with any system imaginable. However, having a system that reinforces the genre you play helps a lot. Let's take an example - imagine that you want a situation in a campaign where group of angry peasants armed with crossbows have trashed party of local nobility. Player characters happen to consist most of the nobility present. GM is trying to build a scene, where the peasants are dangerous due to the set-up where they have lethal weapons and PCs have none, even if the player characters are experienced warriors. The idea is to have the player characters be facing a real danger to their health and lives, not just for them to worry about the other hostages. If the system you use happens to be GURPS, Harn or the like, the peasants are genuinely dangerous. Even if they are not very likely to hit with their crossbows, if they do hit, the bolt will grievously injure or even kill the target. If the system you use is D&D, heavy crossbow does d10 damage and the level one commoners are not even very likely to hit with them. Actually, the level ten noble PCs could just laugh and take several bolts at their chests without it affecting them at any way.

I always hated that. I think the classic example of how stupid hit points are is what happened in a game I was in once. We reach a sheer cliff with a 120 foot drop. At this point I can tell the DM is expecting us to be clever and find a way to overcome the challenge. We calculated the max damage we'd take from the fall, compared it to the hp totals on our character sheets, said "screw it", and leaped. We had the cleric heal us up at the bottom. At that point I knew something was drastically wrong. No one would do that in the real world. Hit points are an extremely flawed mechanic.

 

[Majestic7]

At that point I knew something was drastically wrong. No one would do that in the real world. Hit points are an extremely flawed mechanic.

Heh, reminds me of how my Van Helsing - style paladin of Kelemvor / Hunter of the Dead was dropped from top of a tower that was about 200 feet tall and still lived in a campaign years ago... Kind of gave the impression of him climbing up from a human-shaped hole at the stone at the bottom of the tower after that fall. That was around level ten.

Oh well, but what comes to hit points as a mechanic, I think naming them _HIT_ points might be the main beef with a lot of people. If you instead called them luck points or something - explaining how they represent not the amount of real damage the character receives, but movie-like luck in avoiding blows and dangers - it might make much more sense in most games... Though in D20 Conan, hit points really being the ability to endure damage fits to the genre. After all Howard writes a lot about Iron Men that get struck down again and again, but never give up. Massive damage makes sure that people don't jump off cliffs at Conan.

 

[Der Rote Baron]

I like hit points. I think of them as a way to insure that the pcs that are run my my campaign get more of less to the end of the story - in more or less one piece.

I switched from my HERO/ CHAMPIONS-style of gming ("Give the characters a break, they are heroes. And only kill them if the PLAYERS do something really, really stupid.") to: "I roll, you roll. Your dmage is higher = monster is dead. I roll and hit you = don't expect me to pull any punches."

So, the players have a clever plan and botch a simple dice roll - sorry, then get a different plan very quickly or RUN, FORREST! cuz my guards don't sleep just because you cannot move silently.

You have 65 hit points and charge my pictish warriors who sport Bossonian Longbows - sorry, that wa s a crit (if it was one - otherwise it is not - NO PUNISHMENT, JUST REGULAR PUMMELING!) and that is 33 hit points. So save ve. Massive Damage - ouch! So your hit in the throat and fall down with -1 hp.

Took some "re-education" to get that into my players' heads that I am no more Mr. Nice Guy behind the screen, but just impartial. Was neccessary because some of the players sometimes took extraordinary risks (like never retreating, fighting against incredible odds etc.) because they basically knew that the gm (me or someone else) would pull punches in the end and that they would be leaking like sieves but still be standing on a pile of enemy corpses.

The are now a little more thinking about the strength of the opposition.

So why do I like hit points? Because in GURPS one mistake can end the story, the adventure. Even a lucky hit by one lowly npc can bring everything to a halt.
With CONAN and hps hardly a problem:
I stick swords, knives, arrows and spear into the pcs, I burn them with fire, drown them in rivers, throw them from cliffs, pummel them with rocks and poison theit drinks. The damage is high and hart and survival not guaranteed. BUT if they survive the adventure goes one: With high recovery rates it takes 2 days of bed-rest at most to get at least halfway back into fighting shape. Add another day and all is well.

And if all went wrong they got fate points to "cheat" death a couple of times. They "cheat" - with limited resources. Not me.

So, after many years of consideration I have come to the conclusion:
Gary got it right at the very beginning! Boy, I love hit points!