When you explained targeting the Bulk, the Brim, or the Ace, I had to pause to go "Oooooo!" So simple, yet narratively flexible and strategic. Definitely interested in seeing what else the system has to offer. It reminded me a bit of FATE and a bit of Blades in the Dark, but FATE felt repetitive and I could never quite wrap my head around Blades in the Dark's stress and consequences systems as a GM.
@@KarnakZMZM Sorry for the delayed response. Thanks so much for your interest! We're hoping to have the Demo Packet available in the next few weeks. It'll have quick start rules, pregens, and a one shot adventure for folks to try for free!
Fascinating! I appreciate that the burden on mathing to the player is kept at a minimum, more thought is instead given to "do i wanna risk missing to hit the ace, or just go for the bulk". Looking forward to when you finally talk about edges!
That seems like a very elegant system, congrats. I got to the same conclusion in regards to wound slots for my own game, light, flesh and grave wounds in this case. Glad to be in a similar path.
I was tinkering with a very similar no HP, called shots system and this video is just what I need rn. I was kinda stuck, out of ideas how to make my system feel more tactical without making it over complicated and I think I found plenty of inspiration here!
Man, I've thought about making a system with "weak points" on enemies in the past and never really figured it out, so seeing someone actually doing it is so cool. And now you've got me thinking about all the different status conditions based on injuries that someone could take on... This is all really good stuff!
Cool approach! My experience with both Hit Points and "Hit-Pointess" system is climax and tone: This works best for games which emulates grounded/horror themes; My group tried to emulate an Eberron(pulp,high-magic fantasy) game with this kind of system, and itsuffered with anti-climax, out of control combats. But I must point out that my favourite systems nowadays use this kind of backbone in their structure. I must point out Powered by Apocalypse and Forged in the Dark games, as well as Savage Worlds. Also: Called Shots ARE the best!
Very informative! Do you ever encounter a "snowball effect" when taking a small injury to your gun hand results in your character being unable to defend themselves, and subsequently take more injuries?
@@milesvandusen1231 the concern of the dreaded "death spiral" is definitely there. But we've found that the systems behind treating injuries and regaining usage of wounded limbs alleviates that. Great question!
I also think that can be a really effective narrative reason to retreat. Like, in stories sometimes the characters don't win their fights, and that might be because the gunman got his hand wounded and was unable to fight properly
This is a really cool system. It seems to me that action economy and initiative order are going to make a huge difference since whoever goes first will be able to debilitate someone on the other side immediately. Also, whichever side has more attacks, will cause the opposing side to lose combat power and create a snowball. - I mentioned this because in a normal system players don’t have much control over initiative and action economy. It makes me wonder if a system like this might want to invent mechanics to allow the players to engage more actively with those systems. Particularly initiative.
A great question and observation! TfE uses side-based initiative, where all the players share a turn, during which they can each use 2 actions in whatever order they wish. To combat the "alpha strike" aspect of an injury system like this, TfE has a strong emphasis on Reactions - being able to actively defend yourself when it's not your turn. For example, if an enemy shoots their revolver at you at the start of the Threat Turn, you can use a Reaction to take cover from the shot. Success or failure, you end up behind total cover after the attack, preventing subsequent shots. (Assuming there's cover to leap behind!) The active defense aspect of the game, combined with myriad defensive abilities, gives the players a lot of control over their life. Same goes for the Threats (which is what we call monsters/enemies/bad guys).
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames good name for bad guys to encompase more abstract things like using combat to represent a disaster in progress, something with no ill intent but that causes danger like a wild animal or a run away vehicle. also full agree on active defense, in the system I'm working on (bad with names) all attacks are a contest of the initiators combat skill like broadsword, shotgun or wing chun, and the defenders defensive skill, dodge, parry, block, judo or magic teleportation. degree of initiator success determines attack severity, degree of defender success can help a bit in manuvering, further defense like with a shield up, or even a parry leading into a counter attack, or Judo slamming someone into the far wall when they tried to stab you. to avoid defense being too good or weak swarms being useless each defense of the same type has a cumulative penalty and some cut off use of others, like once you dove for cover you're prone and can't do much.
@@stm7810 Thanks! I never cared for the term "monsters" either, because it doesn't encompass the threat of bandits or other peoples the players can fight. And that's cool, the cumulative penalties/situational restrictions; a good way to prevent those stacking/outnumber issues!
This reminds me of Phoenix Point, where the game engine had mix and match limbs whenever it'd generate monsters. You could run into a guy with a crab arm and a tentacle leg.
This is a phenomenal system Peter! I've been digging around for a while now to find a combat/hp system that feels like it has consequences on a turn-by-turn basis. It drives me nuts when you leave an opponent at 1hp only to be slapped with the full extent of their might as if you didn't just leave them on death's door
Thanks so much!! That was the same desire that got me to make my own system. I can only deal 1d6+4 damage so many times before I get kinda sick of it 🤠
I will be a lonely defender of D&D's wound-less hp system here. All the stuff described here is simply what happens when a D&D character hits 0 hit points, and anything in between 0 and max hp lies in the abstract that is the hp system i.e. stamina, resolve, cosmic luck, whatever. Taking damage means getting tired, feeling in over your head, and thinking how much you'd rather marry Rosie back home. Until you get that sword through your shoulder that takes you completely out of the fight. The lack of penalties no matter your current hp total can be considered a plus, not a minus. But what you have here does sound very cool. But it's place lies in the realm where combat is scary and getting into a firefight means you screwed up. Modern D&D tries to evoke bold heroism that is basically consequence free. Both systems have their place.
@@SgtBuffagor for all my criticisms of D&D, I do still love it and play it regularly. Just picked up the new PHB, looking forward to sitting down and reading it :D
> Modern D&D tries to evoke bold heroism that is basically consequence free. Both systems have their place. 5e wasn't intended to be consequence free, they just didn't realize that most DMs would give players long rests after every combat. It was probably envisioned combat -> story/roleplay/short rest -> combat for multiple iterations before a long rest was reached. In reality, players go "nova" every fight and use everything and then want to long rest, because that's what they're used to.
@@icarusshoda I agree, yeah. In reality, only a few encounters happen between rests, allowing for those "nova" turns more frequently! (and just to be super clear, I do love D&D and have been playing it for 24 years now - I just get tired of certain aspects of it, hence making my own RPG!)
May I ask how many times at the table, when struck for damage, the player roleplays their character getting tired or scared instead of actually being hurt? May I ask how often, as a GM, when a player strikes for damage, you report that they didn't actually injure the target, but just winded them or made them frightened? D&D claims that being struck for damage doesn't actually mean being genuinely hurt by a weapon - but then turns around and says that being hit in combat is sufficient for targeted spell effects or other non-damaging effects.
@@PaleImperator Y'know, over the many years I've been playin' D&D, I can only keep describing the "you lost hit points but nothing has changed" situation in so many different ways haha :D Fatigue, scratches, flesh wounds, grazes - I've seen it all probably. It gets particularly strange when you have something like a dragon scorching someone with their fire breath, it dealing a ton of damage, but then the player is otherwise unaffected, ya know? In TFE, if you suffer an Injury, it's always an Injury - some sort of physical trauma. The "Strain" in TFE represents fatigue, grazes, and so forth - they're kept separate and distinct. That method has its own drawbacks, of course, but we've found it to be very visceral!
I like that this raises the stakes of combat while speeding it up and making it less abstract. I do want to see how players cope with the change and how you avoid the death spiral that is common with attrition damage in other systems. Will you be posting a live-play soon?
Not gonna lie, there was some definite whiplash for some players when they first tried out TFE after only playing D&D for years. They expected to be granted much more leeway in how they approached an encounter, and they got perforated for it. It was highly educational :D Players do rapidly adapt, we've noticed. Once they understand that they have a lot of tools in TFE to avoid being hit at all, they start to work together, use cover, and generally play more tactically. I think this works well because the players start paying more attention to the enemies themselves, what weapons they're using, how many limbs they have, what their deadliest form of attack may be, and then targeting that with their attacks to render the enemy less deadly. Earlier versions of TFE had a really bad death spiral issue, primarily due to Injury Slot count. Adding the "Lethal" slot gave players a lot more leeway to avoid death spirals. We've made several other adjustments surrounding Injuries, and the last several playtests have felt *chef's kiss* :D On the subject live-plays, we are workin' on it and hope to post a few videos soon. We have an "example play" which is a comparatively short video of one turn of combat, and are making plans for a long-form, full session to record in-person!
Very interesting idea, Peter! And a very elegant solution I totally understand your point (I just watched the previous video before this), and as a player, D&D feels a bit boring sometimes because of the high amount of HP with no effect until death. 4th edition did something interesting (and I don't believe I'm saying something good about 4e, but, hey...) with the Bloodied status, which made combat change when the enemy reached a certain levels. 13th Age, I think, did something similar for the player, with certain powers unlocking at certain HP level or the combat turn But in the end, D&D is an abstract system focused on math and absolutes. So it works for them, and may be why it's such a widespread game (and widespread type of injury system) It's also why I prefer low-level adventures for d20-type games, or at least low hit point. A Song of Ice and Fire RPG has an interesting middle ground with Guard instead of HP. Guard is low and goes down easily as a fight happens. Once an attack depletes Guard, you get a Wound, which has a lingering effect like "injured leg". Of course, like in your case, once all the Wound slots are filled up, you are dead. In a sense, it's what some 2d20 games also do, and something I'm adapting on my own space opera game. Stress goes up easily as the shots begin to fly, but if you take too much Stress at once, or get to max Stress, you accumulate Harm, which is also contextual. So, yeah, "Shot on the leg" will make it harder for you to run. And, again, once you take 3 Harm, you are uncounscious. 4? You are dead. Anyway, just a bit of rambling here. I like where you are going and I'm looking forward to your game Best of luck!
I always enjoy a good rpg ramble! I've played a decent chunk of 2d10, and I did find their hybrid system interesting. I liked the way TRUTHS could be added to a character or scene to help build up narrative consequences. Something that irked me about its use, though, was how much time was spent discussing/debating with the GM over which Truths could be applied in certain situations. It's a drawback of "permission-based" features, rather than wholely player-driven systems. Anyway, now that's my ramble over for now :D
Big fan of condition-based wounds; reminds me of what I best liked about Vaesen's, though that was a weirdly excellent combat system for a mostly non-combat sort of game.
This is a super cool engaging idea. I like that it has the potential to model competitive hand to hand combat like martial arts or grappling as well in terms of strain accumulation or a lucky injury roll. Super interested to see how the larger systems interact here. The core of injury seems like it functions comparably to a FitD style system but has less arbitration or predictability than those systems tend to carry. The conditions riders are a super necessary addition to that structure too.
FitD is definitely an inspiration for aspects of the injury system. That game has so many good lessons to learn from! We're excited to share more about the other systems and designs with the community. We'll be talking about character creation and some big examples of play in the coming weeks!
Just for information, because otherewise this is fantastic. On ranged combat, hitting arms and legs is harder than the chest, but in melee combat, hitting the hands and arms is the easiest. So maybe there could be a switch in targeting depending on your type of combat. But that's just me that is too focused on that since I train and own a historical european martial arts school which is focused on melee weapon fighting
You are absolutely right that, realistically, the limbs are what get all tore up when in a melee fight! People also naturally put their arms in front of them to protect their face, so it does make perfect sense. This is one of those sacrifices for rules smoothness I've made, though. 'Cuz I've definitely thought about that! Rather than having different calculations based on distance, it's smoother to just have the calculation consistent across the board. Also, that is amazing that you own a HEMA school! Mad respect, friend. I love watching historical reconstructions of weaponry, warfare, and so forth. I'm a big fan of Tod's Workshop (and the others that orbit him). Anyway, that was a bit of a ramble. I appreciate the comment! That line of realism vs. rules smoothness is an interesting challenge of design!
I appreciate this. It's similar to Twilight 2000 4th edition and the changes I've made with Deadzone. Each hit has the potential to change the course of the combat. The stakes are, therefore, immediately more urgent and higher. The Trauma supplement on DTRPG is a great starting point for people wanting to include something like this into their games. We took that as a base, combined with a location based attack method. It might seem more detailed by ultimately works.
very neat system, and very versatile too! I imagine armor adding health slot or ,for a very gothic feels, healing spells that could "miss" because the healer die did not happens on the injured health slot.
@@jettolo Thanks!! We actually went with armor as damage reduction. It reduces the severity of incoming injuries to the protected part of the body, if applicable. So if you'd be Critically Injured, you instead suffer a Serious Injury.
Thanks! Yes and no. The game is all written by me, but I've had lots of help from friends in the long development cycle. I do have a video editor and various artists I work with; some volunteer, some paid (out of pocket) for their work. It's a very small operation right now, for sure, with me primarily handling everything :)
I think I'll use HP just so that more bulk matters but with them being meat points that don't go up barring radical physical changes. Minor injury: 1/5HP loss in 1 hit, will or endurance save against pain, check a minor box this makes healing you a little harder, pain can weaken or incapacitate for a second to 1d6 seconds depending on success and agony penalties making the pain worse. Major Injury: 1/2HP loss in 1 hit, your speed and awareness are reduced by 1, you must save against internal bleeding as well as the agony, and you tick the major box, further difficulty healing, and you now make death saves if you're knocked out. Complication: damage exceeds endurance, you take on the wounding effect of the attack, you bleed out frm a cut for constant damage, risk instant death from a bullet, fall prone from concussive force. also you target body parts that have proportional health to the whole, with their wounds doing things, like the head, if you get through the skull the brain is easy to destroy for instant death or being in a vegetatyive basically dead state, or can remove a limb, break a leg, wind some one, snap spines etc. Other main reason for the use of HP despite HP being silly is it makes armor easy to explain as flat reduction from the damage. also I just love the idea of a GM asking the player to save against cardiac arrest or explaining how "your left lung is filling with fluid, remove 1d4 FP (stamina, energy, the stuff you use to do stuff) each second and you may no longer speak.
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames thanks, I'm curious how you do armor for all those hits too weak to get past it? is this a resistance from an item? like a thick coat gives resistance to d20 attacks of any kind like small burns from a torch, punches or a knife, or a bullet proof vest gives resistance to D8 or weaker double resistance bullets?
@@stm7810 Resistance and Vulnerability are pretty simple in TFE; they are simple so that they remain expedient in play. If something is Resistant, then you downgrade the severity one step. (from Critical to Serious, from Serious to Strain, and from Strain to nothin'). If it is Vulnerable, you upgrade the severity one step. Armor in TFE protects certain parts of the body (since there's location targeting) and says what types of injuries or effects it makes you Resistant to. For example, if you're wearing a kevlar vest, your torso ("the Bulk") would be Resistant to firearms. That means any incoming injury from a firearm would have its severity reduced.
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames sounds good and fun, I'd love to play that. also I want to make it clear I was genuine in my other comment where I talked about how I like that 2 actions can be different time lengths, because that is a thing you see in pulpy or horror stuff, like a character taking 3 shots to the killers head takes as long as the killer taking 1 step forward, or the monster can swallow 5 guys before someone runs away.
It's very interesting that I started a notepad for a wound based combat system which uses different body zones and negative consequences for accumulating too many wounds merely a day or two before you posted this video and my algorithm showed it to me. Unsure if I chalk this up to coincidence or to running an OS that's spying on me... Anyway, glad to have seen this, it really inspires me to keep going, as I love the vibes I get from this and the positive feedback it receives. Though I have to say, I am going for attrition. I want attrition. I want a little bit of slog that is not directly debilitating but leading up to a big wound, one that can not simply be treated away. So the attrition for me is the rise in tension and an opportunity to avoid the unavoidable, to at least delay it and deal with the bad consequences later. Wounds to me are an opportunity to grow and change, maybe level up. In the end wounds aren't a punishment, they are just part of the deal of linving in a world where you have to go out and fight things. And they will change the character. They are just terribly deadly as well.
Great minds think alike! I'm glad you're finding it interesting/inspiring :) and there ain't nothin' wrong with some attrition, that's the beauty of TTRPGs! There's a flavor for everyone! I still play a lot of D&D, despite my complaints about it, and that's about as attrition as it comes
This is really cool! Similar-ish to FATE's system (filling in "stress boxes" but you might have to fill in a more valuable box if you've run out of cheap ones), but FATE's is based more on math. I like this blend of actually tying the condition(s) to the stress boxes filled. It does feel good.
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames I'm actually working on a TTRPG system myself (for about 2 very active years now) and I would like to kindly ask for a permission to steal some of your ideas. All this sounds so dope, I can't even describe how happy I'm to stumble upon this. I've read some other comments and I can't wait to see you showcasing some actual crunch and implication of the mechanics (mostly the specifics of complications and how you avoid death spiraling)
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Sure! It's a bit much to write in a single comment, so I'll try to be laconic. My system is called Dragon’s Die (or DD) and, very similar to DC20, it's started as a collection of my D&D5e homebrew and then turned into overhaul and then turned into my passion project. There is a lot of things changed, so I'll mention only two of the systems that I'm really proud of; these made me feel overwhelmed with joy when I discovered them, similar to your injuries system. 1. All casters-no casters. You've mentioned that you've played 5e, so I'm sure you know about martial-caster divide. After months of playtesting I believe that my system have solved it, albeit in a somewhat side-stepping way. Basically, I've revorked D&D classes so none of them gain spellcasting and instead turned spellcasting into it's own system that every character can (but doesn't have to) engage with. 2. Stamina Points instead of HP, limited uses per rests and other bs. I've grown very tired of unnecessary resource management and absurd implications of HP and other resource pools, so I turned them all into one - Stamina Points. In DD doing anything tiring requires spending SP: casting a spell? Spend some SP. Make a special attack? Spend some SP. Use class feature? You get the point. This allowed me to not only greatly simplify resource tracking, but also create a lot of interesting challenges and meaningful consequences not only for combats, but also for storrytelling. For example, a cleric that has spend a whole day casting spells and helping his village can be as tired and in need of rest as someone who has just fought a dragon. Or, for a combat and agency example, if a 5th lvl mage wants to cast 5 fireballs back to back, he absolutely can, but will be left exhausted (descriptively, not as a condition) and could be defeated with a few strikes, since damage also applies to SP, thus actually becoming a glasscanon.
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames UA-cam shadowbanned my comment for whatever reason, so I'll post it again. “Sure! It's a bit much to write in a single comment, so I'll try to be laconic. My system is called Dragon’s Die (or DD) and, very similar to DC20, it's started as a collection of my D&D5e homebrew and then turned into overhaul and then turned into my passion project. There is a lot of things changed, so I'll mention only two of the systems that I'm really proud of; these made me feel overwhelmed with joy when I discovered them, similar to your injuries system.
Interesting. However if you look at olympic style fencing or Karate fights, between experienced opponents, fighters don't merely "aim" for a specific opponent area, they also take opportunities as they see an opening. Additionaly as fighters are aware that some area would incurs a more serious effect they tend to protect that area more.
@@Delta66-jz1vl This is absolutely true, and you're touching on one of the great challenges in game design: where to draw the "simulation" line. Every game draws this line in a different spot or around different things. The more and more a system digs into stimulating "realism", often the less playable it becomes due to increases in resolution steps. A few other HEMA folks have also pointed out that the limbs are often the first to be maimed in melee, because we naturally protect our vulnerable parts with said limbs. This, combined with them being naturally extended out from us we wield weapons, increases the likelihood that they'll be injured. However, this also poses additional balance and resolution considerations which must be handled with care! Anyway, this is a super meaty subject, and one I should probably dedicate a whole video to. Really appreciate your comment! 🤠
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames You raised many good points in your video, but it also depends on how you integrate your damage system with your other sub-systems, in particular action economy and skills level. Amaster would have little trouble targeting a specific part of a weaker opponent, whereas a beginner will struggle to defend himself and to aim for specific parts. Being able to call your shot on every attack may be too much. Depending on your action economy model, you can consider called shots that cost more action points, and basic faster sneak attacks. You are absolutely correct about complexity. In the 80's beside playing AD&D we also played historical wargames, which dived deep into the simulationist side of gaming. But later toward year 2k, "design for effect" became more and more prominent in the wargames design. A model with more details isn't necessarily more realistic, on the contrary it is harder to control for the designer and may leave room to exploits from crafty players. Aim for a level of complexity you can easily handle, and maybe add some extra details on things you want to highlight. BTW when talking about master, take a look a Seki Sensei video. ua-cam.com/video/3MO1c6060lw/v-deo.html
Its not "attrition based." You don't die due to attrition, you can die from any single attack. Your aren't trying to wear the opponent guy down in a protracted combat, you are trying to win immediately.
Heard, but I think that his point is that it removes the necessity for turn-by-turn attrition where nothing new happens. Each successful strike results in a dynamic change to the progress of the combat. So instead of 'waiting' for the target to hit 0 and things change, it changes each time adapting the flow of play. Saying it isn't 'attrition' is just semantics, it still has the opportunity to be, but could also just as easily not be.
@@mkklassicmk3895 I mean... you can die from a single attack on any system, just depends on the damage of the attack... just push (also an attack on 5e!) someone from a tower. This system could be literally the same as DND if you always multiplied the results on damage dies by 10 for example.
I think this system would be absolutely fantastic to run a Dead Space type of game in. The space zombies (necromorphs) are incredibly difficult to kill because every cell in their body is reanimated. It isn’t just the brain driving the body You have to literally cut their limbs off so they can’t maneuver or attack anymore, but D&D and other games I’ve played don’t have location based damage that isn’t a huge hassle. This gets me very excited
Yesssss! Not gonna lie, I've been putting together ideas for a sci-fi setting to release in this series, and Dead Space is absolutely one of the inspirations!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames question for you sir… have you found it difficult to run lots of weaker enemies with this system? It seems like it could get hard to keep track of very quickly Swarms of necromorphs are a staple and I’m curious how feasible it would be
@@psychone8064 That's definitely something we've had to test around and were aware of; because you're absolutely right, all that tracking can start to add up! We created Horde Rules to specifically handle an uncountable mass of enemies, like a swarm of necromorphs or zombies and such. To be perfectly honest, we're still iterating on the GM tools to help track large numbers of enemies. When I run, I've been using some quick notation that works pretty well, but it's one of the items in our sights! Very astute of you to nice that potential problem! Hope we are able to devise a satisfactory solution!
So insightful! I think one of the core problems of D&D is that, in reality, HP just shouldn't scale with level! Maybe AC should, but in actual fiction, characters don't tend to become a lot harder to kill as they increase in power, they just become more skilled and potent
I found this very interesting and helpful, especially as I design my own combat system where the goal is "what is the final blow to defeat this enemy", listing what makes dealing that final blow more difficult, then having players work together to remove those obstacles and deal that final blow. Unrelated though, I was curious on your opinion on making a combat system where the focus is constantly inflicting critical injuries on the Genesys crit table, where the focus is to build and build and build debuffs through injuries until the table eventually rolls Death. I can explain the table further if you need it.
@@ezekieltamarkin280 I think a system like you're describing could work; it'd give a sense of progression for each random injury inflicted, moving toward the goal of total defeat. I haven't glanced at Genysis in a hot minute, but is it a d% table? One of my concerns is that it makes combat reliant on an external table for constant reference, which might slow the gameplay down.
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Genesys was the General System made by Final Flight Games to make a universal version of the Star Wars game they made, the one you referenced in the video about funky dice. It's a d100 table that goes all the way up to 250, which is Death. When you inflict an injury, you add +10 to your roll for each previous injury they already have. Some weapons can also have Vicious X, which adds +(X*10) to the roll too. The system I'm working on is still early in its development. Instead of lasting injuries, you either disabled the obstacle permanently, for the whole encounter, or for the round. Perhaps there's a dragon who the party says can be slain by cutting its head off. One PC permanently cuts off the wings at the joint to prevent the dragon from flapping wind. Another PC curses the dragon to have scales as hard as butter instead of as metal. Third PC wrestles the dragon's head to bring it low, countering the height of the dragon for that round. Last PC deals the final blow. I'm hoping the rules will also cover social situations too, since the dragon scenario's Final Blow could be making the dragon an ally, with obstacles like their anger, reluctance to do anything, love of their hoard, etc.
@@ezekieltamarkin280 Oh gotchya, yeah I hadn't played Star Wars since pre-Pandemic. Honestly it sounds like a cool idea you've got cookin', I'd be down to hear more as you work on it!
@@ezekieltamarkin280 You can if you like! I'm currently in a big ttrpg dev discord that has tons of indie devs in various stages of game development, from hobbyists to pros. discord.gg/P5j2f95Y Feel free to join up and hang out/chat about game dev!
this sound really good for an attack on titan setting where they usually would have to coordinate to take down some of the bigger titans or worry about injuries when hitting walls or from shrapnel
@@siluda9255 Ooh that's a really cool idea!! The Survey Corp soldiers are just regular people, who can get maimed and hurt really bad, and have to go for the vulnerable part of the titan! I dig it.
I started developing a D&D adjacent system in reaction to 4e coming out and hating the way how hit points were used and abstracted away to homogenized meaninglessness. It's been pulled out and shelved several times over the years and it uses a wound system very similar to yours. It was based off of the 3.x system of cure spells: minor, light, moderate, serious, and critical wounds. Multiple minor wound tick boxes are similar to where you have used strain. Other wounds have more information such as healing DCs, type, effects etc. The difficulty I have had is with the reaction system used to represent all the hit point abstractions: skill, deftness, experience in turning a serious situation into a less serious one, luck, sheer toughness and grit, divine providence, armor, inner strength, occult methods, morale, being told by someone it's not that bad and to stop sooking, to the unfaltering will to keep going. For me it was all about separating all these cool ideas and leaving wounding to be its own separate thing. I thought the key was using these reactions to turn moderate or serious wounds into minor ones that could just be ticked and easily removed in and out of combat. The difficulty though was making it feel organic in play, rather than a binary mechanical system of either shields to bust through or that one critical that insta-kills. I pulled it back out again a couple of months ago because I thought I had come up with a solution. I just have not had the time to test the framework out. Suffice to say, not only am I appreciating your system after just discovering it , but my philosophy on design seems to be very similar to what you have discussed thus far - story meets elegant crunch. You've created a cool-sounding world and some great ideas - I'm sure there's plenty more you're looking to unveil. Looking forward to seeing more!
@@AnraitEsor I feel you! I had been working on TFE on and off for a long, long time, and only in the last few years did I make an earnest push to get it ready for public consumption. I have a day job, so it's tough to balance that with game design!
I like the way you think. I will say that elements of your system are very similar to how damage is handled in my favorite TTRPG. Ars Magica has never used HP, and the fifth edition, released 20 years ago, tallies up the number of wounds of different severity a combatant has--so for an average-sized human, 1-5 points of damage is a Light Wound, 6-10 is a Medium Wound, 11-15 is a Heavy Wound, 16-20 is an Incapacitating Wound, and 21+ is Death. Each of these Wounds carries a penalty to all rolls, including Attack and Defense, so as you accrue more Wound Penalties, it becomes harder and harder to defend yourself, and you end up taking more points of damage, which translates into more severe Wounds. It also becomes harder for you to damage your opponent and cast spells (as spell-casting is roll-based). Now RAW ArM5 doesn't include a certain number of Wound slots, but the Roll20 character sheet could only fit 5 of each (and 1 Incapacitating). So as a house rule a lot of us say that when you're out of slots at a particular level, your wound graduates to the next available more severe slot. One result of this is that striking first and striking hard makes a big difference. Even if you can't take out an enemy with one shot, if you hurt them enough at the start of the fight, they end up in a death spiral. In fact, surrender or retreat become more likely than fighting to the death--which I think is infinitely more interesting. Ars Magica is about magic, not combat, so there isn't a specific rule for called shots, at least not in the core rulebook. I like the way you handle that.
@@JamesHazlerig that's interesting, so RAW you didn't have a hard cap on wound count, but there was an effective cap due to... Just being so vulnerable to death after so many?
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames yeah, in RAW, the penalties to your defense rolls translate to more points of damage taken, leading you to either hit Incapacitated or Dead as Wounds accumulate.
@@JamesHazlerig Oh awesome, I'll keep an eye out for that! Based on what you're sayin', it sounds like it's time I jump into that game - been hearing about it for years and never taken the plunge! Thanks again for the recommendation and commentary!
@@martindavids1294 I had so much fun with the Edge of the Empire Genesys system! As we progressed, though, the amount of dice we had to roll was soooo much, it took ages to calculate the variants of success and failure for each in-game action. I'm a fan though, overall. I do think Genesys has a number of novel systems! 🤠
I really like this system. It reminds me of the different levels of Harm in Blades in the Dark, but it instead allows you to have a more granular scale of damage capacity for weapons/attacks. Very ncie. How do you handle different grades of armor? Is it just binary (armored or unarmored), or do different grades of armor (light/medium/heavy) have a maximum injury severity that they can downgrade (Strain/Seroius/Critical)?
Thanks! It's been a lot of fun to design for. Armor is pretty binary. Armor covers different parts of your body (e.g., just the bulk for a kevlar vest), and states what types of attacks or injuries it protects against (e.g., chainmail would make you Resistant to slash/pierce, but not bash). So a kevlar vest protects the bulk and makes it resistant to firearms, as another example. Resistances just downgrades the Injury severity one step - from Critical to Serious, and so forth. I had sketched out a more nuanced armor system earlier in the design process, but found it too fiddly, so we went with a simple, but clear solution. In TFE, anyone can wear any armor they want, as long as they are cool with the pretty heavy encumbrance of them. Armor weighs you down, making it harder to do things like dive for cover or swim or climb things. So it's more of a personal, tactical choice rather than a class feature/build choice. It means players can gear up specifically to fight certain threats if they know what they'll face - going against beasties? Wear stuff that protects against slash and pierce. Facing robots with sledgehammers? Padding and other stuff that helps against bashing. And so forth!
A couple questions: Does Armor function to reduce the severity of the injury? How does it do this while preserving lethality? Does each limb have an 'injury track"?
@@jfm.d5180 armor reduces the severity of injuries, as long as it protects against that type of injury. For example, most armor won't protect you most against firearms. Most characters don't wear much armor in the game - it's a choice that some make, but armor weighs you down a lot and can limit mobility, so it's certainly a trade-off. We've run playtests with tanky bois, going full defensive builds, and it certainly makes them feel durable! But we've also found that mobile characters with good Reactions are just as good, if not better, at avoiding injury. The game has a greater emphasis on avoiding being hit in the first piece, rather than "tanking it". Oh and each limb does not have a separate tracker - it's one unified tracker for the whole body. I'll be showing off the full character sheet in a future video, including how characters are built!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGamesoh, that's interesting. I assumed with the bulk, brim, ace distinction you would set apart armor the same way. Curious to hear what made you decide to go with a unified tracker.
@@NRMRKL Armor covers different parts of the body, so some armor only protects the bulk, others cover everything, etc. Interestingly, an earlier version of the game had individual limb/location tracking. What we found is that it bogged down the moment to moment gameplay significantly, and didn't as easily abstract overall health. The Injury Tracker does, however, have a place to write where the injury is located on your body. So you'd note: "bullet wound, left leg" and that'd tell you the information you needed. So it's an overall tracker that also allows for specificity. So that's some insight into the iteration; the old version was not a bad idea by any measure, but we found that it moved the game too much into the "simulation" space. It's a careful balance!
I get why people might not choose to wear armour the way you've modeled it, but there's a reason people wore Armour in the ancient world and the medieval period. Just saying 😊
I don't know much about TfE, just stumbled upon this video. Your idea sounds very interesting, thank you for sharing this! However, one thing I wanted to mention is that adding negative effects, wounds to the core combat system starts to compete with items/spells not doing damage, but applying debuffs. "Entangle" druid spell from D&D has the same effect as an arrow to the knee. Now, this is not a problem per se, but it could make it more difficult in creating classes, items, spells variety for the game. I wonder if you encountered such a problem, and if yes, how did you solve it?
@@vladimirkrasilnikov2245 Great question! TFE has a more involved core system, and then doesn't layer as much complexity on top of that. Having said that, special abilities and such haven't been harder to make, in fact the intro system grants a new, interesting mechanism to build around rather than simply increasing damage. It's much more interesting, for example, for a feature to say, "increase the severity of injuries you inflict in X situation" than simply "you deal +5 damage in X situations". Secondarily, while injuries do carry debuffs, they don't hit all the possible negative conditions. Things like frightened, distracted, and AoE components all come into play. We're excited to be able to share all the character creation rules, but that's a bit far off still. We did just post a video showing one character being built, if you're curious!
@@lloydbrown3223 armor acts as mitigation; it reduces the severity of the injury received to that area. For example, were you to be wearing kevlar vest and would receive a critical injury to the bulk (torso), you'd only receive a serious injury. Blocking, on the other hand, is handled by the Reactions system, which I do plan on covering in a later video :) long story short, due to the deadly nature of the combat, the players have a lot of reactive tools to get themselves out of danger. The game is about avoiding injury, rather than "tanking" it, mostly.
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames if a player was fighting a monster and they were both using swords, does the skill level difference between them act in any way to mitigate damage via parry, dodge, etc? If so, do you have different classes achieve these combat effects at different milestones based upon class, etc? IOW, would a warrior see greater chance of skill mitigation vs a mage? This is something I've thought about but never put into action so I'm curious if you've playtested anything like this and/or have thoughts about how this might be done well.
@@Hawkissimo a skillful melee combatant can definitely defend themselves well against a foe, using weapons or a shield to block incoming strikes. The upper and lower bound for players' Skills is a much tighter bandwidth than in heroic fantasy RPGs. It only ranges from +0 to +6 total, and uses a d10 for its core die. Threats, particularly dangerous monsters, can go far beyond that upper bound, making them incredibly deadly to face alone. There are a lot of tactical options, abilities, and items that can help tip the balance in favor of the players, but since the emphasis is on action-horror, the players are meant to never feel "overpowered" against the monsters. The game is classless; characters are built from various Backstory Elements that provide roleplaying and mechanical options. It'll look familiar to those that have played games with a "I'm a blank that does blank who cross from blank." We're working on a video demonstrating character creation that we hope to release in the coming weeks! (Sorry, this is just a more in depth conversation than is easily achievable here in YT comments, but we'll definitely cover this stuff in future videos!)
I'm *very* inspired by this system in regards to my own gamedev. I'm not actually going to USE any part of your system, yet it still solved a number of my current problems. 😅 Basically, I'm giving die types special meanings, usage as abilities, and role as a resource. I also wanted the total dice to count as health, and me mapping your injury tiers to those die types have had very fun results. The system needs to be modified a lot, but still it helps.
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames It got me out of my latest hangup, which is great, but I'm sure it won't be my last one lol. And actually one part of your system here is in direct contrast with mine: lower dice types AREN'T supposed to be strictly inferior Different strengths yeah, but not worse. My rough draft solution (Which I just picked off the cutting room floor. Again) is that the die type does damage as you described but is also used as a bonus roll for attack resolution. A trade-off yes, but one that is pretty damn hard to get the details right on without lots of math and playtesting.
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Thanks, I appreciate it. I am excited about my projects potential (I kinda tripped and fell into a Super Original Setting) and an accuracy/damage tradeoff is a good fit for its elemental themes. Smaller dice were already the "heavier" elements, even. In the end this idea may not work out at all - either in the balance or the gameplay - but it'll still have another special piece in my ever growing pile of gamedev Legos. So I'll call that progress.
I am intrigued by this. There is a lot of clever gameplay that can come out of this. One question I have is this: How laborious is it to track status of say, 6 orcs? HP based systems are simple because health is abstracted to a number. The video mentioned that math could be an issue for some players, but I feel, for the majority of players, simple subtractive math is the simplist way to track health especially with lots of characters. HP based systems also provide a little narrative protection from luck because you cannot one-shot the boss or be one-shot by the boss. Maybe playing this cascading status system feels more elegant in truth. Thanks for sharing!
@@meeplearts3118 Thanks for your interest!! You're right, it is more laborious for the GM to track many enemies at once compared to an HP system, and we are currently iterating on ways to create helper sheets/shorthand/etc to make it easier In actual play, it's not bad when you get used to it. Individually enemies tend to go down fast, so the number of enemies in the scene rapidly reduces. It's worth noting that very few enemies will truly one-shot a player, and the truly big set-piece enemies are a bit more complicated than that, but the feeling of mortality is absolutely present! It's something I'm interested to see more players get their hands on and gather even more feedback! Thanks again for your comment and question!
Have you seen Evil West? Looks like it might be good setting inspiration/comparison. Also your system reminds me a little bit of The Broken Empires, which is also going to focus combat on inflicting specific wounds. If you haven't seen what Me, Myself & Die is doing I suggest checking it out.
I have seen Evil West! Haven't played it yet, but watched a lot of videos on it. It looks like my jam. I am familiar with Broken Empires! Me, Myself & Die is an excellent channel and I've been following the development for a bit now. Very cool game with very different design goals. It's always interesting how different designers approach the same core problem. Love it!
Thanks for the feedback! An important difference between this system and traditional ones is the focus on "skipping ahead" in the tracker rather than needing to walk-up toward the mortal conclusion. Combined with the ability to inflict conditions and effects as part of the core system means that each action can more directly impact the fight, even if it doesn't kill a target. We've found that players have actually started paying attention more to the descriptions of the monsters and engaging with their mechanics, as now the limbs and modes of attack on an enemy are interactive and can be disabled if need be.
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Okay. I'm going to go back and rewatch your video, and listen more carefully. I primarily run Warhammer Fantasy 4E. And I'm guessing that the Player Burden (not an concept I had heard before 😀) is pretty damn high in that game. But so is player choice. And some very cool strategies have emerged from all the crunch. Though at times, as the GM, it has pushed my meat computer to its limit. So there must be other ways of doing things. You may be on to something.
@@peterdickinson4599 Oh wow, yeah if you're a Warhammer fantasy GM then you are probably above the curve, as it were, when it comes to being comfortable with player burden. :D
This sound very similar to the homebrew system we use but without the distributed damage system, and we have a more random systemfor criticals, soeven a first blowcan inflict critical damage.
I think Into The Odd kind of solved it already for me. No to hit rolls, self restoring „hit protection“ instead of „hit points“ and if things get to serious, character stats will get reduced, so succeeding in turn will get harder and harder the more damage you take until you either are dead or get fixed back up somewhere else.
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames can definitely recommend! Its very short, concise and well written! While at it, you may also have a look at Bastionland and Mythic Bastionland, which are iterations on the same system written by the same guy (Chris McDowall). After that, have a look at Cairn, which is a fantasy-hack of Into The Odd andcompletely free for everyone! Good stuff!
Hmmm quite an interesting idea to use fighting condition as a "HP" system instead of actual numbers. I might have to tweek this a little to fit my own little TTRPG. Solid stuff. 👍 ~ Adam
I've never designed a game system in my life but I'm going to complain anyway because it's fun for me: - I'm not comfortable with lower dice rolls causing more severe injuries. People are pretty universally wired to think that a higher dice roll means a better result. Few people miss your THAC0s and negative ACs of early D&D, - I am a big fan of a generous use of injuries and afflictions (Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay with Tome of Corruption has some imaginative injury/corruption/mutation tables) and targeted strikes but I don't think they cause a paradigm shift from an attrition based system to something else. - I've seen some similar combat systems but they've never struck me as particularly crunchy though they are less arithmetically challenging and generally faster. It seems that making hit point damage less granular combined with merging losing hit points (or in this case empty injury slots) and inflicting status effects (injury effects) can severely narrow the possibility space. I think that a system can still use injury slots and be crunchy at the same time but it will need some other systems that can introduce some complexity back, like an in depth feats system you've described which could interact with other subsystems like movement or action economy
Thanks for the detailed reply! I love hearing feedback, whether it's praise or criticism :) . I'll try to keep my response organized below; UA-cam isn't great for this sorta discussion haha! 1. An interesting thing we noticed in playtests is the "looking for lowest number" makes the dice feel more precise. A d20 feels big and unwieldy, while a d6 feels deadly, small, and precise. It was an interesting shift, mentally, for players that we took note of. It's not for everyone, and that's okay! 2. That's totally fair - it's still a violent exchange with a last-man-standing situation. I will say, though, that when the game is built around such a system, when it's wired into the DNA, the moment-to-moment gameplay feels very different. Each action results in a lot more progress, and lot more interesting consequence, when you cut out "hit points. 3. That's also fair! We aren't showing all the surrounding systems quite yet, but there are a ton of customization options in the game, lots of stuff to fiddle with. Let me ask you this, though: Having a system with myriad individual numerical bonuses stacking up does make the numbers go up and does give a lot to make the game "crunchier", but rarely are those decisions evocative. It's just an optimization exercise at that point - you're doing math against each other. What Injury systems like this accomplish is it takes the tactical decision making and moves it mathematics (stacking bonuses) and moves it into the actual moment-to-moment gameplay. "How do we kill this?" isn't answered by stacking bonuses, but instead about analyzing the enemy's physiology, attack capabilities, and behavior, and then dismantling/disabling those features with your coordinated strikes. By using THAT as the baseline of the system, as its core, it gives you a ton to build on top of that's quite crunchy, indeed! Again, thank you for your thoughts! They are well-reasoned!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames I can definitely see that being the case. I guess the THAC0 system was confusing because you’ve had to do some arithmetic to find out if you’ve hit someone and since here there is no math it can actually be easier to always look for the same values no matter the hit dice assigned to the weapon the player is using Regarding the third point, you are completely correct. Stacking incremental bonuses for optimal impact is definitely less naturalistic and immersive. I guess we’ve run into the problem of two competing philosophies of crunchiness. According to one school if you employ enough specificity through rules and tables there will emerge a well simulated model of reality (e.g. modern D&D combat) with a vast array of well defined tactical options to choose from. According to the other school the more you regulate an aspect of the game the more you artificially constrict available options (more of an Oldschool Renaissance approach) In my opinion both of these approaches can lead to increased crunchiness and the real tradeoff is between vagueness and specificity. It’s hard to give an example of a game that has both in abundance. The best I can come up with is probably the progenitor of all tabletop games, Kriegsspiele which admittedly I’ve never played. It started as a wargame that was supposed to train Prussian military officers. It featured a set of complex and specific rules but the way players interacted with that system was purposefully obtuse and vague. The ruleset was fully known only to the umpire to prevent metagaming. Opposing teams didn’t play at the same table to induce a fog of war mechanic. In some implementations even players on the same side didn’t sit at the same table so that each player only sees what he personally knows about the battlefield and not all the information might be correct. Only the umpire knows the real boardstate. Players don’t move units or take actions directly. Instead they write down orders on a piece of paper and give them to messengers (umpire) which they send to specific units. It’s the job of the umpire to implement those orders. If they are too vague they might be misinterpreted, local unit commander might refuse or a messenger might be intercepted on the way back so the player doesn’t even know if the orders were delivered and acted on.
Feels fairly elegant. A few questions: Is there a big table of Conditions and what their debuffs are? Feels like a fair bit to learn maybe? How do you stop players one-shotting the BBEG/dragon/god with a lucky roll? Add an extra Lethal box? Give them total damage resistance?
All great questions. There's a list of conditions and complications, but it's not a very long list and each weapon specifies what type(s) of complications it adds to its injuries. After that, the GM and players can improvise additional complications to an injury if they like, or just stick with the baseline. It's not too bad, from playtesting! Admittedly, the game isn't designed for epic heroic fantasy - it works better for more grounded situations. But a very powerful enemy might be Resistant to some injuries or have additional steps that need to be accomplished before you can really hurt it, such as tearing away armor plating to expose an underlying heart or somethin'. That aspect is definitely something we're still working on to find the right balance.
This system sounds exciting! I love the the zombie example. 'Do I go for the leg to slow it down even though I know that I wont kill it or do I risk it and aim for the head?' Looking forward to trying it sometime.
Interesting, so it's a small random table with varying degrees of penalty? Does the roll on the table scale with the severity of the incoming hit or is it purely random? Thanks for sharing!
Nice work with this, there's some elegant stuff here. In terms of stat blocks, I'd guess that different monsters would have varying numbers of strained/serious/critical slots available to them? If not, I'd be curious to know how you would go about mechanically enforcing that the level one zombie isn't nearly as hardy as the owlbear/deathbot/what-have-you. I'm designing my own system atm too, and have concerns similar to yours regarding attrition systems. Here's to winning the war against stagnant combats, and making mortal combat feel the way it should (utterly fucking terrifying).
@@mattkincannon5264 yep, different enemies have different numbers of slots. Very weak enemies, like a simple bandit, have fewer than the player. More powerful ones might have more. Overall, though, there's very little bloat or scaling in the numbers of injuries. Instead, the enemies become more deadly, they "break" more rules, and tend to have larger action economies. This is because making a monster survive longer doesn't necessarily make them more interesting to fight. So the monsters scale in INTENSITY rather than DURABILITY, if that makes sense :)
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Excellent. Making "getting the drop" on your foes all the more important, I would imagine, which is a good thing in my book. Good luck as your system continues to develop.
@TalesFromElsewhereGames Mostly I didn't know where to stop. Too many places to attack (is shield arm the same as weapon arm? What about other creatures, etc.) The divide to ace bulk and brim is clever and can be applied to everything in different ways which seems to solve that pretty well. Aside from that I just went too deep into the rabbit hole of combat simulation, attack types, defenses, and lost playability altogether. Hope what you've made finds the sweet spot. Looks promising.
Two suggestions… Hp’s shouldn’t just be about damage. It doesn’t make sense that to kill someone you must cut their leg slightly, then stab their hand, before finally cutting their throat. Point two, a suggestion… My favourite games use bonuses as hp. You have +4 strength, I hit your strength for 2. Now you only have +2 strength. When you drop to minus 1, something bad happens.
@@El-Comment-8-or thanks for the feedback! I find bonuses/stats as HP to be an interesting mechanic. Cypher uses that, with its "pools" of Might, Speed, and Intellect. Do you find that such systems create too brutal a death spiral? I've had positive and negative experiences with them, curious as to yours!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames It makes it more important to avoid damage, be tactical in how you deal damage, and very importantly heal damage. No more, I got a 4 damage arrow wound that I can ignore. I’m new to the world of non-DnD systems though, still learning.
@@El-Comment-8-or I get you. What's interesting about Cypher's use of this structure is that you can also expend your own stats to boost your chances of success, purposefully exhausting yourself to ensure victory. It can make for some cool moments and decisions for the players!
I dig the system mechanics so far. How do you plan to build armor around and is durability a factor. I imagine resistance cant be scaled well above 1 factor so i generally see having them add "filler slots" that take up wound slots without a debuff that exhaust as the armor "breaks". Light armor having an extra minor wound slot and maybe a serious, medium having a critical and heavy having an extra lethal. (or scaled down to minor, serious and critical). Also as far as mental attacks via mind spells or physical intimidation idk if these are factored in or there's a separate mental/mind slot system for psychological affects.
@@Tycon Armor is fairly binary in TFE - it provides Resistance to certain types of injuries to the protected areas of the body. Resistance simply decreases the severity of the incoming injury by one step. We had tested out a more complex armor system, but found that it became distracting to track. So we don't use a detailed durability tracking system at this time. A big lesson we learned is that players only have so much mental processing power available to them on a given turn. Where you make them allocate that limited resource has dramatic effects on the flow of a fight! Mental assaults (generally) don't inflict injuries, but rather impose negative conditions like being frightened or distracted. They can, however, inflict Strain which can make a character more likely to receive injuries, as once their Strain is full any Strain from an attack would upgrade to a Serious Injury!
Very interesting ideas. If one has a lethal injury and takes another lethal injury without having any serious or critical injuries, does that one die? Can a lethal injury to a vulnerable entity kill it in one shot? Is there a to hit system or does every attack hit?
If you already have a lethal injury and you receive another, you're instantly dead, yep. A lethal injury to a vulnerable target upgrades it to instant death, yep! It's worth noting that no result on an Injury Roll is a lethal injury - the highest it can be as a critical. This means that to get instant-kills, the target must either have fewer Injury Slots (like weak enemies) or use special abilities to pump-up the lethality. There is a to-hit system in the game; it's easier to hit the Bulk, a bit harder to hit the Brim, and much harder to hit the Ace. So you have the choice, as the player, to go for low-risk consistent damage or to attempt for the more lethal/debilitating targets but lower chance to hit.
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames got it, thanks for the explanation. At first I understood that depending on the area to target, the probability of the hit being a different type of injury shifted. What is the near average probability to hit in the system?
@@navishh2349 The overall baseline success rate in the game is about 70%. What that means is that the chance of succeeding in any given task that you are good at is about 70%. Generally speaking, this walks up and down in 20% increments. So if I have a 70% chance to shoot the bulk with my revolver, going for the brim would be a 50% chance, while the ace would be 30%. That's assuming you have decent skill with a firearm. There are a variety of ways that players can increase their chances, both via cooperation and tactical choices, of course :)
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Oh that's cool. 70% feels like a good rate for the game to feel deadly. And in practice, how many hits would you say a creature can take? Or how many rounds does a typical combat take?
@@TalesFromElsewhereGamesgiven that people's arms are out front, and might be carrying weapons or shields, shouldn't you hit them more often than the torso?
While this sounds like an improvement, at its core, this is still based on attrition. You are still reducing an enemy's health resources, in the form of injury slots, until they have none left and are out of the fight. It is better than a more traditional HP system, but it's a change in form, not a change in kind
I think you're quibbling. Sure, you're still losing resources in the form of injury slots, but it will play much differently, with consequences for being hit, sometimes immediately. I'm not sure if there are set effects for injuries or if it's based on the weapon, or is random.
There's an attrition aspect to it, but it's not PURE attrition like a hp system. I'd be interessted to know what you would consider a change in kind, if not this?
I love these types of damage alternatives. I like your choices. I was just thinking about your example of punching a zombie with a d20 for damage. In this example, isn't there still a 5% chance of critically wounding a zombie with a punch to the gut? Doesn't this contradict narrative examples like the aforementioned The Walking Dead? Or is this possibility expected in your game? Well, I suppose monster traits like zombies can get around this issue. It just came to mind. Good luck with your game! I'll check out the other videos to learn more about this.
Thanks for your interest! In D&D, yeah that 5% chance of crit means you can one-shot a zombie to the gut haha. In TFE, the Zombie has a feature: "Can only be killed with a critical injury to the head." Which means you have to specifically target the head and inflict a sufficiently serious injury to it - no grazes! We tried to make the enemies more interactive in that way - the players problem-solve how to dismantle and take down a threat, rather than just "dump damage" on them, if that makes sense! Thanks again! 🤠
This is cool but it does seem a tad bit cumbersome if you were running a horde of monsters and had to keep track of 18 zombie's worth of strains and injury boxes, I like the idea though im always glad to see others tying out new ideas for the genre
It would definitely be cumbersome for that many enemies. There are actually Horde rules specifically for large groups of zombies, townsfolk, and so forth, but it is definitely more tracking than HP would be. Your concern is apt, and we're still iterating on solutions to that to ensure the GM isn't overwhelmed with tons of tracking! It's definitely something we're going to want testers and feedback for :)
Very interesting mechanics you've developed here. I'm curious as to how you handle larger foes, like say a giant, or eye tyrant as these foes are able to sustain a greater number of "injuries" before being susceptible to a killing blow. Love to hear your thoughts on this, if you have a minute to discuss.
@@MercTechBenny A great question! Extremely large foes use what I'm going to call the Megazord Method for injury tracking. Instead of using a single injury tracker for their whole self, each important part of their body has its own tracker, and there'd be some special circumstances that result in its death. Though I will say, the TFE games are less about slaying massive enemies as they are surviving them, since they are more grounded, gritty settings. So enormous foes are often better as set pieces and hazards, rather than something to be faced head-on. We're still iterating and exploring monster/threat designs, so this sort of feedback/question is great to chew on!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Man, that sounds pretty great! I love this concept you have of "packets of information" being passed thru events like your attack/defense mechanics. A pretty novel approach, and not too complex. As with most systems using gritty combat, is this to suggest to your players that combats are best avoided if possible? If a combat does become unavoidable... that they can creatively solve said combat using real world logic?
@@MercTechBenny I appreciate the support! Games like BitD really revolutionized that structure, and I'm doing something a bit different than that. For TFE being action horror, we wanted fights to be scary - it's not always the correct answer to charge in, and sometimes it's good to flee!
@TalesFromElsewhereGames there is a short video about the damage system in crown and skull, made by a fan. It's really simple: - only players roll dices, - damage on the monster always hits but is subtracted by monster Defense, - damage on players is always done on equipment or spell, so every hit you take is dangerous - When the monster hits a player the damage may make unavailable an Equipment or a spell, only equipment or only spell. - There are some big monsters that are able to destroy equipments, but never spells. -Equipment is everything you carry on your char. If you have zero equipment slots you die - if you finish a combat encounter you heal 1 slot and after a successful long rest you recover 1d4 slots :)
Alright. I'm interested. I have my own micro system and way of doing damage that is less attrition based. I'd like to see yours on paper, if you're sharing. What weapons do what die? Or is it based on class? The smaller the die, the more lethal the weapon, correct? Inquiring minds want to know. Dig your presentation, though.
Thanks for your interest! The weapon controls the size of the dice and the character's Skill determines the number. So a knife would be a d12, a revolver would be a d8, and a shotgun would be a d6. A character that is highly skilled rolls 4 dice, while one who is basically untrained only rolls 1!
I don't know if the Channel's creator will see this, but I am hoping another game creator sees this. This is coming from someone who occasionally tests other newly made/in-productions or testing TTRPGs from new creators and with new or experienced players. Either entirely avoid or be very careful using this as a replacement for HP, because it has major problems. First, Players, unless they are experienced with the system & are metagaming, will not know the weakness/vulnerable spots on enemies. Unless it becomes the GM telling the players out of character, or the characters themselves using resources in combat to find out, fights WILL end up with players regularly doings things to enemies that they resist. Take the Zombie example from the video. Yes, those familiar with our media know about headshots, but when you have more obscure enemies, most players, especially new ones, will not have a clue what to do, and will end up using whatever resource (spell slots, mana, ammo, etc), targeting spots that might make sense, but the enemy has resistance or immunities to. Of course the players wouldn't know the Walking Armor's Shield will float magically back to its hand, so using their turn and special ammo and taking a penalty to their accuracy to get rid of it does NOTHING! Then, leading to the second issue, one I see time and time again for this kinds of systems being tested with new players, Player characters almost never have similar levels of resistances or immunities to such calls shots or targeted areas. So, it often ends up that players will use whatever resource they have to do a thing, watch it fail for no fault of their own, then get hit back brutally because they don't have anything similar to defend themselves with. Remember, these guys don't want fights to become attrition, so players go down fast, which makes it worse when the limited things they have, especially at low levels, does nothing. Third, Finding out each enemies resistances, vulnerabilities, immunities, etc, in game, in character, ends up feeling worse for several reasons. Take PF2E, for example. Several classes have ways to find enemy stats or the above mentioned things, but not only do they require actions during a player's turn, but also resources. Even then, if successful, they might get nothing useful or actionable, making it feel even worse, since it makes the entire thing feel like a waste of time. a missed attack is a missed attack, a missed spell was still something cool that happened, but a failed attempt to find out if an enemy has weaknesses, only to find out its to Cold Steel or something players wouldn't even have most of the time, feels worse. Lastly, fourth, Player characters will NOT have a chance for attrition. They will not have the HP, Strain/Stress, etc to have the extended sort of fight he mentions. Often, not always, systems like this make fights that come down to that sort of thing a multiple days & resources thing to just recover from, assuming the characters even survive. When that happens, players will avoid combat entirely, not just because they don't have the ability to do it repeatedly, but how it feels to do in the first place, as though combat isn't what the game wants you to do. Some games are purposefully built like that, for that reason, because they don't want players to use combat, or brawls. Social games, Stealth based systems, etc. But in the kind of game he is mentioning, it is clear he isn't meaning that. It is to replace HP, with it having multiple systems around combat, so a player has reasonable reason to believe they should be able to do combat. All this video, and the previous one he linked to, are are Attrition HP systems with a Set Weaknesses to kind of bring them down to Players character squishy-ness. So, if players never get the weaknesses, it quickly becomes a game of never fight until you research every single enemy beforehand OR randomly use whatever few resources you have to guess the weakness while the enemy downs/kills character after character because the player characters do not have the immunities/resistances that the system is made around.
@@JABofLEGENDS Hey there, thanks for the detailed feedback! I read every comment and they to respond to them all 🤠 In TFE, knowledge of special vulnerabilities and such is very permissive, without requiring actions to learn. But really, the game is less about arbitrary knowledge of specific resistances and more about analyzing the biology of the monster, engaging with its physicality. For example, if you're fighting a giant scorpion, you could decide if you want to take out the claws to prevent it from grabbing or you could take out its stinger if you're worried about that. Our tests have shown that the players start paying attention to the descriptions of the monsters more, as it is more interactive 🤠 The issues you've described can certainly be present in wound/injury based systems, but I think we've done a pretty good job avoiding them. We do have free playtest rules available on the website, if you're curious! Anyway, I really do appreciate your thorough feedback! Thanks for listening to my ramblings haha
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Wasn't expecting a reply, but no problem. I get what you mean about it being less about arbitrary knowledge, but it does still end up with things going specific ways, if the enemy used isn't something more tangible in our world, like Scorpions. Knowing that someone who can & does take the time to thoroughly describe a monster/enemy would work only makes it to where combat ends up being one enemy or enemy type versus the players, or having multiple, but having the players constantly stopping to ask for enemy details during a fight. Plus, that also means not just more work on a GM's part, having to learn the enemies as thoroughly to be able to describe them as such, but also costly, time-wise in game, to do so. And that's assuming the GM has the skill to do so. Not a high barrier to entry, I know, but when so many GMs rely on pictures to convey enemies descriptions, it causes problems, especially if they don't match enough to convey the weakness that words might otherwise do. As someone who has playtested several games, while I can't answer definitively without seeing the material, from your description, I would still say my biggest issue is player feel. Not having that level of resistive power against called shots, like the zombies, while having to do so for enemies. Yes, aiming for the Scorpion tail might be cool, but if the player doesn't have the Zombie's ability to attrition non-headshot attacks or the Scorpion's Leg injuries doing little compared to its Stinger and Claws, it will still feels worse. An enemy losing 10Ft Speed in Melee combat isn't as much a problem if players have to close in anyways, compared to a player having to deal with that same crippling injury all fight against enemies that run from them/chase them down & ranged attack.
One thing: I think your spot on with your analysis, that attrition (without actual attrition besides spells, usables and certain abilities for the most part) is a bad basis for combat. But what I have to say: All combat, that is kinda "to the death/ until someone gives up" without a clear goal besides "destroying the enemy" will degenerate to a slog. Even if the injuries make the combat more fluctuating, the problem is still that the both sides don't have a proper goal. That's what you should have. That's abought actual tactics. A lot of game designers miss this, because DnD (5e especially) is absolute crap at this. If you came from a game that has very slow healing like me or better from a wargame, where just clobbering the enemy most often won't do you any good, but playing the objective will win you the match even if your force has been demolished, you'd alteady know that. I think your system is pretty good, but I really think, that you didn't get to the actual problem. What you need is a system to make encounters matter by establishing goals for both/all sides. Something that helps GMs do that fast and help players grasp the concept.
@@felixheitzer2262 I 100% agree with you on this. Without something at stake, what is the point of fighting anyway? I think games should have scenarios with goals that are more than "death match". Having said all that, the combat "engine" still very much matters, as that controls the palette that the GM can paint with, as it were. If the way the players can interact with the foes in a scene is constrained and only attrition-based, then it limits their ability to problem-solve outside of simply inflicting harm. (I think you and I are on the same page, just diggin' into the details!)
I think you're going to have a very niche audience if you're more concerned with dramatic tension via lethality and injuries vs keeping some semblance of heroic fantasy. Not saying the community isn't interested in a game with more verisimilitude when it comes to yo-yo-ing at 1hp, but i think star wars is a good example of not becoming a bag of hp and incorporating crits for hitting woun/strain thresholds (though that could benefit from a good overhaul) and matt colville is another good example of increasing the cinematic aspect with actions and effects on the field apart from attrtition.
I'm okay with niche :) Really, the goal isn't to compete with the likes of MCDM or D&D; TFE is aiming for action-horror, which doesn't give a sense of heroic fantasy, but rather a sense of danger and intensity. It's going to be even more niche, 'cuz the first setting is post apocalyptic weird west!! Appreciate the feedback and commentary!
Oh. I see. I get what this video is going for. Yet I also see ways this can be improved. I think it is best to stick to using hit points. It is a tried and true method. I think one of the reason why it works so well is that is is so streamlined and straightforward. Hit points can be done in a way that isn't such a slog. Characters don't have to have a ton of hit points. There also doesn't need to be a lot of math. If I combine the hits on the sheet, there is a total of eight. So each creature has eight hit points, and each attack has one damage. It is funny that there is eight. I use a more complex hit point system. Even then I figure that hit points should be eight times the attack damage in a level. Either way it means the battle takes an equal amount of turns. I see an interest in status conditions. I don't like that to be connected to hit points. The resulting death spiral is unplesent. I did think up of an alternative. It is a good thing this video came out around the time of the realease of the new DND Player Handbook. One of my favorite new features is weapon mastery. I recommend checking that out. The whole book is awesome by the way. This little indie game would greatly benefit from using a similar system. Each kind weapon deals damage and has some extra bonus. This bonus will definitely be good for adding status effects. One kind of weapon deals one damage and slows down the opponent. Another kind deals damage and knocks the opponent prone. Another kind does damage whether the attack roll hits or misses. This is so forth. It is a really cool system to spice things up. I don't recomend making a distintion of body parts. That is too convoluted. There is an alternative. Critical hits can turn into a wepon mastery feature. The attack deals two damage instead of one. However it doesn't deal any status conditions. A gun or bow would be good candidates for this weopon feature. It gives the idea of doing headshots and getting critical hits. One could choose whether to do extra damage or do some status condition or other effect. Making such a decision would be interesting. Weapon mastery can leads to fun tactics. If every kind of weopn has a special effect, it makes combat more interesting.
I got more ideas to build on this system. This is something to consider. One idea is a super simple proficiency system. That is brilliant. DND has proficiency. When a character gets to be higher level, their proficiency goes up. This is mainly added to attack role. I use proficiency in my game. I make it a bit more elaborate. I make it go up every level. An attribute (ability scores) is the proficiency plus the class bonus. Attributes come in pairs of opposites. Every attribute that raises one value has another that decreases the same value. The most basic is damage. The total damage is the base damage plus the offense attribute of the user minus the defense attribute of the opponent. Both attributes have proficiency. If both fighters are the same level, they have the same proficiency. This causes proficiency to cancel out. This makes calculations easier. Generally players should fight opponents of the same level to simplify the math. For the game in the video, there can be a simple proficiency system. The proficiency is equal to the level. Level one characters get a proficiency of one. Level two characters get a proficiency of two. And so forth. If two fighters are the same level, the fight works normally. Each deal one damage. If one fighter is one level higher, they deal two damage. If they are three levels higher, they deal three damage. Addition is an easy way to calculate with damage. The downside is that super defensive characters are impossible to kill. If defense is high enough, the damage goes to zero. In a hot point system this simple, there is a high chance of that happening. I did think of a rule to fix this. I call it the chip damage rule. I wonder if that be even programmed in a computer using an if then statement. If the damage calculation causes the damage to be equal or less than zero, then the total damage is one. If the damage calculation is greater than zero, the amount is used for the total damage. Another idea I have is spell effects. Magic spells tend to come in elemental types. DND has this. Pokemon is an extreme example. Spells can contribute to the status effects too. It is like weapon mastery, but with elements. A fire spell can do one damage and cause the burn condition. An ice spell can do damage and cause the frozen condition. There are other spells like that, and give other effects. An electric spell gives the paralyzed condition. A poison spell gives the poison condition. A psychic spell gives the confusion condition. An earth spell causes a blinded condition or reduces accuracy. An air spell blows the opponent back. There are many attacks. Magicians can even have their version of a critical hit. There can be a force spell or energy spell. It deals two damage and has no status condition. Spells can contribute to the fun and strategy of status conditions.
my god, this is the best combat system i ever known about. My top three are: 3. genesys 2. fate 1. yours. IT ALWAYS BOTHERED ME that rpg batttle systems are zero narrative and total sheets of stats grinding on one another
So the meta is to get a weapon that can deal critical damage and aim for the head to make it lethal, then you can 1 shot anything, and nothing else matters. Also the GM now has to deal with #fancy descriptors and improve some additional effect based on the words on the fly to make combat more interesting.
Thanks for the feedback! Being able to hit the Ace is definitely deadly, but also the hardest location to hit. There is certainly risk/reward with that approach! There actually isn't a lot of necessary improvisation in combat, as most weapons provide the baseline of what they'd do. Have you tried other Wound based systems? BitD, Fate, Savage Worlds - a lot of these leverage similar abstractions, if memory serves 🤠
This seems similar to Blackstone Fortress' wound system and the drawback for your idea is that each character would need a physical dashboard to place tokens and counters-otherwise things get confusing as people remember half the time to apply their penalties. Usually the burden falls on the GM. The dashboard solves this problem. Not a bad thing, but something to think about. Also, plenty of games allow called shots which introduces an "all or nothing" mechanic where the tradeoff is probability to hit for removal of the enemy in one shot. Finally, if you're hung up on zombies, one hit from them should be fatal- you have been bitten, well now you are a zombie-simple. I would also say that you have missed skill- hit points are not the only way a player increases in power- competency is key. I see this system straining under the weight of reflecting skill increase of a more competent PC as they grow and evolve in combat proficiency. I would be interested to get a copy of your system and put it to playtest. Are there copies available for purchase?
@@jnlsnfamily8747 thanks so much for your feedback and interest! We're working on the free Quick Start Rules for the system, which will come with pre-gen characters and a one-shot adventure. Stay tuned in the coming weeks for its release!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames thanks for not getting upset at me! You have some interesting ideas and I would love to get under the hood with my player group!
@@jnlsnfamily8747 Of course! I appreciate all feedback, positive and negative! It's one of the big reasons we decided to "go public" with the game before any full launch - we want to involve the community! If you're interested in chatting with our (small) team and the long-term playtesters, there's a link to the TFE Discord on my UA-cam homepage. It's just gettin' rolling, but there are a handful of us active throughout the day and we're always happy to chat!
The main idea sounds super neat, but I wonder how enemies are designed. A player keeping track of their Strain and Injuries is simple enough.. but if you have to handle several foes at once as the GM, it sounds veeeery book-keepy. How do you handle this?
@@freyaut this is actually a challenge that we're still iterating on, as it is definitely a concern. One solution is a short-hand notation where the GM writes down simple letters/numbers to denote the tracking per enemy. We're also working on a printable "Threat Sheet" that would have a quick tracker for several enemies. The game doesn't, generally, use large numbers of durable enemies simply due to its deadlines. But it's a very valid concern! This sounds like a decent idea for a video where we share we discuss this and get some feedback from the community!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames looking forward to that. Imo most trpgs are really designed with players in mind, not GMs.. which is weird considering who has to do most of the heavy lifting. I really came to appreciate OSR games for how the approach enemy design: small and concise stat blocks, easy to use, easy to reference.
@@freyaut That's a very good point. Having run three long-term campaigns using TFE (throughout testing), I did find that the toolbox given the GMs is evocative and fun, but it is definitely a different mental load that it's asking of 'em. Once we're able to distribute free testing documents, I look forward to hearing folks' feedback on the GM tools/experience!
I've mostly ran high powered fantasy games like Exalted, Godbound and currently Age of Sigmar. But this geniunely sounds interesting. I didn't expect to like it at least conceptually since I generally hate injury systems.
That is high praise! How are you liking Age of Sigmar? I haven't flipped through an edition since the first one..what, 10 years ago? I thought it had a lot of juicy crunch, but found it a bit on the demanding-side, math/calc-wise. (TBH, I'm more of a 40k fan!)
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames in playing AoS Soulbound which is very much its own thing compared to the old Warhammer Fantasy books. It's my go-to rules medium Fantasy adventure game. Very epic in scope. Let's you play as a dragon. Granted it's a dragon about the size of a draft horse but still a dragon, not a humanoid dragon race.
Are extreme scale difference an expected part of this system? I'm thinking building sized dragons or individual mini fairies? I can imagine one or two layers of resistances/vulnerability would do part of the job, I just found in my designs this is where injury systems can become weird. (Can I really cripple a giant with lucky punch?) Still an interesting design space compared to death by a thousand irrelevant strikes !
This is actually a big design challenge we've been having when designing Threats (what we call monsters/enemies). What we're experimenting with is what I'm going to call the "Megazord" approach - where the giant creature is actually composed of several individual Injury Trackers that compose the greater creature. For example, a dragon the size of a building wouldn't just have "more" injury slots, but instead each of its tree-trunk legs would have its own tracker, and that limb would only be disabled if sufficiently injured. The dragon would then only be killable by, say, exposing its furnace-like heart and stabbing after sufficiently crippling/disabling it. For very small creatures, like a faerie, that would be represented by having no injury slots at all (or maybe only a single Strain box), meaning any successful Injury just instantly kills them - because if you cannot write an Injury into your tracker, you just die immediately. A great question! We'll eventually be tackling threat design on this channel and hope to get lots of feedback on it!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames that make sense to me from a player perspective, especially if they're meant to be special fights. In my own project I'm contemplating shifting the impact of creatures on each other based on their relative scale. That way two fairies or two dragons can fist-fight at the regular rate while players intervening would see their impact amplified or reduced unless they take special measures. (Like using a ballista, a dragon-bane sword or climbing to reach a weakspot) In that way if you want to sever a huge limb you'd also need to score several high impact hits to get to an actual serious wound using conventional weapons. Of course by normalizing wounds slots I'm also making these big fights work like normal ones which isn't necessarily the coolest most evocative way of handling it.
@@JeanPhilippeBoucher Oh that's a very clever solution! It would let you "zoom in" or "zoom out" as needed, depending on the desired scale. The challenge is going to be balancing that mixed scale situation, but I think that'll pan out nicely!
This is pretty cool, I'm wondering how armor or protection will work in such a system and also fatigue/tiredness But I like that it both allows targeting and make things much more tangible than HP I think I'd really like to implement your system in an ICRPG modern/cyberpunk game to see how it goes One thing I'm wondering also is how do you determine how many slots of each kind should a character have but I think it allows for interesting customization as well
Thanks!! Exhaustion is handled by Strain; a player character has between 3 and 9 Strain boxes. Some special features let you Strain yourself to activate powerful abilities. Armor works as mitigation, reducing the severity of an injury received. Basically, it's just a form of Resistance!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames you're welcome! That's good and feels sensible! Makes sense as well! I like those answers, looking forward to more information about the game but it's looking very promising!
I'd maybe argue it's more like Blades in the Dark's Harm system with a dash of Fate's Injury System haha. Those other titles are definitely sources of inspiration! 🤠
I like how the design/design of this but some things have me very puzzled. How do you roll for a hit? I'm assuming that a Hit and a Damage roll can't be the same because otherwise the system doesn't make sense when it comes to head-hits (make it harder but also make it upgrade severity means it cancels out) and weapons dealing more damage would mean they are also much easier to hit, which makes no sense that a club is harder to hit and deal damage while a gunshot is pretty easy to hit AND does more damage.
Good questions! So TFE uses an "attack roll" type check to see if you've hit the intended location. Without going into all the specifics of all the dice and systems, it basically works like this: How hard it is to hit is based on (1) how far away you are and (2) where you target. Each range increment further you are, you have 20% less chance to hit. Targeting the brim is 20% less accurate than the bulk, and the ace is 40% less accurate than the bulk. (Characters can react to being shot at by diving for cover, but the reaction system is a conversation for another day!) Melee weapons may not be as deadly as a firearm, but it is much, much easier to hit somethin' right in front of you than it is when it's 50ft away. (I think anyone who has shot a firearm can attest that accuracy at distance is much harder than the movies make it out to be haha)
@@dinkleberg684 Honestly, I don't have any experience designing for solo/GM-less, but that would make for a really cool small expansion/zine to the main game!
Where can i get my hands on a playtest version of this? Ive been on and off attempting to develop a homebrew tabletop rpg for personal use, and i feel the same way about hp. My concerns are the obvious death spiral, but also the scalability in terms of equipment and progression. I want combats that are fast, tactical, and deadly. There is also the concern of players themselves being one tapped out of the game, though there are a few solutions.
Thanks for your interest! We don't quite have the Quick Start Rules ready yet, which includes pregens and a one-shot adventure, but we hope to have that ready in the next few weeks!!
Have you looked at HârnMaster’s injury system. What you describe has similarities. This is like HârnMaster and wound levels from The D6 System had a baby.
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames PDFs are available on DriveThru and from the Columbia Games website. A physical copy is available from Columbia Games too. By far my favorite “simulationist high crunch” rules system.
When you explained targeting the Bulk, the Brim, or the Ace, I had to pause to go "Oooooo!" So simple, yet narratively flexible and strategic. Definitely interested in seeing what else the system has to offer.
It reminded me a bit of FATE and a bit of Blades in the Dark, but FATE felt repetitive and I could never quite wrap my head around Blades in the Dark's stress and consequences systems as a GM.
@@CalebWillden I appreciate the kind words! Once we came up with the targeting system, it really did just "click" for us too!
So glad the algorithm suggested this video. Need to try this system.
@@KarnakZMZM Sorry for the delayed response. Thanks so much for your interest! We're hoping to have the Demo Packet available in the next few weeks. It'll have quick start rules, pregens, and a one shot adventure for folks to try for free!
Fascinating! I appreciate that the burden on mathing to the player is kept at a minimum, more thought is instead given to "do i wanna risk missing to hit the ace, or just go for the bulk". Looking forward to when you finally talk about edges!
That seems like a very elegant system, congrats.
I got to the same conclusion in regards to wound slots for my own game, light, flesh and grave wounds in this case. Glad to be in a similar path.
Great minds think alike!
I was tinkering with a very similar no HP, called shots system and this video is just what I need rn. I was kinda stuck, out of ideas how to make my system feel more tactical without making it over complicated and I think I found plenty of inspiration here!
That's wonderful to hear!! Good luck in your design endeavors!
When we finally landed on this system for TFE, it just immediately "clicked" for us :D
Man, I've thought about making a system with "weak points" on enemies in the past and never really figured it out, so seeing someone actually doing it is so cool. And now you've got me thinking about all the different status conditions based on injuries that someone could take on... This is all really good stuff!
Thanks so much!!
Been working on extremely similar slot -based injury system, except fatigue (strain) can fill any empty slot. Love your design!
Love this! Ive been making a TTRPG system for this reason
Super creative and uncomplicated without taking the tactics aspect out of it. 🙌🏼
I usually go for the more narrative games, but this is really interesting, I would love to test it.
Thanks! We'll be posting information about the free Quick Start Rules and demo one-shot adventure in the coming weeks!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Awesome!
Cool approach! My experience with both Hit Points and "Hit-Pointess" system is climax and tone: This works best for games which emulates grounded/horror themes; My group tried to emulate an Eberron(pulp,high-magic fantasy) game with this kind of system, and itsuffered with anti-climax, out of control combats.
But I must point out that my favourite systems nowadays use this kind of backbone in their structure. I must point out Powered by Apocalypse and Forged in the Dark games, as well as Savage Worlds.
Also: Called Shots ARE the best!
PbtA and FitD games are awesome!! I definitely have been inspired by their designs!
Very informative! Do you ever encounter a "snowball effect" when taking a small injury to your gun hand results in your character being unable to defend themselves, and subsequently take more injuries?
@@milesvandusen1231 the concern of the dreaded "death spiral" is definitely there. But we've found that the systems behind treating injuries and regaining usage of wounded limbs alleviates that. Great question!
I also think that can be a really effective narrative reason to retreat. Like, in stories sometimes the characters don't win their fights, and that might be because the gunman got his hand wounded and was unable to fight properly
This is a really cool system. It seems to me that action economy and initiative order are going to make a huge difference since whoever goes first will be able to debilitate someone on the other side immediately. Also, whichever side has more attacks, will cause the opposing side to lose combat power and create a snowball.
-
I mentioned this because in a normal system players don’t have much control over initiative and action economy. It makes me wonder if a system like this might want to invent mechanics to allow the players to engage more actively with those systems. Particularly initiative.
A great question and observation!
TfE uses side-based initiative, where all the players share a turn, during which they can each use 2 actions in whatever order they wish. To combat the "alpha strike" aspect of an injury system like this, TfE has a strong emphasis on Reactions - being able to actively defend yourself when it's not your turn.
For example, if an enemy shoots their revolver at you at the start of the Threat Turn, you can use a Reaction to take cover from the shot. Success or failure, you end up behind total cover after the attack, preventing subsequent shots. (Assuming there's cover to leap behind!)
The active defense aspect of the game, combined with myriad defensive abilities, gives the players a lot of control over their life. Same goes for the Threats (which is what we call monsters/enemies/bad guys).
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames good name for bad guys to encompase more abstract things like using combat to represent a disaster in progress, something with no ill intent but that causes danger like a wild animal or a run away vehicle.
also full agree on active defense, in the system I'm working on (bad with names) all attacks are a contest of the initiators combat skill like broadsword, shotgun or wing chun, and the defenders defensive skill, dodge, parry, block, judo or magic teleportation. degree of initiator success determines attack severity, degree of defender success can help a bit in manuvering, further defense like with a shield up, or even a parry leading into a counter attack, or Judo slamming someone into the far wall when they tried to stab you.
to avoid defense being too good or weak swarms being useless each defense of the same type has a cumulative penalty and some cut off use of others, like once you dove for cover you're prone and can't do much.
@@stm7810 Thanks! I never cared for the term "monsters" either, because it doesn't encompass the threat of bandits or other peoples the players can fight.
And that's cool, the cumulative penalties/situational restrictions; a good way to prevent those stacking/outnumber issues!
Sounds very narrative and cinematic! I look forward to giving it a shot sometime 😍
Thanks so much for your interest! We're so excited to share the game with the community!
This reminds me of Phoenix Point, where the game engine had mix and match limbs whenever it'd generate monsters. You could run into a guy with a crab arm and a tentacle leg.
@@zachb3757 That sounds so rad! I'll have to look that one up!
Nice system. Have you seen The Burning Wheel? It's another take on an injury based damage system.
I have! Burning Wheel is a very cool system that I would describe as "a lot". It's incredibly hard to get new players into BW :D
Burning Wheel is a RPG for 20th level players.
This is a phenomenal system Peter!
I've been digging around for a while now to find a combat/hp system that feels like it has consequences on a turn-by-turn basis.
It drives me nuts when you leave an opponent at 1hp only to be slapped with the full extent of their might as if you didn't just leave them on death's door
Thanks so much!!
That was the same desire that got me to make my own system. I can only deal 1d6+4 damage so many times before I get kinda sick of it 🤠
Hell yes. this sounds perfect for horror settings.
@@HMNPRSN Thanks! That was the big motivation, to create a system for action-horror gameplay!
really interesting design! It sounds super fun and challenging to play
I will be a lonely defender of D&D's wound-less hp system here. All the stuff described here is simply what happens when a D&D character hits 0 hit points, and anything in between 0 and max hp lies in the abstract that is the hp system i.e. stamina, resolve, cosmic luck, whatever. Taking damage means getting tired, feeling in over your head, and thinking how much you'd rather marry Rosie back home. Until you get that sword through your shoulder that takes you completely out of the fight. The lack of penalties no matter your current hp total can be considered a plus, not a minus.
But what you have here does sound very cool. But it's place lies in the realm where combat is scary and getting into a firefight means you screwed up. Modern D&D tries to evoke bold heroism that is basically consequence free. Both systems have their place.
@@SgtBuffagor for all my criticisms of D&D, I do still love it and play it regularly. Just picked up the new PHB, looking forward to sitting down and reading it :D
> Modern D&D tries to evoke bold heroism that is basically consequence free. Both systems have their place.
5e wasn't intended to be consequence free, they just didn't realize that most DMs would give players long rests after every combat.
It was probably envisioned combat -> story/roleplay/short rest -> combat for multiple iterations before a long rest was reached. In reality, players go "nova" every fight and use everything and then want to long rest, because that's what they're used to.
@@icarusshoda I agree, yeah. In reality, only a few encounters happen between rests, allowing for those "nova" turns more frequently!
(and just to be super clear, I do love D&D and have been playing it for 24 years now - I just get tired of certain aspects of it, hence making my own RPG!)
May I ask how many times at the table, when struck for damage, the player roleplays their character getting tired or scared instead of actually being hurt?
May I ask how often, as a GM, when a player strikes for damage, you report that they didn't actually injure the target, but just winded them or made them frightened?
D&D claims that being struck for damage doesn't actually mean being genuinely hurt by a weapon - but then turns around and says that being hit in combat is sufficient for targeted spell effects or other non-damaging effects.
@@PaleImperator Y'know, over the many years I've been playin' D&D, I can only keep describing the "you lost hit points but nothing has changed" situation in so many different ways haha :D
Fatigue, scratches, flesh wounds, grazes - I've seen it all probably. It gets particularly strange when you have something like a dragon scorching someone with their fire breath, it dealing a ton of damage, but then the player is otherwise unaffected, ya know?
In TFE, if you suffer an Injury, it's always an Injury - some sort of physical trauma. The "Strain" in TFE represents fatigue, grazes, and so forth - they're kept separate and distinct. That method has its own drawbacks, of course, but we've found it to be very visceral!
I've come up with a similar system, and for a certain type of game it's way superior! You've got some great ideas here I'll definitely steal! :D
I like that this raises the stakes of combat while speeding it up and making it less abstract. I do want to see how players cope with the change and how you avoid the death spiral that is common with attrition damage in other systems. Will you be posting a live-play soon?
Not gonna lie, there was some definite whiplash for some players when they first tried out TFE after only playing D&D for years. They expected to be granted much more leeway in how they approached an encounter, and they got perforated for it. It was highly educational :D
Players do rapidly adapt, we've noticed. Once they understand that they have a lot of tools in TFE to avoid being hit at all, they start to work together, use cover, and generally play more tactically.
I think this works well because the players start paying more attention to the enemies themselves, what weapons they're using, how many limbs they have, what their deadliest form of attack may be, and then targeting that with their attacks to render the enemy less deadly.
Earlier versions of TFE had a really bad death spiral issue, primarily due to Injury Slot count. Adding the "Lethal" slot gave players a lot more leeway to avoid death spirals. We've made several other adjustments surrounding Injuries, and the last several playtests have felt *chef's kiss* :D
On the subject live-plays, we are workin' on it and hope to post a few videos soon. We have an "example play" which is a comparatively short video of one turn of combat, and are making plans for a long-form, full session to record in-person!
Very interesting idea, Peter! And a very elegant solution
I totally understand your point (I just watched the previous video before this), and as a player, D&D feels a bit boring sometimes because of the high amount of HP with no effect until death. 4th edition did something interesting (and I don't believe I'm saying something good about 4e, but, hey...) with the Bloodied status, which made combat change when the enemy reached a certain levels. 13th Age, I think, did something similar for the player, with certain powers unlocking at certain HP level or the combat turn
But in the end, D&D is an abstract system focused on math and absolutes. So it works for them, and may be why it's such a widespread game (and widespread type of injury system)
It's also why I prefer low-level adventures for d20-type games, or at least low hit point.
A Song of Ice and Fire RPG has an interesting middle ground with Guard instead of HP. Guard is low and goes down easily as a fight happens. Once an attack depletes Guard, you get a Wound, which has a lingering effect like "injured leg". Of course, like in your case, once all the Wound slots are filled up, you are dead.
In a sense, it's what some 2d20 games also do, and something I'm adapting on my own space opera game. Stress goes up easily as the shots begin to fly, but if you take too much Stress at once, or get to max Stress, you accumulate Harm, which is also contextual. So, yeah, "Shot on the leg" will make it harder for you to run. And, again, once you take 3 Harm, you are uncounscious. 4? You are dead.
Anyway, just a bit of rambling here. I like where you are going and I'm looking forward to your game
Best of luck!
I always enjoy a good rpg ramble! I've played a decent chunk of 2d10, and I did find their hybrid system interesting.
I liked the way TRUTHS could be added to a character or scene to help build up narrative consequences. Something that irked me about its use, though, was how much time was spent discussing/debating with the GM over which Truths could be applied in certain situations. It's a drawback of "permission-based" features, rather than wholely player-driven systems.
Anyway, now that's my ramble over for now :D
Big fan of condition-based wounds; reminds me of what I best liked about Vaesen's, though that was a weirdly excellent combat system for a mostly non-combat sort of game.
Much appreciated! Yeah, the narrative oomf that condition/wound-based systems provide is really nice!
Yes! I love non-fungible health systems! It’s similar to the “Made of Meat” GDC talk
Thank you! I haven't caught that GDC talk, but I shall be finding that and ingesting it ASAP!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames No worries, it’s a great one!
ua-cam.com/video/1nEJOkTjJqk/v-deo.htmlsi=aNiMXnRAKcRKL9GL
This is a super cool engaging idea. I like that it has the potential to model competitive hand to hand combat like martial arts or grappling as well in terms of strain accumulation or a lucky injury roll. Super interested to see how the larger systems interact here. The core of injury seems like it functions comparably to a FitD style system but has less arbitration or predictability than those systems tend to carry. The conditions riders are a super necessary addition to that structure too.
FitD is definitely an inspiration for aspects of the injury system. That game has so many good lessons to learn from!
We're excited to share more about the other systems and designs with the community. We'll be talking about character creation and some big examples of play in the coming weeks!
Just for information, because otherewise this is fantastic.
On ranged combat, hitting arms and legs is harder than the chest, but in melee combat, hitting the hands and arms is the easiest. So maybe there could be a switch in targeting depending on your type of combat. But that's just me that is too focused on that since I train and own a historical european martial arts school which is focused on melee weapon fighting
You are absolutely right that, realistically, the limbs are what get all tore up when in a melee fight! People also naturally put their arms in front of them to protect their face, so it does make perfect sense.
This is one of those sacrifices for rules smoothness I've made, though. 'Cuz I've definitely thought about that! Rather than having different calculations based on distance, it's smoother to just have the calculation consistent across the board.
Also, that is amazing that you own a HEMA school! Mad respect, friend. I love watching historical reconstructions of weaponry, warfare, and so forth. I'm a big fan of Tod's Workshop (and the others that orbit him).
Anyway, that was a bit of a ramble. I appreciate the comment! That line of realism vs. rules smoothness is an interesting challenge of design!
I appreciate this. It's similar to Twilight 2000 4th edition and the changes I've made with Deadzone. Each hit has the potential to change the course of the combat. The stakes are, therefore, immediately more urgent and higher. The Trauma supplement on DTRPG is a great starting point for people wanting to include something like this into their games. We took that as a base, combined with a location based attack method. It might seem more detailed by ultimately works.
Thanks! And love hearing that others are experimenting with alternatives!
This sounds really interesting. Can't wait to see more videos.
very neat system, and very versatile too! I imagine armor adding health slot or ,for a very gothic feels, healing spells that could "miss" because the healer die did not happens on the injured health slot.
@@jettolo Thanks!!
We actually went with armor as damage reduction. It reduces the severity of incoming injuries to the protected part of the body, if applicable. So if you'd be Critically Injured, you instead suffer a Serious Injury.
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Cool, it's much more integrated with the multipart mechanics
Really cool! Are you doing this project solo?
Thanks! Yes and no. The game is all written by me, but I've had lots of help from friends in the long development cycle.
I do have a video editor and various artists I work with; some volunteer, some paid (out of pocket) for their work.
It's a very small operation right now, for sure, with me primarily handling everything :)
I think I'll use HP just so that more bulk matters but with them being meat points that don't go up barring radical physical changes.
Minor injury: 1/5HP loss in 1 hit, will or endurance save against pain, check a minor box this makes healing you a little harder, pain can weaken or incapacitate for a second to 1d6 seconds depending on success and agony penalties making the pain worse.
Major Injury: 1/2HP loss in 1 hit, your speed and awareness are reduced by 1, you must save against internal bleeding as well as the agony, and you tick the major box, further difficulty healing, and you now make death saves if you're knocked out.
Complication: damage exceeds endurance, you take on the wounding effect of the attack, you bleed out frm a cut for constant damage, risk instant death from a bullet, fall prone from concussive force.
also you target body parts that have proportional health to the whole, with their wounds doing things, like the head, if you get through the skull the brain is easy to destroy for instant death or being in a vegetatyive basically dead state, or can remove a limb, break a leg, wind some one, snap spines etc.
Other main reason for the use of HP despite HP being silly is it makes armor easy to explain as flat reduction from the damage.
also I just love the idea of a GM asking the player to save against cardiac arrest or explaining how "your left lung is filling with fluid, remove 1d4 FP (stamina, energy, the stuff you use to do stuff) each second and you may no longer speak.
"Save vs. cardiac arrest" is so great haha 🤠
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames thanks, I'm curious how you do armor for all those hits too weak to get past it? is this a resistance from an item? like a thick coat gives resistance to d20 attacks of any kind like small burns from a torch, punches or a knife, or a bullet proof vest gives resistance to D8 or weaker double resistance bullets?
@@stm7810 Resistance and Vulnerability are pretty simple in TFE; they are simple so that they remain expedient in play.
If something is Resistant, then you downgrade the severity one step. (from Critical to Serious, from Serious to Strain, and from Strain to nothin'). If it is Vulnerable, you upgrade the severity one step.
Armor in TFE protects certain parts of the body (since there's location targeting) and says what types of injuries or effects it makes you Resistant to.
For example, if you're wearing a kevlar vest, your torso ("the Bulk") would be Resistant to firearms. That means any incoming injury from a firearm would have its severity reduced.
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames sounds good and fun, I'd love to play that. also I want to make it clear I was genuine in my other comment where I talked about how I like that 2 actions can be different time lengths, because that is a thing you see in pulpy or horror stuff, like a character taking 3 shots to the killers head takes as long as the killer taking 1 step forward, or the monster can swallow 5 guys before someone runs away.
@@stm7810 I totally get you! 🤠
I was taking all of your comments in a positive light - I can tell you're passionate about ttrpg design!!
It's very interesting that I started a notepad for a wound based combat system which uses different body zones and negative consequences for accumulating too many wounds merely a day or two before you posted this video and my algorithm showed it to me. Unsure if I chalk this up to coincidence or to running an OS that's spying on me...
Anyway, glad to have seen this, it really inspires me to keep going, as I love the vibes I get from this and the positive feedback it receives. Though I have to say, I am going for attrition. I want attrition. I want a little bit of slog that is not directly debilitating but leading up to a big wound, one that can not simply be treated away. So the attrition for me is the rise in tension and an opportunity to avoid the unavoidable, to at least delay it and deal with the bad consequences later. Wounds to me are an opportunity to grow and change, maybe level up. In the end wounds aren't a punishment, they are just part of the deal of linving in a world where you have to go out and fight things. And they will change the character. They are just terribly deadly as well.
Great minds think alike!
I'm glad you're finding it interesting/inspiring :) and there ain't nothin' wrong with some attrition, that's the beauty of TTRPGs! There's a flavor for everyone!
I still play a lot of D&D, despite my complaints about it, and that's about as attrition as it comes
This is really cool! Similar-ish to FATE's system (filling in "stress boxes" but you might have to fill in a more valuable box if you've run out of cheap ones), but FATE's is based more on math. I like this blend of actually tying the condition(s) to the stress boxes filled. It does feel good.
Thanks for the positive feedback! The playtests of the Injury system have gone very well - it's brutal, fast, and evocative :)
I like this so much!
Thanks so much!!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames I'm actually working on a TTRPG system myself (for about 2 very active years now) and I would like to kindly ask for a permission to steal some of your ideas.
All this sounds so dope, I can't even describe how happy I'm to stumble upon this. I've read some other comments and I can't wait to see you showcasing some actual crunch and implication of the mechanics (mostly the specifics of complications and how you avoid death spiraling)
@@nin0f I'd love to hear more about what you're working on! And that's the best form of flattery, to know you're inspired by these designs!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Sure! It's a bit much to write in a single comment, so I'll try to be laconic.
My system is called Dragon’s Die (or DD) and, very similar to DC20, it's started as a collection of my D&D5e homebrew and then turned into overhaul and then turned into my passion project. There is a lot of things changed, so I'll mention only two of the systems that I'm really proud of; these made me feel overwhelmed with joy when I discovered them, similar to your injuries system.
1. All casters-no casters. You've mentioned that you've played 5e, so I'm sure you know about martial-caster divide. After months of playtesting I believe that my system have solved it, albeit in a somewhat side-stepping way. Basically, I've revorked D&D classes so none of them gain spellcasting and instead turned spellcasting into it's own system that every character can (but doesn't have to) engage with.
2. Stamina Points instead of HP, limited uses per rests and other bs. I've grown very tired of unnecessary resource management and absurd implications of HP and other resource pools, so I turned them all into one - Stamina Points. In DD doing anything tiring requires spending SP: casting a spell? Spend some SP. Make a special attack? Spend some SP. Use class feature? You get the point. This allowed me to not only greatly simplify resource tracking, but also create a lot of interesting challenges and meaningful consequences not only for combats, but also for storrytelling. For example, a cleric that has spend a whole day casting spells and helping his village can be as tired and in need of rest as someone who has just fought a dragon. Or, for a combat and agency example, if a 5th lvl mage wants to cast 5 fireballs back to back, he absolutely can, but will be left exhausted (descriptively, not as a condition) and could be defeated with a few strikes, since damage also applies to SP, thus actually becoming a glasscanon.
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames UA-cam shadowbanned my comment for whatever reason, so I'll post it again.
“Sure! It's a bit much to write in a single comment, so I'll try to be laconic.
My system is called Dragon’s Die (or DD) and, very similar to DC20, it's started as a collection of my D&D5e homebrew and then turned into overhaul and then turned into my passion project. There is a lot of things changed, so I'll mention only two of the systems that I'm really proud of; these made me feel overwhelmed with joy when I discovered them, similar to your injuries system.
Interesting. However if you look at olympic style fencing or Karate fights, between experienced opponents, fighters don't merely "aim" for a specific opponent area, they also take opportunities as they see an opening. Additionaly as fighters are aware that some area would incurs a more serious effect they tend to protect that area more.
@@Delta66-jz1vl This is absolutely true, and you're touching on one of the great challenges in game design: where to draw the "simulation" line.
Every game draws this line in a different spot or around different things. The more and more a system digs into stimulating "realism", often the less playable it becomes due to increases in resolution steps.
A few other HEMA folks have also pointed out that the limbs are often the first to be maimed in melee, because we naturally protect our vulnerable parts with said limbs. This, combined with them being naturally extended out from us we wield weapons, increases the likelihood that they'll be injured.
However, this also poses additional balance and resolution considerations which must be handled with care!
Anyway, this is a super meaty subject, and one I should probably dedicate a whole video to. Really appreciate your comment! 🤠
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames You raised many good points in your video, but it also depends on how you integrate your damage system with your other sub-systems, in particular action economy and skills level. Amaster would have little trouble targeting a specific part of a weaker opponent, whereas a beginner will struggle to defend himself and to aim for specific parts. Being able to call your shot on every attack may be too much. Depending on your action economy model, you can consider called shots that cost more action points, and basic faster sneak attacks.
You are absolutely correct about complexity. In the 80's beside playing AD&D we also played historical wargames, which dived deep into the simulationist side of gaming. But later toward year 2k, "design for effect" became more and more prominent in the wargames design. A model with more details isn't necessarily more realistic, on the contrary it is harder to control for the designer and may leave room to exploits from crafty players. Aim for a level of complexity you can easily handle, and maybe add some extra details on things you want to highlight.
BTW when talking about master, take a look a Seki Sensei video.
ua-cam.com/video/3MO1c6060lw/v-deo.html
It’s a fresh take, but some other folks said something similar that this is still an attrition based game with a higher curve if deadly ness.
Its not "attrition based." You don't die due to attrition, you can die from any single attack. Your aren't trying to wear the opponent guy down in a protracted combat, you are trying to win immediately.
Heard, but I think that his point is that it removes the necessity for turn-by-turn attrition where nothing new happens. Each successful strike results in a dynamic change to the progress of the combat. So instead of 'waiting' for the target to hit 0 and things change, it changes each time adapting the flow of play. Saying it isn't 'attrition' is just semantics, it still has the opportunity to be, but could also just as easily not be.
@@mkklassicmk3895 I mean... you can die from a single attack on any system, just depends on the damage of the attack... just push (also an attack on 5e!) someone from a tower. This system could be literally the same as DND if you always multiplied the results on damage dies by 10 for example.
@@Jimbr16 That is not really the same thing at all. You guys don't seem to know what attrition means.
@@mkklassicmk3895 replace this mechanic with an HP bar with 7 health and change the damage numbers to 1, 2 and 4.
Pretty cool. I have to check out more of your videos 👍
Appreciate it! We're just gettin' started, and will be posting many more videos in the coming weeks!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames interesting. As a P&P homebrewing nerd i will sneak around. maybe i can steal some ideas 😉
I think this system would be absolutely fantastic to run a Dead Space type of game in. The space zombies (necromorphs) are incredibly difficult to kill because every cell in their body is reanimated. It isn’t just the brain driving the body
You have to literally cut their limbs off so they can’t maneuver or attack anymore, but D&D and other games I’ve played don’t have location based damage that isn’t a huge hassle. This gets me very excited
Yesssss! Not gonna lie, I've been putting together ideas for a sci-fi setting to release in this series, and Dead Space is absolutely one of the inspirations!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames question for you sir… have you found it difficult to run lots of weaker enemies with this system? It seems like it could get hard to keep track of very quickly
Swarms of necromorphs are a staple and I’m curious how feasible it would be
@@psychone8064 That's definitely something we've had to test around and were aware of; because you're absolutely right, all that tracking can start to add up!
We created Horde Rules to specifically handle an uncountable mass of enemies, like a swarm of necromorphs or zombies and such.
To be perfectly honest, we're still iterating on the GM tools to help track large numbers of enemies. When I run, I've been using some quick notation that works pretty well, but it's one of the items in our sights!
Very astute of you to nice that potential problem! Hope we are able to devise a satisfactory solution!
So insightful! I think one of the core problems of D&D is that, in reality, HP just shouldn't scale with level! Maybe AC should, but in actual fiction, characters don't tend to become a lot harder to kill as they increase in power, they just become more skilled and potent
That's a good point; it's that HP bloat that really slows things down.
I found this very interesting and helpful, especially as I design my own combat system where the goal is "what is the final blow to defeat this enemy", listing what makes dealing that final blow more difficult, then having players work together to remove those obstacles and deal that final blow.
Unrelated though, I was curious on your opinion on making a combat system where the focus is constantly inflicting critical injuries on the Genesys crit table, where the focus is to build and build and build debuffs through injuries until the table eventually rolls Death. I can explain the table further if you need it.
@@ezekieltamarkin280 I think a system like you're describing could work; it'd give a sense of progression for each random injury inflicted, moving toward the goal of total defeat.
I haven't glanced at Genysis in a hot minute, but is it a d% table? One of my concerns is that it makes combat reliant on an external table for constant reference, which might slow the gameplay down.
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Genesys was the General System made by Final Flight Games to make a universal version of the Star Wars game they made, the one you referenced in the video about funky dice. It's a d100 table that goes all the way up to 250, which is Death. When you inflict an injury, you add +10 to your roll for each previous injury they already have. Some weapons can also have Vicious X, which adds +(X*10) to the roll too.
The system I'm working on is still early in its development. Instead of lasting injuries, you either disabled the obstacle permanently, for the whole encounter, or for the round. Perhaps there's a dragon who the party says can be slain by cutting its head off. One PC permanently cuts off the wings at the joint to prevent the dragon from flapping wind. Another PC curses the dragon to have scales as hard as butter instead of as metal. Third PC wrestles the dragon's head to bring it low, countering the height of the dragon for that round. Last PC deals the final blow.
I'm hoping the rules will also cover social situations too, since the dragon scenario's Final Blow could be making the dragon an ally, with obstacles like their anger, reluctance to do anything, love of their hoard, etc.
@@ezekieltamarkin280 Oh gotchya, yeah I hadn't played Star Wars since pre-Pandemic.
Honestly it sounds like a cool idea you've got cookin', I'd be down to hear more as you work on it!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Does that mean I should join a Discord or something?
@@ezekieltamarkin280 You can if you like! I'm currently in a big ttrpg dev discord that has tons of indie devs in various stages of game development, from hobbyists to pros. discord.gg/P5j2f95Y
Feel free to join up and hang out/chat about game dev!
this sound really good for an attack on titan setting where they usually would have to coordinate to take down some of the bigger titans or worry about injuries when hitting walls or from shrapnel
@@siluda9255 Ooh that's a really cool idea!! The Survey Corp soldiers are just regular people, who can get maimed and hurt really bad, and have to go for the vulnerable part of the titan!
I dig it.
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames yes and the players can coordinate to take down legs or arms or the eyes like they do it to make it easyier
I started developing a D&D adjacent system in reaction to 4e coming out and hating the way how hit points were used and abstracted away to homogenized meaninglessness. It's been pulled out and shelved several times over the years and it uses a wound system very similar to yours. It was based off of the 3.x system of cure spells: minor, light, moderate, serious, and critical wounds. Multiple minor wound tick boxes are similar to where you have used strain. Other wounds have more information such as healing DCs, type, effects etc.
The difficulty I have had is with the reaction system used to represent all the hit point abstractions: skill, deftness, experience in turning a serious situation into a less serious one, luck, sheer toughness and grit, divine providence, armor, inner strength, occult methods, morale, being told by someone it's not that bad and to stop sooking, to the unfaltering will to keep going. For me it was all about separating all these cool ideas and leaving wounding to be its own separate thing. I thought the key was using these reactions to turn moderate or serious wounds into minor ones that could just be ticked and easily removed in and out of combat. The difficulty though was making it feel organic in play, rather than a binary mechanical system of either shields to bust through or that one critical that insta-kills.
I pulled it back out again a couple of months ago because I thought I had come up with a solution. I just have not had the time to test the framework out.
Suffice to say, not only am I appreciating your system after just discovering it , but my philosophy on design seems to be very similar to what you have discussed thus far - story meets elegant crunch. You've created a cool-sounding world and some great ideas - I'm sure there's plenty more you're looking to unveil. Looking forward to seeing more!
@@AnraitEsor I feel you! I had been working on TFE on and off for a long, long time, and only in the last few years did I make an earnest push to get it ready for public consumption. I have a day job, so it's tough to balance that with game design!
That sounds very interesting! Following close.
I like the way you think. I will say that elements of your system are very similar to how damage is handled in my favorite TTRPG.
Ars Magica has never used HP, and the fifth edition, released 20 years ago, tallies up the number of wounds of different severity a combatant has--so for an average-sized human, 1-5 points of damage is a Light Wound, 6-10 is a Medium Wound, 11-15 is a Heavy Wound, 16-20 is an Incapacitating Wound, and 21+ is Death.
Each of these Wounds carries a penalty to all rolls, including Attack and Defense, so as you accrue more Wound Penalties, it becomes harder and harder to defend yourself, and you end up taking more points of damage, which translates into more severe Wounds. It also becomes harder for you to damage your opponent and cast spells (as spell-casting is roll-based).
Now RAW ArM5 doesn't include a certain number of Wound slots, but the Roll20 character sheet could only fit 5 of each (and 1 Incapacitating). So as a house rule a lot of us say that when you're out of slots at a particular level, your wound graduates to the next available more severe slot.
One result of this is that striking first and striking hard makes a big difference. Even if you can't take out an enemy with one shot, if you hurt them enough at the start of the fight, they end up in a death spiral. In fact, surrender or retreat become more likely than fighting to the death--which I think is infinitely more interesting.
Ars Magica is about magic, not combat, so there isn't a specific rule for called shots, at least not in the core rulebook. I like the way you handle that.
@@JamesHazlerig that's interesting, so RAW you didn't have a hard cap on wound count, but there was an effective cap due to... Just being so vulnerable to death after so many?
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames yeah, in RAW, the penalties to your defense rolls translate to more points of damage taken, leading you to either hit Incapacitated or Dead as Wounds accumulate.
@@JamesHazlerig That's very interesting, indeed.
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Atlas Games is launching a Kickstarter for Ars Magica: the Definitive Edition in October, BTW. :)
@@JamesHazlerig Oh awesome, I'll keep an eye out for that! Based on what you're sayin', it sounds like it's time I jump into that game - been hearing about it for years and never taken the plunge!
Thanks again for the recommendation and commentary!
Genesys catching strays here for a game that also has an improved and interesting health system
@@martindavids1294 I had so much fun with the Edge of the Empire Genesys system! As we progressed, though, the amount of dice we had to roll was soooo much, it took ages to calculate the variants of success and failure for each in-game action.
I'm a fan though, overall. I do think Genesys has a number of novel systems! 🤠
I really like this system. It reminds me of the different levels of Harm in Blades in the Dark, but it instead allows you to have a more granular scale of damage capacity for weapons/attacks. Very ncie.
How do you handle different grades of armor? Is it just binary (armored or unarmored), or do different grades of armor (light/medium/heavy) have a maximum injury severity that they can downgrade (Strain/Seroius/Critical)?
Thanks! It's been a lot of fun to design for.
Armor is pretty binary. Armor covers different parts of your body (e.g., just the bulk for a kevlar vest), and states what types of attacks or injuries it protects against (e.g., chainmail would make you Resistant to slash/pierce, but not bash).
So a kevlar vest protects the bulk and makes it resistant to firearms, as another example. Resistances just downgrades the Injury severity one step - from Critical to Serious, and so forth.
I had sketched out a more nuanced armor system earlier in the design process, but found it too fiddly, so we went with a simple, but clear solution.
In TFE, anyone can wear any armor they want, as long as they are cool with the pretty heavy encumbrance of them. Armor weighs you down, making it harder to do things like dive for cover or swim or climb things. So it's more of a personal, tactical choice rather than a class feature/build choice. It means players can gear up specifically to fight certain threats if they know what they'll face - going against beasties? Wear stuff that protects against slash and pierce. Facing robots with sledgehammers? Padding and other stuff that helps against bashing. And so forth!
A couple questions: Does Armor function to reduce the severity of the injury? How does it do this while preserving lethality? Does each limb have an 'injury track"?
@@jfm.d5180 armor reduces the severity of injuries, as long as it protects against that type of injury. For example, most armor won't protect you most against firearms.
Most characters don't wear much armor in the game - it's a choice that some make, but armor weighs you down a lot and can limit mobility, so it's certainly a trade-off.
We've run playtests with tanky bois, going full defensive builds, and it certainly makes them feel durable! But we've also found that mobile characters with good Reactions are just as good, if not better, at avoiding injury.
The game has a greater emphasis on avoiding being hit in the first piece, rather than "tanking it".
Oh and each limb does not have a separate tracker - it's one unified tracker for the whole body. I'll be showing off the full character sheet in a future video, including how characters are built!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Excellent. Thank you for your time!! I look forward to learning how armor works!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGamesoh, that's interesting. I assumed with the bulk, brim, ace distinction you would set apart armor the same way. Curious to hear what made you decide to go with a unified tracker.
@@NRMRKL Armor covers different parts of the body, so some armor only protects the bulk, others cover everything, etc.
Interestingly, an earlier version of the game had individual limb/location tracking. What we found is that it bogged down the moment to moment gameplay significantly, and didn't as easily abstract overall health.
The Injury Tracker does, however, have a place to write where the injury is located on your body. So you'd note: "bullet wound, left leg" and that'd tell you the information you needed. So it's an overall tracker that also allows for specificity.
So that's some insight into the iteration; the old version was not a bad idea by any measure, but we found that it moved the game too much into the "simulation" space. It's a careful balance!
I get why people might not choose to wear armour the way you've modeled it, but there's a reason people wore Armour in the ancient world and the medieval period. Just saying 😊
I don't know much about TfE, just stumbled upon this video. Your idea sounds very interesting, thank you for sharing this!
However, one thing I wanted to mention is that adding negative effects, wounds to the core combat system starts to compete with items/spells not doing damage, but applying debuffs. "Entangle" druid spell from D&D has the same effect as an arrow to the knee.
Now, this is not a problem per se, but it could make it more difficult in creating classes, items, spells variety for the game.
I wonder if you encountered such a problem, and if yes, how did you solve it?
@@vladimirkrasilnikov2245 Great question!
TFE has a more involved core system, and then doesn't layer as much complexity on top of that.
Having said that, special abilities and such haven't been harder to make, in fact the intro system grants a new, interesting mechanism to build around rather than simply increasing damage.
It's much more interesting, for example, for a feature to say, "increase the severity of injuries you inflict in X situation" than simply "you deal +5 damage in X situations".
Secondarily, while injuries do carry debuffs, they don't hit all the possible negative conditions. Things like frightened, distracted, and AoE components all come into play.
We're excited to be able to share all the character creation rules, but that's a bit far off still. We did just post a video showing one character being built, if you're curious!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Thank you for the reply, this sounds really interesting!
Sounds really cool
@@F2t0ny Appreciate the kind words!!
Really like the design! Can you give some insight into how armor and shields work in your system?
@@lloydbrown3223 armor acts as mitigation; it reduces the severity of the injury received to that area. For example, were you to be wearing kevlar vest and would receive a critical injury to the bulk (torso), you'd only receive a serious injury.
Blocking, on the other hand, is handled by the Reactions system, which I do plan on covering in a later video :) long story short, due to the deadly nature of the combat, the players have a lot of reactive tools to get themselves out of danger.
The game is about avoiding injury, rather than "tanking" it, mostly.
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames if a player was fighting a monster and they were both using swords, does the skill level difference between them act in any way to mitigate damage via parry, dodge, etc?
If so, do you have different classes achieve these combat effects at different milestones based upon class, etc? IOW, would a warrior see greater chance of skill mitigation vs a mage?
This is something I've thought about but never put into action so I'm curious if you've playtested anything like this and/or have thoughts about how this might be done well.
@@Hawkissimo a skillful melee combatant can definitely defend themselves well against a foe, using weapons or a shield to block incoming strikes.
The upper and lower bound for players' Skills is a much tighter bandwidth than in heroic fantasy RPGs. It only ranges from +0 to +6 total, and uses a d10 for its core die.
Threats, particularly dangerous monsters, can go far beyond that upper bound, making them incredibly deadly to face alone. There are a lot of tactical options, abilities, and items that can help tip the balance in favor of the players, but since the emphasis is on action-horror, the players are meant to never feel "overpowered" against the monsters.
The game is classless; characters are built from various Backstory Elements that provide roleplaying and mechanical options. It'll look familiar to those that have played games with a "I'm a blank that does blank who cross from blank." We're working on a video demonstrating character creation that we hope to release in the coming weeks!
(Sorry, this is just a more in depth conversation than is easily achievable here in YT comments, but we'll definitely cover this stuff in future videos!)
I'm *very* inspired by this system in regards to my own gamedev. I'm not actually going to USE any part of your system, yet it still solved a number of my current problems. 😅
Basically, I'm giving die types special meanings, usage as abilities, and role as a resource. I also wanted the total dice to count as health, and me mapping your injury tiers to those die types have had very fun results. The system needs to be modified a lot, but still it helps.
That's awesome, so glad to hear that it's been helpful in your own game!!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames It got me out of my latest hangup, which is great, but I'm sure it won't be my last one lol.
And actually one part of your system here is in direct contrast with mine: lower dice types AREN'T supposed to be strictly inferior
Different strengths yeah, but not worse.
My rough draft solution (Which I just picked off the cutting room floor. Again) is that the die type does damage as you described but is also used as a bonus roll for attack resolution.
A trade-off yes, but one that is pretty damn hard to get the details right on without lots of math and playtesting.
@@3X3NTR1K Oooh yeah, that'd be tricky to refine and balance. Good luck, my friend!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Thanks, I appreciate it. I am excited about my projects potential (I kinda tripped and fell into a Super Original Setting) and an accuracy/damage tradeoff is a good fit for its elemental themes. Smaller dice were already the "heavier" elements, even.
In the end this idea may not work out at all - either in the balance or the gameplay - but it'll still have another special piece in my ever growing pile of gamedev Legos. So I'll call that progress.
@@3X3NTR1K That's what's important - make the games YOU want to make. Do the things that make your brain wrinkles wriggle nicely :D
I am intrigued by this. There is a lot of clever gameplay that can come out of this. One question I have is this: How laborious is it to track status of say, 6 orcs? HP based systems are simple because health is abstracted to a number. The video mentioned that math could be an issue for some players, but I feel, for the majority of players, simple subtractive math is the simplist way to track health especially with lots of characters. HP based systems also provide a little narrative protection from luck because you cannot one-shot the boss or be one-shot by the boss.
Maybe playing this cascading status system feels more elegant in truth. Thanks for sharing!
@@meeplearts3118 Thanks for your interest!!
You're right, it is more laborious for the GM to track many enemies at once compared to an HP system, and we are currently iterating on ways to create helper sheets/shorthand/etc to make it easier
In actual play, it's not bad when you get used to it. Individually enemies tend to go down fast, so the number of enemies in the scene rapidly reduces.
It's worth noting that very few enemies will truly one-shot a player, and the truly big set-piece enemies are a bit more complicated than that, but the feeling of mortality is absolutely present!
It's something I'm interested to see more players get their hands on and gather even more feedback!
Thanks again for your comment and question!
Have you seen Evil West? Looks like it might be good setting inspiration/comparison.
Also your system reminds me a little bit of The Broken Empires, which is also going to focus combat on inflicting specific wounds. If you haven't seen what Me, Myself & Die is doing I suggest checking it out.
I have seen Evil West! Haven't played it yet, but watched a lot of videos on it. It looks like my jam.
I am familiar with Broken Empires! Me, Myself & Die is an excellent channel and I've been following the development for a bit now. Very cool game with very different design goals.
It's always interesting how different designers approach the same core problem. Love it!
Sounds like it's still an attrition system. But with a bit of inspiration from Blades in the Dark thrown in.
Thanks for the feedback! An important difference between this system and traditional ones is the focus on "skipping ahead" in the tracker rather than needing to walk-up toward the mortal conclusion.
Combined with the ability to inflict conditions and effects as part of the core system means that each action can more directly impact the fight, even if it doesn't kill a target.
We've found that players have actually started paying attention more to the descriptions of the monsters and engaging with their mechanics, as now the limbs and modes of attack on an enemy are interactive and can be disabled if need be.
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Okay. I'm going to go back and rewatch your video, and listen more carefully. I primarily run Warhammer Fantasy 4E. And I'm guessing that the Player Burden (not an concept I had heard before 😀) is pretty damn high in that game. But so is player choice. And some very cool strategies have emerged from all the crunch. Though at times, as the GM, it has pushed my meat computer to its limit. So there must be other ways of doing things. You may be on to something.
@@peterdickinson4599 Oh wow, yeah if you're a Warhammer fantasy GM then you are probably above the curve, as it were, when it comes to being comfortable with player burden. :D
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Ha ha!
This sound very similar to the homebrew system we use but without the distributed damage system, and we have a more random systemfor criticals, soeven a first blowcan inflict critical damage.
I think Into The Odd kind of solved it already for me. No to hit rolls, self restoring „hit protection“ instead of „hit points“ and if things get to serious, character stats will get reduced, so succeeding in turn will get harder and harder the more damage you take until you either are dead or get fixed back up somewhere else.
@@spectrumunit I haven't read Into the Odd! I'll have to check it out, thanks for the recommendation!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames can definitely recommend! Its very short, concise and well written! While at it, you may also have a look at Bastionland and Mythic Bastionland, which are iterations on the same system written by the same guy (Chris McDowall). After that, have a look at Cairn, which is a fantasy-hack of Into The Odd andcompletely free for everyone! Good stuff!
Hmmm quite an interesting idea to use fighting condition as a "HP" system instead of actual numbers. I might have to tweek this a little to fit my own little TTRPG. Solid stuff. 👍
~ Adam
Thanks! Always appreciate your comments! :D
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames
Doin' my part to get you that engagement. 😉
~ Adam
FUDGE had a similar wound system. It did *not* have the condition tags, that's a cool adaptation.
@@erinbarnard7433 Thanks! FUDGE has a lot of good lessons to teach designers, very cool system!
I've never designed a game system in my life but I'm going to complain anyway because it's fun for me:
- I'm not comfortable with lower dice rolls causing more severe injuries. People are pretty universally wired to think that a higher dice roll means a better result. Few people miss your THAC0s and negative ACs of early D&D,
- I am a big fan of a generous use of injuries and afflictions (Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay with Tome of Corruption has some imaginative injury/corruption/mutation tables) and targeted strikes but I don't think they cause a paradigm shift from an attrition based system to something else.
- I've seen some similar combat systems but they've never struck me as particularly crunchy though they are less arithmetically challenging and generally faster. It seems that making hit point damage less granular combined with merging losing hit points (or in this case empty injury slots) and inflicting status effects (injury effects) can severely narrow the possibility space. I think that a system can still use injury slots and be crunchy at the same time but it will need some other systems that can introduce some complexity back, like an in depth feats system you've described which could interact with other subsystems like movement or action economy
Thanks for the detailed reply! I love hearing feedback, whether it's praise or criticism :) . I'll try to keep my response organized below; UA-cam isn't great for this sorta discussion haha!
1. An interesting thing we noticed in playtests is the "looking for lowest number" makes the dice feel more precise. A d20 feels big and unwieldy, while a d6 feels deadly, small, and precise. It was an interesting shift, mentally, for players that we took note of. It's not for everyone, and that's okay!
2. That's totally fair - it's still a violent exchange with a last-man-standing situation. I will say, though, that when the game is built around such a system, when it's wired into the DNA, the moment-to-moment gameplay feels very different. Each action results in a lot more progress, and lot more interesting consequence, when you cut out "hit points.
3. That's also fair! We aren't showing all the surrounding systems quite yet, but there are a ton of customization options in the game, lots of stuff to fiddle with.
Let me ask you this, though: Having a system with myriad individual numerical bonuses stacking up does make the numbers go up and does give a lot to make the game "crunchier", but rarely are those decisions evocative. It's just an optimization exercise at that point - you're doing math against each other.
What Injury systems like this accomplish is it takes the tactical decision making and moves it mathematics (stacking bonuses) and moves it into the actual moment-to-moment gameplay. "How do we kill this?" isn't answered by stacking bonuses, but instead about analyzing the enemy's physiology, attack capabilities, and behavior, and then dismantling/disabling those features with your coordinated strikes.
By using THAT as the baseline of the system, as its core, it gives you a ton to build on top of that's quite crunchy, indeed!
Again, thank you for your thoughts! They are well-reasoned!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames
I can definitely see that being the case. I guess the THAC0 system was confusing because you’ve had to do some arithmetic to find out if you’ve hit someone and since here there is no math it can actually be easier to always look for the same values no matter the hit dice assigned to the weapon the player is using
Regarding the third point, you are completely correct. Stacking incremental bonuses for optimal impact is definitely less naturalistic and immersive.
I guess we’ve run into the problem of two competing philosophies of crunchiness. According to one school if you employ enough specificity through rules and tables there will emerge a well simulated model of reality (e.g. modern D&D combat) with a vast array of well defined tactical options to choose from. According to the other school the more you regulate an aspect of the game the more you artificially constrict available options (more of an Oldschool Renaissance approach)
In my opinion both of these approaches can lead to increased crunchiness and the real tradeoff is between vagueness and specificity. It’s hard to give an example of a game that has both in abundance. The best I can come up with is probably the progenitor of all tabletop games, Kriegsspiele which admittedly I’ve never played.
It started as a wargame that was supposed to train Prussian military officers. It featured a set of complex and specific rules but the way players interacted with that system was purposefully obtuse and vague. The ruleset was fully known only to the umpire to prevent metagaming. Opposing teams didn’t play at the same table to induce a fog of war mechanic. In some implementations even players on the same side didn’t sit at the same table so that each player only sees what he personally knows about the battlefield and not all the information might be correct. Only the umpire knows the real boardstate. Players don’t move units or take actions directly. Instead they write down orders on a piece of paper and give them to messengers (umpire) which they send to specific units. It’s the job of the umpire to implement those orders. If they are too vague they might be misinterpreted, local unit commander might refuse or a messenger might be intercepted on the way back so the player doesn’t even know if the orders were delivered and acted on.
@@piotrekdoro Good points!
Feels fairly elegant. A few questions:
Is there a big table of Conditions and what their debuffs are? Feels like a fair bit to learn maybe?
How do you stop players one-shotting the BBEG/dragon/god with a lucky roll? Add an extra Lethal box? Give them total damage resistance?
All great questions.
There's a list of conditions and complications, but it's not a very long list and each weapon specifies what type(s) of complications it adds to its injuries. After that, the GM and players can improvise additional complications to an injury if they like, or just stick with the baseline. It's not too bad, from playtesting!
Admittedly, the game isn't designed for epic heroic fantasy - it works better for more grounded situations. But a very powerful enemy might be Resistant to some injuries or have additional steps that need to be accomplished before you can really hurt it, such as tearing away armor plating to expose an underlying heart or somethin'.
That aspect is definitely something we're still working on to find the right balance.
Interesting about the lower dice being more effective. I've had a similar idea tucked away for magic 🧠
Yeah, it's worked super well in our tests!
This system sounds exciting! I love the the zombie example. 'Do I go for the leg to slow it down even though I know that I wont kill it or do I risk it and aim for the head?' Looking forward to trying it sometime.
@@ivanhagstrom5601 appreciate the kind words!
I can't wait to be able to share free demo/test materials with the community 🤠
Cool 😎!!
In my injury system, taking dmg leads to a roll, but there are several tiers to the roll’s results ranging from a penalty on further checks to death.
Interesting, so it's a small random table with varying degrees of penalty? Does the roll on the table scale with the severity of the incoming hit or is it purely random? Thanks for sharing!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames It scales. It is a modificat to d20, so it is damage vs hit dice rolled.
@@SomeoneElse-fr8yu very cool!
Nice work with this, there's some elegant stuff here. In terms of stat blocks, I'd guess that different monsters would have varying numbers of strained/serious/critical slots available to them? If not, I'd be curious to know how you would go about mechanically enforcing that the level one zombie isn't nearly as hardy as the owlbear/deathbot/what-have-you.
I'm designing my own system atm too, and have concerns similar to yours regarding attrition systems. Here's to winning the war against stagnant combats, and making mortal combat feel the way it should (utterly fucking terrifying).
@@mattkincannon5264 yep, different enemies have different numbers of slots. Very weak enemies, like a simple bandit, have fewer than the player. More powerful ones might have more.
Overall, though, there's very little bloat or scaling in the numbers of injuries. Instead, the enemies become more deadly, they "break" more rules, and tend to have larger action economies.
This is because making a monster survive longer doesn't necessarily make them more interesting to fight. So the monsters scale in INTENSITY rather than DURABILITY, if that makes sense :)
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Excellent. Making "getting the drop" on your foes all the more important, I would imagine, which is a good thing in my book. Good luck as your system continues to develop.
Very nice.
I tried creating something similar years ago but It was too messy.
Yours looks better.
Thanks for your kind words! What was messy about your implementation? You've got my attention :D
@TalesFromElsewhereGames
Mostly I didn't know where to stop.
Too many places to attack (is shield arm the same as weapon arm? What about other creatures, etc.)
The divide to ace bulk and brim is clever and can be applied to everything in different ways which seems to solve that pretty well.
Aside from that I just went too deep into the rabbit hole of combat simulation, attack types, defenses, and lost playability altogether.
Hope what you've made finds the sweet spot.
Looks promising.
Sounds interesting!
@@raff3486 Thanks! We're really invigorated by the community's response!
Two suggestions… Hp’s shouldn’t just be about damage. It doesn’t make sense that to kill someone you must cut their leg slightly, then stab their hand, before finally cutting their throat.
Point two, a suggestion… My favourite games use bonuses as hp. You have +4 strength, I hit your strength for 2. Now you only have +2 strength. When you drop to minus 1, something bad happens.
@@El-Comment-8-or thanks for the feedback!
I find bonuses/stats as HP to be an interesting mechanic. Cypher uses that, with its "pools" of Might, Speed, and Intellect.
Do you find that such systems create too brutal a death spiral? I've had positive and negative experiences with them, curious as to yours!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames It makes it more important to avoid damage, be tactical in how you deal damage, and very importantly heal damage. No more, I got a 4 damage arrow wound that I can ignore. I’m new to the world of non-DnD systems though, still learning.
@@El-Comment-8-or I get you. What's interesting about Cypher's use of this structure is that you can also expend your own stats to boost your chances of success, purposefully exhausting yourself to ensure victory.
It can make for some cool moments and decisions for the players!
I dig the system mechanics so far. How do you plan to build armor around and is durability a factor. I imagine resistance cant be scaled well above 1 factor so i generally see having them add "filler slots" that take up wound slots without a debuff that exhaust as the armor "breaks". Light armor having an extra minor wound slot and maybe a serious, medium having a critical and heavy having an extra lethal. (or scaled down to minor, serious and critical).
Also as far as mental attacks via mind spells or physical intimidation idk if these are factored in or there's a separate mental/mind slot system for psychological affects.
@@Tycon Armor is fairly binary in TFE - it provides Resistance to certain types of injuries to the protected areas of the body.
Resistance simply decreases the severity of the incoming injury by one step.
We had tested out a more complex armor system, but found that it became distracting to track. So we don't use a detailed durability tracking system at this time.
A big lesson we learned is that players only have so much mental processing power available to them on a given turn. Where you make them allocate that limited resource has dramatic effects on the flow of a fight!
Mental assaults (generally) don't inflict injuries, but rather impose negative conditions like being frightened or distracted. They can, however, inflict Strain which can make a character more likely to receive injuries, as once their Strain is full any Strain from an attack would upgrade to a Serious Injury!
Very interesting ideas.
If one has a lethal injury and takes another lethal injury without having any serious or critical injuries, does that one die?
Can a lethal injury to a vulnerable entity kill it in one shot?
Is there a to hit system or does every attack hit?
If you already have a lethal injury and you receive another, you're instantly dead, yep.
A lethal injury to a vulnerable target upgrades it to instant death, yep! It's worth noting that no result on an Injury Roll is a lethal injury - the highest it can be as a critical. This means that to get instant-kills, the target must either have fewer Injury Slots (like weak enemies) or use special abilities to pump-up the lethality.
There is a to-hit system in the game; it's easier to hit the Bulk, a bit harder to hit the Brim, and much harder to hit the Ace. So you have the choice, as the player, to go for low-risk consistent damage or to attempt for the more lethal/debilitating targets but lower chance to hit.
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames got it, thanks for the explanation. At first I understood that depending on the area to target, the probability of the hit being a different type of injury shifted.
What is the near average probability to hit in the system?
@@navishh2349 The overall baseline success rate in the game is about 70%. What that means is that the chance of succeeding in any given task that you are good at is about 70%. Generally speaking, this walks up and down in 20% increments.
So if I have a 70% chance to shoot the bulk with my revolver, going for the brim would be a 50% chance, while the ace would be 30%. That's assuming you have decent skill with a firearm. There are a variety of ways that players can increase their chances, both via cooperation and tactical choices, of course :)
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames
Oh that's cool. 70% feels like a good rate for the game to feel deadly.
And in practice, how many hits would you say a creature can take? Or how many rounds does a typical combat take?
@@TalesFromElsewhereGamesgiven that people's arms are out front, and might be carrying weapons or shields, shouldn't you hit them more often than the torso?
This reminds me of Savage Worlds (everything does). Specifically if you used their Gritty Damage rule. It doesn't have the strain system though.
Savage Worlds is great stuff!
While this sounds like an improvement, at its core, this is still based on attrition. You are still reducing an enemy's health resources, in the form of injury slots, until they have none left and are out of the fight. It is better than a more traditional HP system, but it's a change in form, not a change in kind
Agreed here. The changes happen more often and almost immediately, but overall the characters are being worn down til death or surrender.
I think you're quibbling. Sure, you're still losing resources in the form of injury slots, but it will play much differently, with consequences for being hit, sometimes immediately. I'm not sure if there are set effects for injuries or if it's based on the weapon, or is random.
I'm curious. How does armour work? Does it make you harder to hit, or does it mitigate injury?
Except it is possible to drop something in one shot. If you deliver a lethal blow. There will often be some attrition, but it is possible to avoid it.
There's an attrition aspect to it, but it's not PURE attrition like a hp system. I'd be interessted to know what you would consider a change in kind, if not this?
I love these types of damage alternatives. I like your choices. I was just thinking about your example of punching a zombie with a d20 for damage. In this example, isn't there still a 5% chance of critically wounding a zombie with a punch to the gut? Doesn't this contradict narrative examples like the aforementioned The Walking Dead? Or is this possibility expected in your game?
Well, I suppose monster traits like zombies can get around this issue. It just came to mind.
Good luck with your game! I'll check out the other videos to learn more about this.
Thanks for your interest!
In D&D, yeah that 5% chance of crit means you can one-shot a zombie to the gut haha.
In TFE, the Zombie has a feature: "Can only be killed with a critical injury to the head." Which means you have to specifically target the head and inflict a sufficiently serious injury to it - no grazes!
We tried to make the enemies more interactive in that way - the players problem-solve how to dismantle and take down a threat, rather than just "dump damage" on them, if that makes sense!
Thanks again! 🤠
This is cool but it does seem a tad bit cumbersome if you were running a horde of monsters and had to keep track of 18 zombie's worth of strains and injury boxes, I like the idea though im always glad to see others tying out new ideas for the genre
It would definitely be cumbersome for that many enemies.
There are actually Horde rules specifically for large groups of zombies, townsfolk, and so forth, but it is definitely more tracking than HP would be.
Your concern is apt, and we're still iterating on solutions to that to ensure the GM isn't overwhelmed with tons of tracking! It's definitely something we're going to want testers and feedback for :)
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames my pleasure man keep up the good work
Very interesting mechanics you've developed here. I'm curious as to how you handle larger foes, like say a giant, or eye tyrant as these foes are able to sustain a greater number of "injuries" before being susceptible to a killing blow. Love to hear your thoughts on this, if you have a minute to discuss.
@@MercTechBenny A great question!
Extremely large foes use what I'm going to call the Megazord Method for injury tracking. Instead of using a single injury tracker for their whole self, each important part of their body has its own tracker, and there'd be some special circumstances that result in its death.
Though I will say, the TFE games are less about slaying massive enemies as they are surviving them, since they are more grounded, gritty settings. So enormous foes are often better as set pieces and hazards, rather than something to be faced head-on.
We're still iterating and exploring monster/threat designs, so this sort of feedback/question is great to chew on!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Man, that sounds pretty great! I love this concept you have of "packets of information" being passed thru events like your attack/defense mechanics. A pretty novel approach, and not too complex.
As with most systems using gritty combat, is this to suggest to your players that combats are best avoided if possible? If a combat does become unavoidable... that they can creatively solve said combat using real world logic?
@@MercTechBenny I appreciate the support! Games like BitD really revolutionized that structure, and I'm doing something a bit different than that.
For TFE being action horror, we wanted fights to be scary - it's not always the correct answer to charge in, and sometimes it's good to flee!
Looks like you'd like the Crown And Skull RPG system,
@@nandomax3 It's definitely on my list to read through! So many amazing RPGs, so few hours in the day! 🤠
@TalesFromElsewhereGames there is a short video about the damage system in crown and skull, made by a fan. It's really simple:
- only players roll dices,
- damage on the monster always hits but is subtracted by monster Defense,
- damage on players is always done on equipment or spell, so every hit you take is dangerous
- When the monster hits a player the damage may make unavailable an Equipment or a spell, only equipment or only spell.
- There are some big monsters that are able to destroy equipments, but never spells.
-Equipment is everything you carry on your char. If you have zero equipment slots you die
- if you finish a combat encounter you heal 1 slot and after a successful long rest you recover 1d4 slots :)
@nandomax3 Ohhh, I've heard of that system, right. They call it "attrition", right? It's a very clever system, indeed!
Alright. I'm interested. I have my own micro system and way of doing damage that is less attrition based. I'd like to see yours on paper, if you're sharing. What weapons do what die? Or is it based on class? The smaller the die, the more lethal the weapon, correct? Inquiring minds want to know. Dig your presentation, though.
Thanks for your interest!
The weapon controls the size of the dice and the character's Skill determines the number.
So a knife would be a d12, a revolver would be a d8, and a shotgun would be a d6.
A character that is highly skilled rolls 4 dice, while one who is basically untrained only rolls 1!
I don't know if the Channel's creator will see this, but I am hoping another game creator sees this. This is coming from someone who occasionally tests other newly made/in-productions or testing TTRPGs from new creators and with new or experienced players.
Either entirely avoid or be very careful using this as a replacement for HP, because it has major problems.
First, Players, unless they are experienced with the system & are metagaming, will not know the weakness/vulnerable spots on enemies. Unless it becomes the GM telling the players out of character, or the characters themselves using resources in combat to find out, fights WILL end up with players regularly doings things to enemies that they resist. Take the Zombie example from the video. Yes, those familiar with our media know about headshots, but when you have more obscure enemies, most players, especially new ones, will not have a clue what to do, and will end up using whatever resource (spell slots, mana, ammo, etc), targeting spots that might make sense, but the enemy has resistance or immunities to. Of course the players wouldn't know the Walking Armor's Shield will float magically back to its hand, so using their turn and special ammo and taking a penalty to their accuracy to get rid of it does NOTHING!
Then, leading to the second issue, one I see time and time again for this kinds of systems being tested with new players, Player characters almost never have similar levels of resistances or immunities to such calls shots or targeted areas. So, it often ends up that players will use whatever resource they have to do a thing, watch it fail for no fault of their own, then get hit back brutally because they don't have anything similar to defend themselves with. Remember, these guys don't want fights to become attrition, so players go down fast, which makes it worse when the limited things they have, especially at low levels, does nothing.
Third, Finding out each enemies resistances, vulnerabilities, immunities, etc, in game, in character, ends up feeling worse for several reasons. Take PF2E, for example. Several classes have ways to find enemy stats or the above mentioned things, but not only do they require actions during a player's turn, but also resources. Even then, if successful, they might get nothing useful or actionable, making it feel even worse, since it makes the entire thing feel like a waste of time. a missed attack is a missed attack, a missed spell was still something cool that happened, but a failed attempt to find out if an enemy has weaknesses, only to find out its to Cold Steel or something players wouldn't even have most of the time, feels worse.
Lastly, fourth, Player characters will NOT have a chance for attrition. They will not have the HP, Strain/Stress, etc to have the extended sort of fight he mentions. Often, not always, systems like this make fights that come down to that sort of thing a multiple days & resources thing to just recover from, assuming the characters even survive. When that happens, players will avoid combat entirely, not just because they don't have the ability to do it repeatedly, but how it feels to do in the first place, as though combat isn't what the game wants you to do. Some games are purposefully built like that, for that reason, because they don't want players to use combat, or brawls. Social games, Stealth based systems, etc. But in the kind of game he is mentioning, it is clear he isn't meaning that. It is to replace HP, with it having multiple systems around combat, so a player has reasonable reason to believe they should be able to do combat.
All this video, and the previous one he linked to, are are Attrition HP systems with a Set Weaknesses to kind of bring them down to Players character squishy-ness. So, if players never get the weaknesses, it quickly becomes a game of never fight until you research every single enemy beforehand OR randomly use whatever few resources you have to guess the weakness while the enemy downs/kills character after character because the player characters do not have the immunities/resistances that the system is made around.
@@JABofLEGENDS Hey there, thanks for the detailed feedback! I read every comment and they to respond to them all 🤠
In TFE, knowledge of special vulnerabilities and such is very permissive, without requiring actions to learn. But really, the game is less about arbitrary knowledge of specific resistances and more about analyzing the biology of the monster, engaging with its physicality.
For example, if you're fighting a giant scorpion, you could decide if you want to take out the claws to prevent it from grabbing or you could take out its stinger if you're worried about that. Our tests have shown that the players start paying attention to the descriptions of the monsters more, as it is more interactive 🤠
The issues you've described can certainly be present in wound/injury based systems, but I think we've done a pretty good job avoiding them. We do have free playtest rules available on the website, if you're curious!
Anyway, I really do appreciate your thorough feedback! Thanks for listening to my ramblings haha
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames Wasn't expecting a reply, but no problem.
I get what you mean about it being less about arbitrary knowledge, but it does still end up with things going specific ways, if the enemy used isn't something more tangible in our world, like Scorpions.
Knowing that someone who can & does take the time to thoroughly describe a monster/enemy would work only makes it to where combat ends up being one enemy or enemy type versus the players, or having multiple, but having the players constantly stopping to ask for enemy details during a fight. Plus, that also means not just more work on a GM's part, having to learn the enemies as thoroughly to be able to describe them as such, but also costly, time-wise in game, to do so. And that's assuming the GM has the skill to do so. Not a high barrier to entry, I know, but when so many GMs rely on pictures to convey enemies descriptions, it causes problems, especially if they don't match enough to convey the weakness that words might otherwise do.
As someone who has playtested several games, while I can't answer definitively without seeing the material, from your description, I would still say my biggest issue is player feel. Not having that level of resistive power against called shots, like the zombies, while having to do so for enemies. Yes, aiming for the Scorpion tail might be cool, but if the player doesn't have the Zombie's ability to attrition non-headshot attacks or the Scorpion's Leg injuries doing little compared to its Stinger and Claws, it will still feels worse. An enemy losing 10Ft Speed in Melee combat isn't as much a problem if players have to close in anyways, compared to a player having to deal with that same crippling injury all fight against enemies that run from them/chase them down & ranged attack.
One thing:
I think your spot on with your analysis, that attrition (without actual attrition besides spells, usables and certain abilities for the most part) is a bad basis for combat. But what I have to say:
All combat, that is kinda "to the death/ until someone gives up" without a clear goal besides "destroying the enemy" will degenerate to a slog.
Even if the injuries make the combat more fluctuating, the problem is still that the both sides don't have a proper goal.
That's what you should have.
That's abought actual tactics. A lot of game designers miss this, because DnD (5e especially) is absolute crap at this. If you came from a game that has very slow healing like me or better from a wargame, where just clobbering the enemy most often won't do you any good, but playing the objective will win you the match even if your force has been demolished, you'd alteady know that.
I think your system is pretty good, but I really think, that you didn't get to the actual problem.
What you need is a system to make encounters matter by establishing goals for both/all sides. Something that helps GMs do that fast and help players grasp the concept.
@@felixheitzer2262 I 100% agree with you on this. Without something at stake, what is the point of fighting anyway? I think games should have scenarios with goals that are more than "death match".
Having said all that, the combat "engine" still very much matters, as that controls the palette that the GM can paint with, as it were. If the way the players can interact with the foes in a scene is constrained and only attrition-based, then it limits their ability to problem-solve outside of simply inflicting harm.
(I think you and I are on the same page, just diggin' into the details!)
Shadowrun is kind like that regarding conditions of injuries
Yeah! Shadowrun sometimes gets a bad rap for its complexity, but there is much to learn from it!
I think you're going to have a very niche audience if you're more concerned with dramatic tension via lethality and injuries vs keeping some semblance of heroic fantasy.
Not saying the community isn't interested in a game with more verisimilitude when it comes to yo-yo-ing at 1hp, but i think star wars is a good example of not becoming a bag of hp and incorporating crits for hitting woun/strain thresholds (though that could benefit from a good overhaul) and matt colville is another good example of increasing the cinematic aspect with actions and effects on the field apart from attrtition.
I'm okay with niche :)
Really, the goal isn't to compete with the likes of MCDM or D&D; TFE is aiming for action-horror, which doesn't give a sense of heroic fantasy, but rather a sense of danger and intensity.
It's going to be even more niche, 'cuz the first setting is post apocalyptic weird west!!
Appreciate the feedback and commentary!
Oh. I see. I get what this video is going for. Yet I also see ways this can be improved. I think it is best to stick to using hit points. It is a tried and true method. I think one of the reason why it works so well is that is is so streamlined and straightforward. Hit points can be done in a way that isn't such a slog. Characters don't have to have a ton of hit points. There also doesn't need to be a lot of math. If I combine the hits on the sheet, there is a total of eight. So each creature has eight hit points, and each attack has one damage. It is funny that there is eight. I use a more complex hit point system. Even then I figure that hit points should be eight times the attack damage in a level. Either way it means the battle takes an equal amount of turns.
I see an interest in status conditions. I don't like that to be connected to hit points. The resulting death spiral is unplesent. I did think up of an alternative. It is a good thing this video came out around the time of the realease of the new DND Player Handbook. One of my favorite new features is weapon mastery. I recommend checking that out. The whole book is awesome by the way. This little indie game would greatly benefit from using a similar system. Each kind weapon deals damage and has some extra bonus. This bonus will definitely be good for adding status effects. One kind of weapon deals one damage and slows down the opponent. Another kind deals damage and knocks the opponent prone. Another kind does damage whether the attack roll hits or misses. This is so forth. It is a really cool system to spice things up. I don't recomend making a distintion of body parts. That is too convoluted. There is an alternative. Critical hits can turn into a wepon mastery feature. The attack deals two damage instead of one. However it doesn't deal any status conditions. A gun or bow would be good candidates for this weopon feature. It gives the idea of doing headshots and getting critical hits. One could choose whether to do extra damage or do some status condition or other effect. Making such a decision would be interesting. Weapon mastery can leads to fun tactics. If every kind of weopn has a special effect, it makes combat more interesting.
I got more ideas to build on this system. This is something to consider. One idea is a super simple proficiency system. That is brilliant. DND has proficiency. When a character gets to be higher level, their proficiency goes up. This is mainly added to attack role. I use proficiency in my game. I make it a bit more elaborate. I make it go up every level. An attribute (ability scores) is the proficiency plus the class bonus. Attributes come in pairs of opposites. Every attribute that raises one value has another that decreases the same value. The most basic is damage. The total damage is the base damage plus the offense attribute of the user minus the defense attribute of the opponent. Both attributes have proficiency. If both fighters are the same level, they have the same proficiency. This causes proficiency to cancel out. This makes calculations easier. Generally players should fight opponents of the same level to simplify the math. For the game in the video, there can be a simple proficiency system. The proficiency is equal to the level. Level one characters get a proficiency of one. Level two characters get a proficiency of two. And so forth. If two fighters are the same level, the fight works normally. Each deal one damage. If one fighter is one level higher, they deal two damage. If they are three levels higher, they deal three damage. Addition is an easy way to calculate with damage. The downside is that super defensive characters are impossible to kill. If defense is high enough, the damage goes to zero. In a hot point system this simple, there is a high chance of that happening. I did think of a rule to fix this. I call it the chip damage rule. I wonder if that be even programmed in a computer using an if then statement. If the damage calculation causes the damage to be equal or less than zero, then the total damage is one. If the damage calculation is greater than zero, the amount is used for the total damage.
Another idea I have is spell effects. Magic spells tend to come in elemental types. DND has this. Pokemon is an extreme example. Spells can contribute to the status effects too. It is like weapon mastery, but with elements. A fire spell can do one damage and cause the burn condition. An ice spell can do damage and cause the frozen condition. There are other spells like that, and give other effects. An electric spell gives the paralyzed condition. A poison spell gives the poison condition. A psychic spell gives the confusion condition. An earth spell causes a blinded condition or reduces accuracy. An air spell blows the opponent back. There are many attacks. Magicians can even have their version of a critical hit. There can be a force spell or energy spell. It deals two damage and has no status condition. Spells can contribute to the fun and strategy of status conditions.
Thanks for the detailed responses! Much to consider and chew on!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGamesYour Welcome. I later videos you actually have the new DND Player Handbook. So you can look into weapon mastery.
Sounds interesting. Very reminiscent of some editions of Shadow Run
my god, this is the best combat system i ever known about. My top three are: 3. genesys 2. fate 1. yours. IT ALWAYS BOTHERED ME that rpg batttle systems are zero narrative and total sheets of stats grinding on one another
@@JoãoCéSteil Wow, that's such high praise!! Thank you so much for your support!
So the meta is to get a weapon that can deal critical damage and aim for the head to make it lethal, then you can 1 shot anything, and nothing else matters. Also the GM now has to deal with #fancy descriptors and improve some additional effect based on the words on the fly to make combat more interesting.
Thanks for the feedback!
Being able to hit the Ace is definitely deadly, but also the hardest location to hit. There is certainly risk/reward with that approach!
There actually isn't a lot of necessary improvisation in combat, as most weapons provide the baseline of what they'd do.
Have you tried other Wound based systems? BitD, Fate, Savage Worlds - a lot of these leverage similar abstractions, if memory serves 🤠
This seems similar to Blackstone Fortress' wound system and the drawback for your idea is that each character would need a physical dashboard to place tokens and counters-otherwise things get confusing as people remember half the time to apply their penalties. Usually the burden falls on the GM. The dashboard solves this problem. Not a bad thing, but something to think about. Also, plenty of games allow called shots which introduces an "all or nothing" mechanic where the tradeoff is probability to hit for removal of the enemy in one shot. Finally, if you're hung up on zombies, one hit from them should be fatal- you have been bitten, well now you are a zombie-simple. I would also say that you have missed skill- hit points are not the only way a player increases in power- competency is key. I see this system straining under the weight of reflecting skill increase of a more competent PC as they grow and evolve in combat proficiency. I would be interested to get a copy of your system and put it to playtest. Are there copies available for purchase?
@@jnlsnfamily8747 thanks so much for your feedback and interest!
We're working on the free Quick Start Rules for the system, which will come with pre-gen characters and a one-shot adventure. Stay tuned in the coming weeks for its release!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames thanks for not getting upset at me! You have some interesting ideas and I would love to get under the hood with my player group!
@@jnlsnfamily8747 Of course! I appreciate all feedback, positive and negative! It's one of the big reasons we decided to "go public" with the game before any full launch - we want to involve the community!
If you're interested in chatting with our (small) team and the long-term playtesters, there's a link to the TFE Discord on my UA-cam homepage. It's just gettin' rolling, but there are a handful of us active throughout the day and we're always happy to chat!
man played hangman once
Hangman is peak gaming :D
The main idea sounds super neat, but I wonder how enemies are designed. A player keeping track of their Strain and Injuries is simple enough.. but if you have to handle several foes at once as the GM, it sounds veeeery book-keepy. How do you handle this?
@@freyaut this is actually a challenge that we're still iterating on, as it is definitely a concern.
One solution is a short-hand notation where the GM writes down simple letters/numbers to denote the tracking per enemy. We're also working on a printable "Threat Sheet" that would have a quick tracker for several enemies.
The game doesn't, generally, use large numbers of durable enemies simply due to its deadlines. But it's a very valid concern!
This sounds like a decent idea for a video where we share we discuss this and get some feedback from the community!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames looking forward to that. Imo most trpgs are really designed with players in mind, not GMs.. which is weird considering who has to do most of the heavy lifting. I really came to appreciate OSR games for how the approach enemy design: small and concise stat blocks, easy to use, easy to reference.
@@freyaut That's a very good point. Having run three long-term campaigns using TFE (throughout testing), I did find that the toolbox given the GMs is evocative and fun, but it is definitely a different mental load that it's asking of 'em.
Once we're able to distribute free testing documents, I look forward to hearing folks' feedback on the GM tools/experience!
I've mostly ran high powered fantasy games like Exalted, Godbound and currently Age of Sigmar. But this geniunely sounds interesting. I didn't expect to like it at least conceptually since I generally hate injury systems.
That is high praise!
How are you liking Age of Sigmar? I haven't flipped through an edition since the first one..what, 10 years ago?
I thought it had a lot of juicy crunch, but found it a bit on the demanding-side, math/calc-wise.
(TBH, I'm more of a 40k fan!)
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames in playing AoS Soulbound which is very much its own thing compared to the old Warhammer Fantasy books. It's my go-to rules medium Fantasy adventure game. Very epic in scope. Let's you play as a dragon. Granted it's a dragon about the size of a draft horse but still a dragon, not a humanoid dragon race.
@@WanderingMendicant-qd7mv nice!
Are extreme scale difference an expected part of this system? I'm thinking building sized dragons or individual mini fairies? I can imagine one or two layers of resistances/vulnerability would do part of the job, I just found in my designs this is where injury systems can become weird. (Can I really cripple a giant with lucky punch?)
Still an interesting design space compared to death by a thousand irrelevant strikes !
This is actually a big design challenge we've been having when designing Threats (what we call monsters/enemies).
What we're experimenting with is what I'm going to call the "Megazord" approach - where the giant creature is actually composed of several individual Injury Trackers that compose the greater creature.
For example, a dragon the size of a building wouldn't just have "more" injury slots, but instead each of its tree-trunk legs would have its own tracker, and that limb would only be disabled if sufficiently injured.
The dragon would then only be killable by, say, exposing its furnace-like heart and stabbing after sufficiently crippling/disabling it.
For very small creatures, like a faerie, that would be represented by having no injury slots at all (or maybe only a single Strain box), meaning any successful Injury just instantly kills them - because if you cannot write an Injury into your tracker, you just die immediately.
A great question! We'll eventually be tackling threat design on this channel and hope to get lots of feedback on it!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames that make sense to me from a player perspective, especially if they're meant to be special fights.
In my own project I'm contemplating shifting the impact of creatures on each other based on their relative scale. That way two fairies or two dragons can fist-fight at the regular rate while players intervening would see their impact amplified or reduced unless they take special measures.
(Like using a ballista, a dragon-bane sword or climbing to reach a weakspot)
In that way if you want to sever a huge limb you'd also need to score several high impact hits to get to an actual serious wound using conventional weapons.
Of course by normalizing wounds slots I'm also making these big fights work like normal ones which isn't necessarily the coolest most evocative way of handling it.
@@JeanPhilippeBoucher Oh that's a very clever solution! It would let you "zoom in" or "zoom out" as needed, depending on the desired scale.
The challenge is going to be balancing that mixed scale situation, but I think that'll pan out nicely!
First edition Kult did something very similar with wound levels.
@@danielclark7076 I need to catch out Kult, I keep hearing about in in TTRPG circles!
This is pretty cool, I'm wondering how armor or protection will work in such a system and also fatigue/tiredness
But I like that it both allows targeting and make things much more tangible than HP
I think I'd really like to implement your system in an ICRPG modern/cyberpunk game to see how it goes
One thing I'm wondering also is how do you determine how many slots of each kind should a character have but I think it allows for interesting customization as well
Thanks!!
Exhaustion is handled by Strain; a player character has between 3 and 9 Strain boxes. Some special features let you Strain yourself to activate powerful abilities.
Armor works as mitigation, reducing the severity of an injury received. Basically, it's just a form of Resistance!
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames you're welcome!
That's good and feels sensible!
Makes sense as well!
I like those answers, looking forward to more information about the game but it's looking very promising!
I like this a lot, kind of like fate, but more info-dense.
Thanks! It's tough balancing mechanical needs with evocative language for injuries, but we're pretty happy with where we ended up :)
So the Fate Injury System with specific tags?
I'd maybe argue it's more like Blades in the Dark's Harm system with a dash of Fate's Injury System haha. Those other titles are definitely sources of inspiration! 🤠
I like how the design/design of this but some things have me very puzzled. How do you roll for a hit? I'm assuming that a Hit and a Damage roll can't be the same because otherwise the system doesn't make sense when it comes to head-hits (make it harder but also make it upgrade severity means it cancels out) and weapons dealing more damage would mean they are also much easier to hit, which makes no sense that a club is harder to hit and deal damage while a gunshot is pretty easy to hit AND does more damage.
Good questions!
So TFE uses an "attack roll" type check to see if you've hit the intended location. Without going into all the specifics of all the dice and systems, it basically works like this:
How hard it is to hit is based on (1) how far away you are and (2) where you target.
Each range increment further you are, you have 20% less chance to hit. Targeting the brim is 20% less accurate than the bulk, and the ace is 40% less accurate than the bulk. (Characters can react to being shot at by diving for cover, but the reaction system is a conversation for another day!)
Melee weapons may not be as deadly as a firearm, but it is much, much easier to hit somethin' right in front of you than it is when it's 50ft away. (I think anyone who has shot a firearm can attest that accuracy at distance is much harder than the movies make it out to be haha)
I wonder if there will be rules/charts for GMless co-op or solo play? Monster behavior in the style of Vagabond would be cool
@@dinkleberg684 Honestly, I don't have any experience designing for solo/GM-less, but that would make for a really cool small expansion/zine to the main game!
Where can i get my hands on a playtest version of this? Ive been on and off attempting to develop a homebrew tabletop rpg for personal use, and i feel the same way about hp.
My concerns are the obvious death spiral, but also the scalability in terms of equipment and progression. I want combats that are fast, tactical, and deadly. There is also the concern of players themselves being one tapped out of the game, though there are a few solutions.
Thanks for your interest! We don't quite have the Quick Start Rules ready yet, which includes pregens and a one-shot adventure, but we hope to have that ready in the next few weeks!!
Have you looked at HârnMaster’s injury system. What you describe has similarities. This is like HârnMaster and wound levels from The D6 System had a baby.
Ope. I lied. That first baby had its own baby with Cairn’s Critical Damage.
I haven't yet looked at HarnMaster! Someone else was just recommending that, too! I need to track down a copy! Thanks for the req!! 🤠
@@TalesFromElsewhereGames PDFs are available on DriveThru and from the Columbia Games website. A physical copy is available from Columbia Games too. By far my favorite “simulationist high crunch” rules system.
there was not, in fact, a link in the description
Oh my bad, description updated with a link to the previous video! (if that's what you're referring to)