brp ❤️ Hit Points ❤️ vs. 💪 Hit Locations 💪

[icebrand]

Hi guys!!! Of course not only i want to know what you prefer, but also why!!

I always used hit locations as GM, but i remember playing stormbringer and it was very nice and fast (though the random armor felt... Off)

What are your experiences? Anyone changed any game (RQ, SB, CoC) to use the other option?

Edited December 2, 2021 by icebrand

[Lloyd Dupont]

Halt, stop right there!

Some weapon (I am looking at Halberd, but I am pretty sure they are not the only one) and also firearms... damage is crazy is you use location hit points. Use Mythras combat, weapon and spell damage if you want hit location is my advice! 😉 

[Alex]

I don't understand the premise of the question (much less why it'd be a poll).  All(?) BRP games have HPs.  Is the question more correctly just "hit locations or not?", perhaps?

[Lloyd Dupont]

BTW, forgot to answer the question....
once I started using location HP, I noticed my players were very fond it, mostly because they love to chop heads I suspect, so I had trouble reverting to general HP... So, here you go!

Edited December 2, 2021 by Lloyd Dupont

[Atgxtg]

I prefer hit locations over general hit points. My reason are:

1.  It gives you more variance with the armor
2. It allows people to be incapacitated without necessarily being killed.
3. I also prefer fixed armor to random armor. At least to the current random armor which tends to protect less than fixed armor.

[Mugen]

Err...

I like using hit locations for Major Wounds and armor, but don't like having localized Hit Points.

It seems it looks more like answer #1, but I'm not sure.

[Kloster]

Except for Superworld (Superpowered damage would obliterate any hit location for every hit), I very much prefer hit locations. It has a better feeling (for me), allows for localized effects, armor variation, better healing rules.

[albesias]

I like both. Maybe for straight s&s settings I would choose major wounds and for grimdark hit locations. 

[Atgxtg]

8 hours ago, albesias said:

I like both. Maybe for straight s&s settings I would choose major wounds and for grimdark hit locations. 

Which is funny because in game they play the opposite way. Most of the grimdark BRP games (CoC, Stormbringer)use general hit points, because it's more deadly than hit locations.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

I used to prefer hit locations, when I were a lad and spent 30 hours a week gaming. In theory I still do, but practicalities of age = picking up loads of other things to do over the years, and the limitations of online gaming, have me firmly in the general hit points camp. It's just so much faster, and short sessions can't devote hours to each combat.

[Kloster]

11 hours ago, albesias said:

Maybe for straight s&s settings I would choose major wounds and for grimdark hit locations. 

I would say the opposite. For me, sword and sorcery settings almost require hit locations and general hit points/major wounds/variable armor are heresy (probably because of my very bad experiences with SB), and contemporary settings, whether superpowered or not, with the damage of modern weapons, almost forbid hit locations, because a limb is almost obliterated with each hit.

[g33k]

For me, hit-locations, & HP/location!

I love the way the combat flows directly as a dramatic narrative... all I have to do is narrate the dice, such as "Ooo, that was a nasty blow to his leg, he's limping a bit... another hit and he won't be able to walk!" or "You think that blow broke your arm... your sword falls from suddenly-limp fingers."

I also House Rule "the Drama of 0 HP's" -- at exactly zero, a location MAY be (marginally) functional.  A DEX roll will keep you hobbling, but upright, on a 0-HP leg.  It will keep you holding on to a light object with a 0-HP arm.  A CON roll will keep you breathing with a 0-HP chest.  You can remain conscious, though not "active," via a POW roll with with a 0-HP head.

 

35 minutes ago, Kloster said:

... contemporary settings, whether superpowered or not, with the damage of modern weapons, almost forbid hit locations, because a limb is almost obliterated with each hit.

Absolutely!  I love hit-locations... but not once we get modern, for this very reason!

 

[soltakss]

In RQ combat I like to know where I am hitting or where I am hot.

Personally, I find games without Hit Locations unsatisfying.

[DreadDomain]

Like others, I prefer hit locations when it comes to combat heavy, grittier style of games. Having said that, a system with hit locations does not necessarily track hp per location even if it tracks armor and damage effects per location. GURPS is a good example of that.

For more heroic, flashier, pulpier combat, hit locations are not necessary or even not advised. Definitely no hit location in superheroic games. The location becomes a narrative flourish to support the result.

[olskool]

Give me Hit Locations every time.  I like my crunch!  

[Greville]

I'm a bit late to the party here, but I'll give my answer.

I prefer hit locations:

• I like the piecemeal approach to armour, it just feels a bit more gritty.
• Using hit locations gives you more options in combat, especially if you want to disable someone quickly without killing them outright.
• It makes combat feel more dangerous than using the major wound system. You can loose the use of a limb due to several hits, rather than just massive ones.

That being said in games where I want less combat I don't use hit locations, which is mostly just Call of Cthulhu.

[Chaot]

I am allergic to hit locations. Had I scene the poll my vote would have gone to hit points.

[Cloud64]

To rebalance the poll after Chaot's comment - no contrarianism intended I assure you 🙂 - I have to go with hit locations. This is on the grounds that even of the system we're playing doesn't use them, I like to roll for location as it makes narrating the hit and its effect easier. 

Edited January 1, 2022 by Cloud64

[SDLeary]

6 hours ago, Cloud64 said:

To rebalance the poll after Chaot's comment - no contrarianism intended I assure you 🙂 - I have to go with hit locations. This is on the grounds that even of the system were playing doesn't use them, I like to roll for location as it makes narrating the hit and its effect easier. 

And in this vein, I like to use Hit Locations, as well as HP. 

Location values are not ablative, they are not hit points. Rather, they are the Major Wound threshold values for that Location. Above that value in a single blow is a Major Wound.

Damage done is still deducted from the HP pool.

When I use this, I tend to use heroic hit point levels, which skews the locational values up as well, so as to not be too too lethal.

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

11 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Location values are not ablative, they are not hit points. Rather, they are the Major Wound threshold values for that Location. Above that value in a single blow is a Major Wound.

Damage done is still deducted from the HP pool.

 

I think that's my favored way of handling Hit points/injuries. Basically the location is good to see what body part gets hit, and what the effects are, but not for hit point per location. 

[DreadDomain]

On 1/1/2022 at 3:03 PM, SDLeary said:

And in this vein, I like to use Hit Locations, as well as HP. 

Location values are not ablative, they are not hit points. Rather, they are the Major Wound threshold values for that Location. Above that value in a single blow is a Major Wound.

Damage done is still deducted from the HP pool.

When I use this, I tend to use heroic hit point levels, which skews the locational values up as well, so as to not be too too lethal.

SDLeary

That is the GURPS and HERO way of managing hit locations. To be fair something similar can be achieved if the Major Wounds table would be segregated by hit locations. MW would still be triggered by half hit points but consequences would be calibrated by the MW table.

[SDLeary]

17 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

That is the GURPS and HERO way of managing hit locations. To be fair something similar can be achieved if the Major Wounds table would be segregated by hit locations. MW would still be triggered by half hit points but consequences would be calibrated by the MW table.

Perhaps, but this way you still show the varying sensitivity of differing areas to damage; you can also vary that if you so desire. For example, because the Head is a lot more sensitive than most other parts of the body, I'll often reduce the value from .25 to .20.

Also, this way you can still use current values in your favorite version of BRP for armor-by-location.

SDLeary

Edited January 3, 2022 by SDLeary

[DreadDomain]

24 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

Perhaps, but this way you still show the varying sensitivity of differing areas to damage; you can also vary that if you so desire. For example, because the Head is a lot more sensitive than most other parts of the body, I'll often reduce the value from .25 to .20.

Also, this way you can still use current values in your favorite version of BRP for armor-by-location.

SDLeary

Good point. In a system like this, a major wound does not have to be ½ HP. It could also be ¼, 1/3, 1/5 depending on the location. 

[Mugen]

On 1/3/2022 at 3:35 AM, DreadDomain said:

Good point. In a system like this, a major wound does not have to be ½ HP. It could also be ¼, 1/3, 1/5 depending on the location. 

You mean we could use RQ values for HP/location, basically? Except it seems you disagree on which value should be used on specific locations.

[DreadDomain]

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

You mean we could use RQ values for HP/location, basically?

This is not what I meant but yes, absolutely!

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

Except it seems you disagree on which value should be used on specific locations.

Do I? I don't even recall stating what I think the right values should be. Mainly because I believe many options are valid.