Decline Lack of immersion, because of HP mechanic

[DavidBVal]

Immersion doesn't need to come from combat realism in a CRPG, because CRPG involve hundreds of fights one after another, and nobody would realistically survive that.

Maybe in PnP, and with a group that doesn't particularly love combat, you may pull it off, and have a system that heavily penalizes being wounded, and makes fights dangerous, especially if you get hit first. In fact, several systems already work like that, and I am surprised at people here mentioning Darklands and not... V:TM, with its Health Levels and increasing penalties. Also, The Call of Cthulhu is a game where you'll see no one happy to be involved in a fight, and WFRP 1st ed was absolutely lethal. But there's a human DM taking care of things not being too harsh beyond the point where harshness is fun, while a CRPG with wounds bleeding and rotting would just be, IMHO, frustrating.

In any case, despite disagreement, good post.

 

[Excidium II]

Maybe in PnP, and with a group that doesn't particularly love combat, you may pull it off, and have a system that heavily penalizes being wounded, and makes fights dangerous, especially if you get hit first. In fact, several systems already work like that, and I am surprised at people here mentioning Darklands and not... V:TM, with its Health Levels. Also, The Call of Cthulhu is a game where you'll see no one happy to be involved in a fight, and WFRP 1st ed was absolutely lethal. But there's a human DM taking care of things not being too harsh beyond the point where harshness is fun, while a CRPG with wounds bleeding and rotting would just be, IMHO, frustrating.

Dadlands too. Had a character almost die from a wolf bite that nearly ripped his leg off.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Immersion doesn't need to come from combat realism in a CRPG, because CRPG involve hundreds of fights one after another, and nobody would realistically survive that.

Why have endless trash fights, though? They are horribly bothersome and lengthen the game unnecessarily.

Also, why make games so long. Maybe instead make them as several separate adventures?

 

[Telengard]

It goes a little something like this.

If there is a 1% chance of critical failure and that failure having a 10% chance of resulting in death, then one in every thousand players will die in the first round of the first combat.

If, as in Runequest, there is a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of a critical failure hitting you AND your friend both in the head and cutting both heads off, and your game sells 1,000,000 copies, then one player is going to suffer that fate in the first round of the first combat.

If there is a 10% chance of developing gangrene any time a character takes a hit, a fighter is going to develop gangrene roughly 1 out of every two fights. One can drastically reduce the number of fights, of course, and so make it a storybook game, but I thought we wanted to play RPGs.

Storybook-style wounds with increasing penalties right off the bat work for games that have little to no combat, that intend - when the rare combat does occur - for the first hit to pretty much decide the combat. (That is, it does with both sides being comparably equal and barring the usual storybook interventions). Were one to make a non-storybook game with such design, the Player simply builds for speed and accuracy, goes first in the round, hits, applies the negative wound modifier to the enemy making it difficult for them to hit back, and so wins before the fight even really gets any momentum.

Essentially, all such games put a heavy emphasis on RNG. They are the critical hitters dream, and the unlucky's nightmare. They can win fights with just one good roll, rather than through tactics and strategy and effort. And they can lose fights - or even lose the game - with one bad roll.

 

[Excidium II]

One can drastically reduce the number of fights, of course, and so make it a storybook game, but I thought we wanted to play RPGs.

lmao what the fuck. End yourself.

Your whole post reeks of ignorance.

 

[DavidBVal]

Why have endless trash fights, though? They are horribly bothersome and lengthen the game unnecessarily.

Also, why make games so long. Maybe instead make them as several separate adventures?

Storyfags want a long, engaging story.

Combatfags whant to defeat lots of enemies through a long story.

Even in the days of PNP, we all tended to link adventures into a campaign. Because long-term challenges and rewards are more inspiring/gratifying.

And... even if someone tried to do what you say, wouldn't be the same thing in the end? A long game, split into chapters.

EDIT: and imagine the sales of a game announced as "5 thrilling hours of gameplay!".

 

[tyrannosaurus rex]

Realistic combat:

You fight some bandits in the forest, you get a deep cut wound rendering your arm useless for at least 2 months. Half your party is dead. The rest die due to infection and bad sanitation. Throughout most societies in human history (excluding organized military operations), actually fighting someone was a last resort scenario since one sword nick could screw you up for life.

Not really a last resort no. Just not always very conclusive.

You can skip the boring recovery time in a game. Encounters cannot be simulated with current top Down D&D style.

 

[Norfleet]

If there is a 1% chance of critical failure and that failure having a 10% chance of resulting in death, then one in every thousand players will die in the first round of the first combat.

Bah, that's nothing. I've seen people die during character creation.