Best health system designs

[Damned Registrations]

Well if you just want to cheese people in URW, a heavy weapon strike to the back of the neck/skull will generally oneshot anyone, so you can basically freely kill any adventurous types by giving them a pile of food and weapons, walking out of town and chopping their heads off from behind. I also wasn't so much talking about the best way to fight (which would be to bring an army of dogs and men) but simply how some scenarios played out in that sort of system.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

The system Kenshi uses is pretty handy.

There is no overall HP, instead we have 100 HP each on head, chest, stomach and four limbs.
HP for each can go into negative, with varying consequences- upto 0, they're fine. Below zero, however, your limbs are rendered useless, so you hobble if your legs are damaged, and can barely swing your weapons if hands are damaged. If it goes less than -100, it's as good as amputation and once they add it in the game, you'd have to opt for a cybernetic replacement.
When the HP for your vitals go below zero, depending on the value of your toughness stat, you will fall unconscious(You will stay conscious, for example, if your toughness stat is 40 and your head is at -20 HP, but after that you will fall unconscious.) Again -100 HP= dead.
In addition to these, you have HP values for Blood, and on being cut by any of the sharp weapons, you start losing blood as varying speed.

You may be able to recover from blood loss up to a point, but wounded body parts require first aid, after which they slowly heal over time. And limbs that have been rendered useless(>-100, <0) require splint kits to recover. Of course, resting in beds speeds up the recovery process.

 

[hiver]

I am actually not asking for an idea for a health system but rather checking if my thinking is right and if i am missing anything.



Since i will be having targeting shots then each limb or targetable area could have such percentage damage - crits would take a lot of it, or all.
All the limbs and targeted places would affect the overall complete body health by percentages.

When your general health would fall down bellow 10 or 20 % (and thats fantastically generous) then i would simulate some sort of general relative negative status effects, mostly have the character slow down and lose percentage of all skills and other more general stuff like that.
That would be mediated by your Endurance/Constitution and Strength.
Specific injuries would be reserved for targeted areas, like having crippled limbs or cut off fingers and such stuff.

I guess simulating stamina on top of that would be good.


damn, Kenshi is also good with its +100 to -100 points system... hmm! Percentages or points?
Although its stupid not to have overall health.
It should be both. As i wrote above.



Anyway, in the system of mine you wouldnt be able to rest injuries away. You will be allowed to rest just once per 24 hours, while a game day would last a fucking long time, instead of five minutes RT like in most games.
If you would need to get more serious healing you would need to go to a hospital and stay there for days and months - which would affect quests drastically.

Also the setting is hard science fiction so... it will have a sort of armor. But nothing like fantasy armors.
There wont be any trash combat at all. Combat will be very rare and very extremely difficult.

But the health would be extremely important for the majority of gameplay anyway, not just combat.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

damn, Kenshi is also good with its +100 to -100 points system... hmm! Percentages or points?
Although its stupid not to have overall health.
It should be both. As i wrote above.

It's in points. And well, blood levels could count as overall health in a pinch, seeing as it depends partly on the relative health of the other parts.
And yeah, assuming the part after that also alludes to Kenshi, you can't rest your injuries away, you'd have to apply first aid and/or splint kits, sort of like the difference between healing a scratch, a deep cut and a fractured limb.
Time passage also takes a while, so healing isn't as trivial as I might have made it sound.

That said, you have limbs, and targetable ares, would negative status effects actually result in organ damage, like shot to stomach are screwing liver, and on a very bad stroke of luck, resulting in internal bleeding?

 

[hiver]

I was asking myself whether to go with percentages or points.

the part after doesnt allude to Kenshi either.

liver is not in stomach. depends on how detailed i want to or can make it, but sure... El Guapo shot should be there.
dont want to go into too many details and complexity though.

 

[hiver]

Anyway, i think i got what i needed here, so thanks to everyone that contributed.

Its was helpful.

 

[Fray]

One thing that's always irked me is that player characters and enemies alike tend to fight at their optimal capacity whether their health is at 100% or 1%. What do you think are the best alternatives to this - can anyone think of any good examples?

Darklands sort of did this. Basically your strength were your hitpoints so when a hit penetrated your armor it reduced your strength. Otherwise it would just reduce your endurance. (which was much easier to recover) Effectively all it did in that system though, it increased your encumbrance (as your strength was reduced) and if your strength was reduced below the minimum requirements for the weapon the character was using it became harder to hit enemies.

 

[Keldryn]

I kind of vaguely remember the old MUD Gemstone III using a system similar to Rolemaster. There was also that early 90s origin RPG that no one remembers that had a pretty deadly combat system.

That would be Knights of Legend.

 

[Norfleet]

- although, as i said in OP i am not looking for anything that is needlessly too complex, and something fitting for an cRPG that is NOT combat focused.

There's an interesting paradox. If your combat system is gruesomely detailed and realistic enough, your game WON'T be too combat focused, because people will start sensibly avoiding combat. The more unpleasantly realistic and detailed you make your combat, the more likely the player will choose the realistic response of avoiding combat. Simple combat systems make combat a much more appealing answer to everything because you know you're not at serious risk of losing anything important. If every combat carries a high risk that someone permanently loses a few bodyparts, your game becomes a lot less combat-centric because combat is not the most desirable option for dealing with challenges. Unless you want your party to look like a band of pirates with eye-patches, peg-legs, and hook-hands everywhere.

 

[Modron]

- although, as i said in OP i am not looking for anything that is needlessly too complex, and something fitting for an cRPG that is NOT combat focused.

There's an interesting paradox. If your combat system is gruesomely detailed and realistic enough, your game WON'T be too combat focused, because people will start sensibly avoiding combat. The more unpleasantly realistic and detailed you make your combat, the more likely the player will choose the realistic response of avoiding combat. Simple combat systems make combat a much more appealing answer to everything because you know you're not at serious risk of losing anything important. If every combat carries a high risk that someone permanently loses a few bodyparts, your game becomes a lot less combat-centric because combat is not the most desirable option for dealing with challenges. Unless you want your party to look like a band of pirates with eye-patches, peg-legs, and hook-hands everywhere.

I don't know we could use another Robinson's Requiem eventually.

Quadruple amputations for everyone.

 

[thesheeep]

Nobody mentioned Mutants & Masterminds yet? A shame!

I think it has one of the best health systems there is. It has unfortunately been a while since I last played it, but I will try...

Basically: There is no health.
Not as a stat, at least.

Instead, every character has a "bruise track" (and other effects he might have) and every attack must beat a certain threshold (exact value depends on a number of things) to kill/disable an opponent.
Now, even attacks that do not knock out an opponent right away might still add a bruise or another effect.
Those effects add up and reduce the threshold required to knock a character out (they also make him weaker in general).

So even a Hulk-like character will eventually have so many bruises and other effects that he might get knocked out due to a very low threshold. But to even manage to score the first bruise against such a character will be hardest as that is also when the threshold is the highest.

What I love about this is how it completely removes the abstractness of something like a straight HP bar, but can still determine very precisely how hurt a character is.

 

[hiver]

- although, as i said in OP i am not looking for anything that is needlessly too complex, and something fitting for an cRPG that is NOT combat focused.

There's an interesting paradox. If your combat system is gruesomely detailed and realistic enough, your game WON'T be too combat focused, because people will start sensibly avoiding combat. The more unpleasantly realistic and detailed you make your combat, the more likely the player will choose the realistic response of avoiding combat. Simple combat systems make combat a much more appealing answer to everything because you know you're not at serious risk of losing anything important. If every combat carries a high risk that someone permanently loses a few bodyparts, your game becomes a lot less combat-centric because combat is not the most desirable option for dealing with challenges. Unless you want your party to look like a band of pirates with eye-patches, peg-legs, and hook-hands everywhere.

Yes... exactly.


Its not a paradox at all but a mechanic that directly reinforces one of the main features through gameplay.



Its supposed to be a single player RPG, btw, not party based. (but with independent companions)
The combat wont just present risks of losing body parts but the consequences on quests will be drastic too. Especially if you kill someone.

Because that will be an extraordinary event, since there will be non lethal options in combat. (and because it is realism based game where character reactions will be realistic and the scenarios will be realistic - or inspired by realism)

Plus, you will be able to replace simpler body parts, since its a Hard SF realism inspired game, only that will cost. And take time.

Everything you do will take time. And every single quest where it would make sense - will be timed. In different ways.

So... as i said previously, i think im going to (hopefully) model a sort of daily endurance, stamina and various skills cost that will grow after some point in 24 hours, requiring sleep to clear for the next day. Only you will be able to force not sleeping if there is a reason to do so and continue on doing something, with consequences for not sleeping as they would be in reality - up to 4-5 days maximum, after which you will fall into sleeping coma lasting 24 hours, regardless of where you find yourself. (the 24 hours in the game will last a long time)



Thus health and state of your characters body will be one of the core systems of the game. Literally.

 

[t]

my project

 

[34scell]

Why force coma for lack of sleep? As far as I understand, you can stay awake indefinitely with microsleeps.

You should also take into account the ability to temporarily ignore injuries when in a state of high arousal (at risk of making them worse).

 

[T. Reich]

A truly epic undertaking, worthy of a true neanderthal, no doubt.

Should be done in under a decade, right?

 

[hiver]

Why force coma for lack of sleep? As far as I understand, you can stay awake indefinitely with microsleeps.

You should also take into account the ability to temporarily ignore injuries when in a state of high arousal (at risk of making them worse).

As far as i know if you dont sleep 4 or 5 days - which is extremely hard to do - you will just fall asleep into a state similar to coma, or well, just very deep sleep.
I can stay awake for two days whenever i like but, man... those drowsy moments that start happening after are hard to get through. This is actually partly based on my experience.
Microsleeps may sound great as an idea but, if you didnt sleep for a few days and the sleep knocks you over... how in the hell are you going to wake up?
You are gone. You sleep like a log.

Besides, microsleeps (that would be helped by some extreme alarm clock or companions), will not remove the negative effects on not sleeping. Which would work against the main point of this idea - and indirectly against making time matter.
So it doesnt make any sense to waste time, money and resources to design and program that.

Anyway, the purpose is not to get in every single realistic detail or to make a realistic simulation but to make things make sense and seem natural to the player. I dont think anyone would be surprised with such a consequence.


- ignoring injuries when in state of high arousal?


... ill... leave that to the players, ey?


t
brolapsed that for missing an obvious Cleve joke.

 

[Jools]

On a more abstract level...

It is obvious that the health system can not be too realistic. A sword slashed across one's unarmoured chest isn't fatal per se, but in most cases it would be at least 100% debilitating. You can't do much other than bend over and cringe in pain, with an open wound across your chest. An arrow to the knee and it should be end-of-the-encounter, really. A fireball to the face and it's reload time.

That obviously would mean gameover/scumreload at every other encounter (mudcrabs!). Thus the health system needs to mitigate harsh, pure realism, and to make it so that even at 10% health, a player has a chance (however slim) to win a fight. Because, ultimately, the player wants, and needs to, win the fight. I personally don't enjoy games where I can roam around wrecking havoc and critting everything to a pulp instantly, and I similarly don't like being unrealistically challenged by a silly critter that I have beaten 200 times already, just because of a "lucky" hit/roll.

A simple HP system can be really detrimental to realism, to many: some players do have a grudge against having 1hp left and still being able to operate at full death-dealing capacity. It's immershun-breaking and stuff. On the other hand, as mentioned, any fight would become nigh-impossible once the player is down to 50% health.

These factors should be taken into account. As I mentioned, a double endurance/hp system (a la PoE) works ok-ish, as does Drakensang's "wounds" system, or Fallout's limbs management. The "bruise" system" mentioned by thesheeep seems to be partially following the same reasoning too. An inspired combination of these could result in a very good, both realistic and "enjoyable" (eg not overly punishing) health system. I for one would like to see HP actually reflect the character's condition, so 50% health should mean a somewhat reduced efficiency (less damage, less speed, etc): and yet I realize this could greatly conflict with an "accessible" gaming experience.

Of course, different layers of complexity and/or realism can be added to the same health system, via options or difficulty levels.

I think it's up to you (hiver ), to make your mind up about what kind of game/experience you want to deliver. Keep in mind that you can't just please everyone, make your mind up and stick with the plan.

 

[34scell]

A sword slashed across one's unarmoured chest isn't fatal per se, but in most cases it would be at least 100% debilitating. You can't do much other than bend over and cringe in pain, with an open wound across your chest. An arrow to the knee and it should be end-of-the-encounter, really. A fireball to the face and it's reload time.

Except accounts of people fighting on and barely registering grievous injuries are very common.

 

[hiver]

Jools, baby... the minds made up already.
This is not a thread where i reach those conclusions, this is a thread where i check if those conclusions are ok or am i missing anything obvious. And borg and integrate some details i didnt think of previously.

So far so good, - as i said already.

Additionally, i dont hold anyone's "worst possible imagination" about these features as anything relevant. And they actually are not.
As i said, already... i would start lowering character stats at about 20% or 10% of health. Not to be totally realistic because thats not, but to cover that glaring fault of HP systems where you are fighting at 100% efficiency on 1HP.

And if i mean to make combat hard and difficult then i cant allow players to actually have it easy. Because thats false design by hype and lying to the gullible.
I dont give a fuck about that audience. If anything i would love to make something that would make all such players cry so many bitter tears they would fill my pool of awesomeness.

Because, ultimately, the player wants, and needs to, win the fight.

Yeah? How come?

I would say that the player needs a good game.
And since this game will not be combat focused... why would i devolve all of it to please completely different style of games, gameplay and audience?

accessible...streamlined...

:hiver attempts force choke through the screen:

...

Lets just say i will leave that approach to George Ziets. Ripoff this idea buddy! hah!

Except accounts of people fighting on and barely registering grievous injuries are very common.

True.

That will be a possibility governed and affected through the S.P.A.C.E. attributes system.
But the consequences will be as grievous as they usually are.


-
coming out on Friday.
Using Unreal engine. Its going to be so awesome and epic and fabiolius.

 

[Jools]

A sword slashed across one's unarmoured chest isn't fatal per se, but in most cases it would be at least 100% debilitating. You can't do much other than bend over and cringe in pain, with an open wound across your chest. An arrow to the knee and it should be end-of-the-encounter, really. A fireball to the face and it's reload time.

Except accounts of people fighting on and barely registering grievous injuries are very common.

Yeah, and that totally is the norm. Ok. Noted. *sigh*

 

[hiver]

Its not the norm but the adrenalin can, in some situations, make people momentarily disregard certain types of wounds.

 

[Jools]

The player wants to win

Yeah? How come?

I would say that the player needs a good game.

I don't think many people would play a game if they knew for sure they had NO chance to win it. Winning a game is the very point of a game, ANY game really (sports, blackjack, tabletops, rock-paper-scissors, videogames, betting, flirting, etc etc). A game needs at least to make the player believe they can win, however remote such chance might be. Of course, that's just my opinion, resulting from personal experience and the observation of other people's experiences.

You're right, the player needs a good game, and I really think part of it is the illusion/delusion/belief that they have a chance at winning. For example, I personally don't really mind losing, as long as the "match" was fun. Yet the "illusion" must feel real: for example, whenever there is one or more cheaters in the opposing team in CS, I don't see the point in playing that match any longer, and just look for another server. Yet, if my pug-team is getting steamrolled because we just suck, or because we find ourselves randomly matched VS a clan or whatever, or because half of us left and we're stuck with bots, I will play and still try everything I can to have a good game (even if I know I WILL lose horribly).

Its not the norm but the adrenalin can, in some situations, make people momentarily disregard certain types of wounds.

How would you implement "the norm", and those "exceptional occurrences"? Just a random hidden roll, at every "round" during which the player is at 10% health (or whatever % you might choose), win the roll = fight on normally, fuck the roll = be crippled and die? (I'm genuinely curious as to how this can be "translated" into a videogame dynamics).

 

[hiver]

Win? What are games, slot machines? A racing game?

Is that all you play a game for? To win it?
I dont see any purpose in that, especially when such a "rule" is applied so globally, not even considering different types of games. I usually play games to play them. To have fun exploring what they offer and to experience their gameplay.

When i talk about these features and systems, im thinking about a applying them for a specific game i want to make, not just all games there are.
All these features and systems must be adjusted for each specific game.

I said it already... i think five times, the game i have in my mind will not be combat focused, there will be non lethal options in combat and i dont see why loosing a fight should mean the game is over.
So i dont see much point in your general critiques or ideas.

None of it is any kind of cheating or unfair advantage. Because the exact same rules will apply to enemies too.

How would you implement "the norm", and those "exceptional occurrences"? Just a random hidden roll, at every "round" during which the player is at 10% health (or whatever % you might choose), win the roll = fight on normally, fuck the roll = be crippled and die? (I'm genuinely curious as to how this can be "translated" into a videogame dynamics).

God, no, that would be terrible.

What a horrible idea.

As i said i would do it through attributes, who will influence traits and perks you receive, so a player who goes for a more extreme fighting build will probably get opportunity to make a character who will be able to react like that - sometimes. But not without a cost.
More importantly such options will become available based on and through gameplay itself. Im not a big believer in "get skill points for whatever and apply them to whatever" ideology.

But that would be going to too many details and i do have George Zeits ripping off my ideas.

 

[Outlander]

On a more abstract level...

It is obvious that the health system can not be too realistic. A sword slashed across one's unarmoured chest isn't fatal per se, but in most cases it would be at least 100% debilitating. You can't do much other than bend over and cringe in pain, with an open wound across your chest. An arrow to the knee and it should be end-of-the-encounter, really. A fireball to the face and it's reload time.

But it could be done. Look at Operation Flashpoint/ARMA series for example. A couple of hits and it's bye-bye. This could be implemented in RPGs with the specifics uses of a shield-parrying mechanic and stamina. As in, miss a couple of parries and you're dead - deplete stamina by spamming attacks instead of managing it properly and you're dead.

 

[Jools]

On a more abstract level...

It is obvious that the health system can not be too realistic. A sword slashed across one's unarmoured chest isn't fatal per se, but in most cases it would be at least 100% debilitating. You can't do much other than bend over and cringe in pain, with an open wound across your chest. An arrow to the knee and it should be end-of-the-encounter, really. A fireball to the face and it's reload time.

But it could be done. Look at Operation Flashpoint/ARMA series for example. A couple of hits and it's bye-bye. This could be implemented in RPGs with the specifics uses of a shield-parrying mechanic and stamina. As in, miss a couple of parries and you're dead - deplete stamina by spamming attacks instead of managing it properly and you're dead.

Yeah, most FPS do have a "decent" mode (when not the default one) where you're dead in one/two hits. And even in those games, if the first hit drops you to 1% health, you're likely to be still 100% functional (although I do remember there were some games which tried implementing some form of realism, where you'd be impaired or your weapon would get knocked out of your hands, or you'd be slowed down, or had some on-screen effects to simulate the hassle of being half-dead).

Your stamina-bound parry/block is an interesting idea, actually, and dodge/evade should also be related to that. Or some form of action points or limited resource, if people don't feel like linking those action to "stamina".