Dark «Experience points»(Highlander style RL)

[Kraken(rpgworld)]

At the Russian RPG forums for many years was a debate about the realistic explanation of DND HP and «Experience points».
As a result, the disputants came to the conclusion that these things can not be a realistic explanation. In a world where they exist, they must be based on things having no analogue in the real world.
The closest to the real world - New Guinea cannibals believed that by eating human, they take away his soul, and along part of its strength. This society is very different from today - many people ate as a child, and in front of the huts of veterans adorned with pyramids from 20-30.
human skulls
Im is confident that the society in which there is an opportunity to increase its power level to the beyond simply killing others, will be very different from the real, and not for the better.
In the fantasy-universe most closely is the "Highlander", where the hero kills another hero receives a portion of its forces.

In adapting these ideas to the Raven, we can get some very interesting things.
My idea is this.
HP and «Experience points» is the supernatural energies. «Experience points» can be obtained only by killing its owner.
In this version the life of adventurers becomes much darker and scarier.
In addition it explains the attraction of Ravenloft to low-level adventurers.

[alhoon]

Personally I prefer keeping the game as a game, without trying to explain things like hp and XP. With all their flaws (and being completely not realistic is just one of them), they do a very good job in keeping me (as a player) and my players (as a DM) entertained.

[Jack of Tears]

A couple issues about this. First, Hit Points are an abstraction to define all sorts of things that happen to a player, including exhaustion during combat. When one takes hp damage they are not taking a full shot from an arrow or sword, but being grazed, pushed back, slightly injured, and so forth. As one is worn out from numerous small wounds and weariness from fighting, they lose hit points to reflect this. Even when being hit by a fireball you're not taking the brunt of the explosion, and catching fire, but being blown about and scorched by the heat ... burns are likely, but you're not really taking enough damage to kill 10 normal men. (in 2E the average non adventurer has 1d4 hit points) If it is your desire to maintain some realism in the game, it is very important you realize that many aspects of DnD are abstracted for the sake of a game. (in real life combat there are simply too many variables to handle eloquently in a game ... there have been systems which tried to do this as they were so bogged down as to be nearly unplayable; see "Riddle of Steel" as an example)

Experience points, on the other hand, are both an abstraction and a somewhat realistic idea. No, suddenly gaining a load of power as you level up isn't real, but improving through practicing your skills is. Indeed, one often has "ah hah!" moments of recognition and discovery when studying just about any field - including combat. Considering most PCs are also predominately self taught, as they start the game with only the basic understandings in their fields and must learn most of the rest while "on the road", it is even more appropriate that sudden epiphanies should strike them during study, as they discover an easier way to perform a spell, or finally see the weakness in a certain attack or defense. They are EXPERIENCE points, because they are gained through the act of experiencing things. (which is why failing at a goal should give experience just as succeeding does ... each one teaches a lesson, after all - to a point; though sometimes all one learns from success or failure is that you have succeeded, or failed - which is why you don't gain abilities every session.)

Second, the reason low level adventurers adventure in Ravenloft is because, typically, they have no choice. Ravenloft games are more interested in investigation and thinking as a means to overcome them, than face to face, blow for blow, combat. Research is an important word Van Richten often preaches about in his works and one your PCs should get quite familiar with. Quite often, as a matter of fact, characters may begin as normal people being sucked into a situation by circumstance, rather than a desire to go out and find excitement. (in fact, the idea of the heroic "adventurer", as conceived in Sword and Sorcery games is not really appropriate for Ravenloft PCs)

The only people who gain power from killing others in Ravenloft are monsters. Undead (demons, etc) who feed on the life force of others gain power through doing so as part of their corrupted and inhuman nature. It would not be appropriate to use this "highlander" style philosophy in Ravenloft ... indeed, it would destroy the fundamental underpinnings which hold civilization together. (the idea that we are better off helping one another than killing them) All you get in a world like the one you describe is Anarchy.

[Kraken(rpgworld)]

after watching "Cannibal Holocaust" the players have decided to try a test game.
impressions were good - the rules flawed, but the idea they are interested.
first implementation, in their view was more similar than a "Highlander" and to "Parasite Eve" (and its "Parasite Energy").

2 Jack of Tears:
THX for the reminder HP.
Standard DND`s adventurer - it's mighty supernatural hero in the style of Conan, or Robin Hood, Merlin.
The standard weapon does not cause them bleeding or loss of limb (you need a magic weapon, for example "sword of sharpness")

[HuManBing]

This was another thing I tried very hard to rationalize, because I wanted my RPGs to be grittier and more realistic than DnD.

I agree with Jack of Tears. DnD as a system doesn't support that sort of realism-based approach very well.

It might be worth looking at another system if that aspect is important to you. From what I've seen, some "grim and gritty" systems (regarding HP) include: TriStat dX, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, GURPS, and Call of Cthulhu. Maybe that helps.

[Kraken(rpgworld)]

This was another thing I tried very hard to rationalize, because I wanted my RPGs to be grittier and more realistic than DnD.

In DND RPG dragons can fly (in the real laws of physics it is impossible), undead skeleton can walk without leg muscles, can see without eyes, can speak without tongue.
Generic DND is fantasy adventures, have nothing in common with realism.

[alhoon]

In DND RPG dragons can fly (in the real laws of physics it is impossible.

Eh... why? If they had sufficiently strong and large wings, I don't see why not.

[Manofevil]

They would also have to have hollow bones like birds.

[alhoon]

Well, the weight of the interior of a dragon's bones isn't really substancial since they're so thin compared to their wings.

[DasSoviet]

Draconomicon basically solved that with the more 'realistic' wing-to-body mass ratios et al. Plus, they're dragons, primordial beasts of magic. If it comes down to it, just wave it off as 'it's a colossal reptilian beast millenia old with the inborn powers of the greatest of wizards... you try telling it that it shouldn't be able to fly.' Has worked for me in the past

And personally, HP is far more arbitrary than XP... you get XP in a number of ways, not just from killing. Disarming traps, solving puzzles, dealing with social events, completing side tasks... any challenge that results in the PCs learning something new gives them some experience points. Yes, levelling up in one big leap in a bit clunky, as is defining others as 'about equal in power to a 7th level adventurer,' but it's a relatively easy and straightforward system to understand and follow. XP-less systems can work, but I always find myself coming back to d20 because it removes concepts like XP from the inbuilt lore of the system, allowing me to do whatever I want with it (yay customizability.)

Same thing with HP... yes, I'd be happier if it was a bit less abstract, but it is very easy to understand - 0, you're unconscious, -10, you're dead. Personally, I like wounding systems better, but the HP system works, and I've found that, at least from my experiences, the things that scare the living daylights out of a player are not things that can kill them in a few swipes, it's the beasts than can drive them mad with a touch, turn them to stone with a glare, or turn them into mindless slaves with a few choice words - things that ignore how tough a character is, save or die. Those really get the players worked up and thinking (even with a merciful DM with a tendency to flub rolls in the players favour, like myself)

[HuManBing]

I found myself pining for a system where spells, abilities, and combat bonuses etc. could all be purchased with XP, thus allowing the player and DM to customize the characters (with the XP cost being a sort of ad hoc indicator of relative power, for balancing purposes). I had my first taste of this with TriStat dX, and then again with Star Frontiers. Eventually I settled into GURPS, which seemed to be most customizable for medieval fantasy.

If you stay with DnD, you'll need to reconcile yourself to the conceptual abstraction of HP, and the mathematical arbitrariness of the XP-as-milestone system. If your focus is on other things - storytelling, problem solving - and not on historical verisimilitude, then that's not necessarily a problem.

For me, the first step was towards a more gritty system, primarily to wave players away from combat and more towards sleuthing and social interaction as problem-solvers. (Especially important in the Ravenloft games I run.) That meant I was rewriting DnD rules to the point where it was just simpler to jump system.

[Morte Rouge]

Personally, I'd be all for giving away more HP at first level and then ruling that only feats, skills, etc. are gained at the post-beginning levels. E6 carried to the next level.

[Kraken(rpgworld)]

In DND RPG dragons can fly (in the real laws of physics it is impossible)

I apologize for the inaccuracy.
According to the laws of aerodynamics wings of dragons can fly only in the backward mode.
However, the correct example of this flight, I've only seen in the legendary Russian cartoon "Nu Pogodi"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nu,_pogodi!

[Jimsolo]

It might be worth looking at another system if that aspect is important to you. From what I've seen, some "grim and gritty" systems (regarding HP) include: TriStat dX, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, GURPS, and Call of Cthulhu. Maybe that helps.

Deadlands had a pretty gritty, fairly realistic, and utterly brutal wound tracking system. Sigh. I miss that game...

I once explained XP to someone not as something you earn, but as a measure of what you've proved you already have. (This is kind of complicated, but it was the only way I could get him to understand why he didn't get MORE xp for getting beaten up by a giant than he did for killing the giant.) The train of thought was that if you kill a monster, you've proved that you have learned a higher degree of combat expertise. You get a numeric amount of xp to represent what you've already proven you possess. The same goes with role playing xp. (I give it out for acting in accordance with alignment, or for successful dealings in a social situation, or successful navigation of mental conundrums.) Success is rewarded, while failure is not. (Okay, it is, but to a much smaller degree.) I've seen a couple of players embrace this idea whole-heartedly, while other people have told me it's "literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard." (An actual quote from a player.)

I never really had a problem with the DMG explanation that hp not only represents your ability to take a hit, but your ability to turn a lethal blow into a glancing one. When an ogre hits a PC at level 3 for twenty points of damage, I might tell him, "The ogre batters your sword aside, crushing your shoulder with the same stroke. You recover your balance, but just barely. Another hit like that will probably take you out." By tenth level, when the PC has broken the big-boy barrier (what my group calls hitting 100 hp) I might say of the same attack and damage: "The ogre takes a baseball swing at you with the club. You manage to skip back just far enough that you only feel the wind whipping across your face. Still, you're fairly sure that if he connects solidly, you could be in real trouble."

I know it's a little abstract, but I think that the more realistic a wounding system gets, the more lethal it gets. I like forgiving combat systems, which make it easier for DMs. In Deadlands, which I mentioned previously, (or in the d20 Star Wars or Babylon 5 games, both of which had much more realistic and lethal wound systems) it was very easy for a handful of flukey rolls to be able to wipe a party out.

Nevertheless, your variant XP system could work. Am I correct in understanding, Kraken, that you would be denying them XP for killing things without a life force? No xp for killing undead or constructs? And no xp for traps? Not judging, just trying to get a better handle on what you're thinking about doing.

[Cam]

I endorse the Deadlands citation above. Aces & Eights is also another great, gritty Western RPG with good combat/wound systems that are more realistic than normal D&D systems. I don't mind the fact that standard D&D wound systems are a bit unrealistic -- I use a homebrew variant of the AD&D 2E critical hit system in my games to make up for this a little bit -- but Aces & Eights is a great resource if anyone is looking to spice things up.

(This doesn't have much to do with hit points, but I am often tempted to use some variant of the ranged combat system from Aces & Eights in D&D. If anyone here ever does that, please post about it. Would love to hear how it works out.)