Hit locations

[snorri]

I was reading the hit location system in Sup. II: Blackmoor. Its problem, as often quoted, is there are not enough hit points in od&d to make it useful.

What if using the system without dividing hit points by body area? Every part have the full PC's amount of hps. Ie, if a 2nd level fighter has 9 hps, he gets 9 hps in head, 9 hp in torso and so on.

It makes characters far much more resistant, but the system is now easy to use. To keep the game quick and easy, it could be used only for PC's and major NPCs / Monsters, while others have only global hit points. For an heroic sword & sorcery feeling it could be not too bad.

[Finarvyn]

First, a disclaimer -- I tried the hit location charts decades ago and abandoned them because:
1. I didn't like the added details
2. I didn't like the "gritty realism" of characters getting limbs hacked off.

Keep in mind that the hit location system already gives a character around 2.5 times their regular HP, (assuming I am reading the chart correctly and each leg gets 25% rather than both legs getting a total of 25%, for example), so the characters are getting that benefit already. The trade off is that while they get 2.5 times the total HP, these extra HP are then divided up in many smaller parts. Good news, bad news.

I don't think I would give each body part identical HP as you suggest, but perhaps introduce a multiplier first and then divide up the point second. This way the head is still a really vital area but the body not so much so.

For example, a 20 HP character would have 3 HP in his head (15%) and 16 HP in his chest. Why not simply mulitply all of the numbers by 2 and give 6 HP in the head and 32 HP in the chest?

[dwayanu]

As mentioned in The First Fantasy Campaign, Dave started characters with from 0 to 100 HP, and gave them better "saving throws" against hits (rather than more points) as they advanced in level.

Here's an idea that is a bit complex, but not as much as my train-of-thought presentation may make it seem:

RuneQuest uses a similar system, but the different numbers may be significant. A character (in 1st ed.) with "total" HP (not the sum of locations, but their basis) equal to a Constitution score of 10-12 gets 3 points per arm, 4 to each leg and to head and abdomen, and 5 points to the chest. Typical damage rolls are a bit higher than in D&D, but armor reduces damage (by up to 6 points for plate or full helm).

Basically, I suggest distinguishing "body" points from "level" points.

One might assign "body" HP on a basis of Constitution, as in RuneQuest. The RQ Size and Power attributes also affect HP, but those are subsumed in the Hit Dice of big (or magical) critters in D&D.

As suggested in All the Worlds' Monsters III, a notably large monster's HD could be used to roll a SIZ score. In RQ, that would give an HP modifier of (1/4 SIZ, rounded up)-3: +1 for 13-16, +2 for 17-20, etc. (to total HP, not to each location).

That method is just a first approximation, sometimes yielding silly results (in which case one would be advised to base SIZ on description and comparison with similar RQ beasties).

More straightforwardly (not concerned with RQ), one might take 3d6 for one-HD monsters and add as many HD as seem to reflect size and toughness. "Eyeball" it! As I recall, Gary in AD&D noted that he thought of HP for creatures larger than men as representing mostly sheer physical resistance to harm -- whereas they were mostly more abstract for high-level characters.

A table of rounded-off values (perhaps even based on the average of a range of HP scores, even if they would give slightly different values by location) can be a big help.

Any left-over HD (perhaps including the first for 1st-level characters, or at least the fighting man's +1 pip in the original set) would serve as normal D&D HP of the energy / divine favor / sixth sense / defensive skill etc. (i.e., not serious wounds) sort.

HEALING: To have a rate per location for body points would reflect the concept that many minor wounds heal more quickly than one major wound.

[Starbeard]

I use a Chime of Opening to reopen this thread.

Forgive my shoegazing, I'm sure this conundrum was already old news fifteen years ago when the fledgling OSR first started diving into the Supplements. But I've never actually tried Blackmoor's hit location system, not even hypothetically in solo tests, so I'm only finally attempting to understand it now as I pick through the Supplements to play around with all the bits I've glossed over previously.

Everything about the system seems straightforward enough, until we get to the Weapon/Height Adjustment Matrix. It can be confusing, and it confused me for a while… so hopefully someone else who decides to tackle this section of the Blackmoor Supplement will find the following helpful.

Here's the quote:

Number to the left of "N's" show what may be hit (Ex. — 6' attacker vs. 3' defender, both humanoid; matrix reads '40', i.e. only head or upper chest may be hit.) Number to the right of "N's" show what may not be hit. (Ex. — 4' attacker vs. 8' defender; matrix = 60, i.e. only arms or legs may be struck).

After much deliberating and testing, and not finding any possible way to interpret the matrix itself in a way where the examples are accurate and the table actually works, I believe that the example text is actually an error.

It should read:

Number to the left of "N's" [i.e., the attacker is significantly taller] show what may be hit (Ex. — 6' attacker vs. 3' defender, both humanoid; matrix reads '40', [meaning that you subtract 40 from your roll, for a result of -39 to 60], i.e. only head [1-15] or upper chest [16-50] OR ARMS [51-80] may be hit.) Number to the right of "N's" [i.e., the attacker is significantly shorter] show what may not be hit. (Ex. — 4' attacker vs. 8' defender; matrix = 60, [meaning that you add 60 to your roll, for a result of 61-160], i.e. only arms [51-80] or legs [81-00] may be struck).

It was the lack of "or arms" that was tripping me up. With "40" equating to just the head and chest, the numbers either didn't add up or the table itself was directionally challenged helplessly beyond repair.

With this correction, the the part at the bottom of the page about weapon lengths makes a lot more sense:

Those persons which are higher than the one they are attacking gain their regular % plus and also gain +5% for every extra foot of weapon they have over and additional to their opponent's [weapon length].

Here the "% plus" is actually the number you subtract from your roll, and the "gained +5%" per foot of weapon length advantage is added to that modifier you subtract.


Again: I'm sure this has already been untangled elsewhere several times and years ago, but it's all new to me, and I couldn't find anything on these forums about the Blackmoor height tables and how to interpret that confusing mess.

[rsdean]

The weapons length text is not well written, is it? It looks like it is intended to say that your effective height is your height plus your weapon length when facing a taller opponent. So if you were 6 feet tall and wielding an 8 foot spear, you can attack up to a 14 foot giant with a normal roll on the hit charts.

Honestly, the main use I make of the hit location charts is to use them as an example of how we were all taught in the early days that everything in the rules (or at least everything in the supplements) was an option, to be used or discarded as the DM/GM/referee saw fit. New character classes and new monsters from Blackmoor went into my game, but I never even considered adding hit locations.

[talysman]

Just a quick comment: there is another "official" hit location system in Underworld & Wilderness Adventures (Volume III, pp. 27-28) technically for aerial combat, but it could be used as a basis for ground combat as well. Instead of tracking damage against each body part (and thus effectively giving characters more hit points,) the hit point system is exactly the same as before, but a hit to a specific body part has possible special effects if a critical hit is scored, essentially the same as what the OP is suggesting.

[Starbeard]

Yes, the Blackmoor hit location section is pretty terribly written. I haven't had the chance to try it out or crunch the numbers, so I can't say yet whether it plays poorly—although I would think that it would really cripple characters as they gain levels, as even at 6th level, averaging 27 hp, a fighter still has a 65% chance of any blow striking a body part with 6.75 hp or less, which against 1d8 damage means that there's a 65% x 25% = at the very least a 1:8 chance that any given hit will destroy a limb and greatly cripple the character or destroy the head and kill the character outright.

Now, the W&UA aerial combat rules & hit locations I have played around with, and they are tremendously, at times ridiculously lethal as well. Air to air fighting, or taking to the air against anyone with a bow, could be fun and evocative, but almost always suicidal, regardless of HD.

[hamurai]

Hit Locations rules were just another rule which added to the idea that HP damage is actually injuries. Since HP damage originally was supposed to be minor bruises, exhaustion from evading a blow, luck running out etc., a system for hit locations was completely unnecessary and just overcomplicated this idea (Are we now tracking luck for body parts?).

When you run out of HP, hit locations might be interesting. Maybe the character survives but looses a body part.

[Deleted]

The thing I really love about the OD&D supplements compared to any other edition is how you can just safely ignore half of each booklet if you want. For me it's definitely this entire portion of the Blackmoor booklet. It seems pretty commonly ignored in most places online for the simple reason that it doesn't jibe at all with either of the combat systems presented in Dungeons & Dragons. (I've also never heard of any stories of Dave Arneson's games utilizing any such system, either. Maybe absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence but I can't recall an instance where any living or deceased Blackmoor players mentioned anything remotely this complex.)

[Gene M.]

Jul 15, 2022 23:57:47 GMT -6 hamurai said:

Hit Locations rules were just another rule which added to the idea that HP damage is actually injuries. Since HP damage originally was supposed to be minor bruises, exhaustion from evading a blow, luck running out etc., a system for hit locations was completely unnecessary and just overcomplicated this idea (Are we now tracking luck for body parts?).

When you run out of HP, hit locations might be interesting. Maybe the character survives but looses a body part.

Yeah, I prefer the way Runequest handles hit locations as the amount of HP never being that big makes it clear it's more "meat points" than the abstraction of HP as representing a host of things (endurance, health, etc) in D&D. I like my OD&D combat quick and abstract. In consequence, I've never tried the Blackmoor hit locations. But maybe I should give it a go and see how it plays. 

[talysman]

Jul 15, 2022 23:57:47 GMT -6 hamurai said:

Hit Locations rules were just another rule which added to the idea that HP damage is actually injuries. Since HP damage originally was supposed to be minor bruises, exhaustion from evading a blow, luck running out etc., a system for hit locations was completely unnecessary and just overcomplicated this idea (Are we now tracking luck for body parts?).

When you run out of HP, hit locations might be interesting. Maybe the character survives but looses a body part.

Hit location rules as typically written wind up equating HP damage to physical injury, but they don't have to be written that way. I have toyed with the idea myself, using these rules (more or less.)

• Aiming a blow requires hitting AC 5 (AC 3 for small targets) unless the opponent has better armor.
• An aimed blow doesn't do anything special unless it's a critical hit (natural 20 or "to hit" +4 or more.)
• On a critical hit, the targeted body part is wounded and temporarily unusable if the damage roll = 5+, or crippled if = 7+.
• Damage is otherwise handled as normal. Wounds are tracked simply by writing down "wounded left arm" or "crippled leg".
• Wounded limbs are still usable after bandaging (in other words, after combat ends.) Crippled limbs are unusable until fully healed.

My aim was to keep it simple and not track individual hit points per body part, and in fact to allow "ad hoc" hit location systems for opponents with unique body parts (hit the gem in the creature's forehead to immediately disable it.)

[Starbeard]

Jul 16, 2022 7:02:39 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

The thing I really love about the OD&D supplements compared to any other edition is how you can just safely ignore half of each booklet if you want. For me it's definitely this entire portion of the Blackmoor booklet. It seems pretty commonly ignored in most places online for the simple reason that it doesn't jibe at all with either of the combat systems presented in Dungeons & Dragons. (I've also never heard of any stories of Dave Arneson's games utilizing any such system, either. Maybe absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence but I can't recall an instance where any living or deceased Blackmoor players mentioned anything remotely this complex.)

I haven't heard anything about Arneson using these rules either.

Also, do we all still agree that these rules were part of Arneson's work on the supplement, or is there newer and more reliable information contradicting that? If we're just going off of Tim Kask's word that the entire hit location section was all Arneson and only lightly edited… well, that could very easily just be him disavowing the material (and his poor editing of a table that might not actually work as written) at Arneson's expense, but it also does fit the general narrative without trouble: Arneson's rules explanations often do read a little awkwardly, his published RPG projects do tend toward fiddly layers of complexity that seem at odds with the way his players have described his actual games,* and multiple parties claimed then and now that they struggled with his submitted D&D material because it never fit into the existing systems.

*As an aside, I think that's yet another reason why I remain a little skeptical about any attempts to reconstruct "the Blackmoor system." I think we can admit that Arneson the game designer never felt the need to stay consistent with Umpire Dave. And we know that he didn't describe Blackmoor as a complete game system, but as a loose collection of notes for running his game: so without further evidence, I don't think we can assume that the mere existence of a rule automatically proves his use of that rule, or at least his use of it as literally written. These hit location rules being one point. Maybe the magic swords rules as well? I have no idea really; I understand they were submitted to Gygax after his original 16 pages, but I'm not beefy enough on Blackmoor history to know if it's obvious that he did or didn't use them at any point in time.

[linebeck]

Jul 15, 2022 23:57:47 GMT -6 hamurai said:

When you run out of HP, hit locations might be interesting. Maybe the character survives but looses a body part.

That's an awesome idea. You don't die when you hit zero hit points, but you have run out of luck are essentially marked for dismemberment and serious long lasting injury by each attack that comes your way...and its sticks with you even with cure light wounds spell.   

[Starbeard]

The original 1983 Warhammer rules offer something similar. Keep in mind that this is before the split between WHFB and WHFRP, so all characters are laid low after taking only a hit or three. To give PCs a bit more survivability, when they lose all of their wounds they roll on the KO chart to see what happens, with results from "Wakes up OK," to "Dead, dead, dead," and all sorts of temporary or permanent wounds in between.

[hamurai]

Jul 21, 2022 17:17:53 GMT -6 linebeck said:

Jul 15, 2022 23:57:47 GMT -6 hamurai said:

When you run out of HP, hit locations might be interesting. Maybe the character survives but looses a body part.

That's an awesome idea. You don't die when you hit zero hit points, but you have run out of luck are essentially marked for dismemberment and serious long lasting injury by each attack that comes your way...and its sticks with you even with cure light wounds spell.   

That's how we've played it in several of our games. Serious injuries like lost limbs, lost eyes and ears, that's a way to let characters survive even though they run out of HP and should be dead by the book. It was originally a way for us to keep those PCs alive who died just because of a botched roll, like a saving throw against a trap. The character could survive, but maybe a leg was crushed and useless. Of course, for some PCs that might have been even worse, so they ended up as NPCs in our game.

[cometaryorbit]

It really is a poor fit for the supposedly abstract nature of HP.

[Porphyre]

Jul 15, 2022 23:57:47 GMT -6 hamurai said:

Hit Locations rules were just another rule which added to the idea that HP damage is actually injuries. Since HP damage originally was supposed to be minor bruises, exhaustion from evading a blow, luck running out etc., a system for hit locations was completely unnecessary and just overcomplicated this idea (Are we now tracking luck for body parts?).

When you run out of HP, hit locations might be interesting. Maybe the character survives but looses a body part.

I have a special D12 with body parts, and use it only for the killing blow

[Deleted]

Someone told me recently on the OD&D subreddit (I might be improperly attributing this but I believe it was the director of "Secrets of Blackmoor") that Arneson did sometimes use the hit location rules, but only in big, important "boss" type battles.

[tkdco2]

Aug 14, 2022 11:33:45 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

Jul 15, 2022 23:57:47 GMT -6 hamurai said:

Hit Locations rules were just another rule which added to the idea that HP damage is actually injuries. Since HP damage originally was supposed to be minor bruises, exhaustion from evading a blow, luck running out etc., a system for hit locations was completely unnecessary and just overcomplicated this idea (Are we now tracking luck for body parts?).

When you run out of HP, hit locations might be interesting. Maybe the character survives but looses a body part.

I have a special D12 with body parts, and use it only for the killing blow

If you use critical hits, you can roll it after a character takes one. The character will then receive a permanent scar on that hit location. No mechanics here, just flavor.

[Deleted]

Aug 14, 2022 18:22:41 GMT -6 tkdco2 said:

Aug 14, 2022 11:33:45 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

I have a special D12 with body parts, and use it only for the killing blow

If you use critical hits, you can roll it after a character takes one. The character will then receive a permanent scar on that hit location. No mechanics here, just flavor.

It's the mental scars that never fade. 

SPOILER: Click to show

[tkdco2]

So true.

[Porphyre]

Aug 15, 2022 4:29:32 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

Aug 14, 2022 18:22:41 GMT -6 tkdco2 said:

If you use critical hits, you can roll it after a character takes one. The character will then receive a permanent scar on that hit location. No mechanics here, just flavor.

It's the mental scars that never fade. 

SPOILER: Click to show

When Player Characters fall to 0 Hits, I allow a saving throw against Death Rays, but the surviving character loses 1 point in a randomly selected Ability.
Reduced Strength, Dex or Constitution are easy to explain as physical sequels of the wound. A reduced Intelligence is generally depicted as a a  blow to the head. Charisma loss is usually an ugly scar, but for Wisdom, I usually explain it as such

[Red Baron]

Not relevant to mechanics of the system described in sup. ii blackmoor, but a very easy d6 hit location system would be:

LARM, RARM, LLEG, RLEG, BODY, HEAD

I'm not sure how this would map to 1-6.

[talysman]

Sept 3, 2022 9:12:15 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

Not relevant to mechanics of the system described in sup. ii blackmoor, but a very easy d6 hit location system would be:

LARM, RARM, LLEG, RLEG, BODY, HEAD

I'm not sure how this would map to 1-6.

I have a similar hit location that assumes the d6 roll maps roughly to height in feet, for an imaginary six-foot tall man:

1. Feet
2. Legs
3. Lower Torso
4. Chest
5. Arms
6. Head

Since I use d6 damage, when I need a hit location, I can just use the damage result, thus eliminating the need for an extra roll. Most of the time, I don't need a hit location, but I might use it on a critical hit, for example. Or, when rolling damage from a fall, I look for matches and treat those results as specific areas damaged, with more matches meaning severe wound vs. crippling wound, triggering special effects.

[aldarron]

For starters, nice work on untangling the height rules. The only other attempt to do so that I know of is Radagast's "Arneson's Combat System" from 2012.

Regarding the Hit Location rules, the only real complaint from those who used them has been that they were too deadly. That probably would change if they were applied to today's high hit point games.

In a great video review HERE you may find interesting Jeffrey McArthur suggested using the hit location without the damage component as a way of roleplaying the hits in combat.

Personally I find them to be absolutely super, when used as a critical hits table. (See my ZED rules).

Jul 16, 2022 14:18:19 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

Jul 16, 2022 7:02:39 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

The thing I really love about the OD&D supplements compared to any other edition is how you can just safely ignore half of each booklet if you want. For me it's definitely this entire portion of the Blackmoor booklet. It seems pretty commonly ignored in most places online for the simple reason that it doesn't jibe at all with either of the combat systems presented in Dungeons & Dragons. (I've also never heard of any stories of Dave Arneson's games utilizing any such system, either. Maybe absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence but I can't recall an instance where any living or deceased Blackmoor players mentioned anything remotely this complex.)

I haven't heard anything about Arneson using these rules either.

No, Arneson didn't use these rules much, if at all. The mss for supp II was written in the summer of 75. A few months later Arneson had moved to Lake Geneva. By late '77 he was developing AiF. AiF retains aspects of the Supp II "hit location" system but is much changed.

Jul 16, 2022 14:18:19 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

Also, do we all still agree that these rules were part of Arneson's work on the supplement, or is there newer and more reliable information contradicting that? If we're just going off of Tim Kask's word that the entire hit location section was all Arneson and only lightly edited… well, that could very easily just be him disavowing the material (and his poor editing of a table that might not actually work as written) at Arneson's expense, but it also does fit the general narrative without trouble: Arneson's rules explanations often do read a little awkwardly,...

Yes, he wrote it. The breakdown I did In This Thread holds.

Jul 16, 2022 14:18:19 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

...his published RPG projects do tend toward fiddly layers of complexity that seem at odds with the way his players have described his actual games,*...

I mean I have to disagree, somewhat. I think the example people have in mind when they say this is the AiF rules, but it is super clear that Richard Snidar was the main architect of the dense rules complexity there (look to Powers and Perils). Arneson's solo work, otoh, is usually quite straightforward. Yes, he can sometimes add layers, but they tend not to be overly complex. I'm thinking of the XP rules, or investment rules in the FFC, for example. And certainly, Trapman RPG is an elegant and fast little system.

Jul 16, 2022 14:18:19 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

and multiple parties claimed then and now that they struggled with his submitted D&D material because it never fit into the existing systems.

I don't think so. Tim Kask is the only one who voiced such a strong claim. Arneson's work did contain ideas and ways of presenting things that varied from what had been published in the very short time since D&D was released, but things weren't quite set in stone in 1975. Methinks the idea that multiple people somehow struggled with variant ideas like multiple doses for potions, failure % for magic items, and ferocity attacks is a bit of an exaggeration.

Jul 16, 2022 14:18:19 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

*As an aside, I think that's yet another reason why I remain a little skeptical about any attempts to reconstruct "the Blackmoor system." I think we can admit that Arneson the game designer never felt the need to stay consistent with Umpire Dave. And we know that he didn't describe Blackmoor as a complete game system, but as a loose collection of notes for running his game: so without further evidence, I don't think we can assume that the mere existence of a rule automatically proves his use of that rule, or at least his use of it as literally written. These hit location rules being one point. Maybe the magic swords rules as well? I have no idea really; I understand they were submitted to Gygax after his original 16 pages, but I'm not beefy enough on Blackmoor history to know if it's obvious that he did or didn't use them at any point in time.

The original Magic swords (numbered and color named) he certainly used. The "matrix" section was created specifically as draft material reworked by Gygax as what you see in the 3lbb's.

[Starbeard]

Thank you aldarron! That's exactly the kind of stuff I was hoping to know.

As far as Arneson's design work, particularly the part about frustrating his codesigners with work that they felt was inconsistent with the product being developed, I think I may have just been implying his projects for TSR.

In hindsight I do think you're quite right about the complexity of his rules in general. Fiddly maybe, but any integral complexity is probably more to do with his codesigners like you point out. And what I mean by his "fiddliness" I largely mean his love of tables. That's what really what stands out to me in FFC and his contributions to D&D, the reliance on tables to encode rules rather than to summarize information. Which is interesting, because we often hear people pointing to Gygax and his experience as an underwriter to explain D&D's reliance on tables, when the original notes Arneson had provided him were already in large part just that: pages of tables to adjudicate the game.

[Malchor]

Jul 16, 2022 14:18:19 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

Arneson's rules explanations often do read a little awkwardly, his published RPG projects do tend toward fiddly layers of complexity that seem at odds with the way his players have described his actual games,* and multiple parties claimed then and now that they struggled with his submitted D&D material because it never fit into the existing systems.

Here it must be mentioned, DGUTS is mostly Arneson, with Mike Carr editing—Gary did the single ship actions at the back. DGUTS is organized and easy to comprehend.

Also, fitting the existing system is a weird refrain. It is not like OD&D is a unified and streamlined system. Wandering monster on a 6, but 1-2 is surprise, percentile dice for thieves, and so on.

I’m not apologizing for Arneson, I just think we need to question some of the usual refrains more.

[Starbeard]

Right. There are divergent methods, and then there are contradictory systems. Handling doors and surprise and sneaking 3 different ways is one thing, and it's another to have rules for magic swords that people still aren't sure we know how to interpret because of ambiguous use of stats that may or may exist as they are described in the core document.

(also not picking on Arneson, just referencing another thread here. The point being that too many praise D&D for not being unified, while simultaneously diminishing Arneson's contributions for not having enough unity of vision. Reassessment of the refrains and what we actually mean is warranted, including whether our arguments are actually in good faith of those refrains.)

[jamiltron]

Aug 14, 2022 11:33:45 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

I have a special D12 with body parts, and use it only for the killing blow

This is pretty much the same thing I do, although I tend to use a wounding system and save vs. death for any hit that drops the character to 0hp or "below" (although I don't go into the negative, just cap hp at 0). My wound system is very similar to the one proposed by Daniel Fisher here.

[Malchor]

Sept 8, 2022 18:35:26 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

Right. There are divergent methods, and then there are contradictory systems.

Chainmail?