A Modern Approach to Hit Points and Communicating Damage
The relationship between game designers and hit points is a complex one. Whether in digital or pen-and-paper, hit points tend to be the structural unit that defines a player character or obstacle’s resilience, and has become how we conceptualise and communicate damage and interactive effects between designer and player. And frankly, I find that a little uninspiring, and sometimes, a little predatory.
This describes a slightly orthogonal approach to hit points, and ends with a design challenge that attempts to remove hit points entirely.
Hit Points in Use
There are three main uses for Hit Points within a game:
Increasing time-to-kill
Granularity
Comparative abstraction
Increasing time-to-kill is about putting a step between the player interacting with a dangerous position, and ending a play session. In Call of Duty (Infinity Ward, 2003), a player steps out of cover, takes a few rounds, and returns fire. The game has effectively communicated risk and danger, and “punished” the player without ending play. This use of hit points to extend a play session was part of their original design intent by Dave Arneson in drafting first editions of Dungeons and Dragons (TSR, 1974): “a chance to live longer and do more.” Hit Points provide a way for a “violent-state” world to interact negatively upon a character without removing the character from play. In the same way, increased hit points let enemies stay around longer, requiring more interactions from the player to change the playstate.
Granularity is about giving a data set more “steps” to pass through in order to differentiate states. For example, a character with 100 hit points theoretically has 101 states to pass through (including 0 hit points). This gives game designers a dial to tweak: an attack that does 70 damage is fundamentally different to the play experience than an attack that does 30 damage. This is why the old design adage warns us away from 1s and 2s: They remove granularity of playstate. They also interact with the next usage:
Comparative abstraction describes the use of hit points as a way to express how things are diegetically or narratively different from each other. A paladin is “tougher” than a wizard because a paladin has 100 hit points, and a wizard has 20 hit points. A dragon is a “more powerful” baddie because the dragon does 6d6 damage to a players hitpoints, while a goblin does 1d6. By having a spread of numbers, we can describe things as “calculably different” or “different in scale”.
Granularity and Changing States
You may notice that only the first one in that list is a functional difference. The other two are structural differences. To show you what I mean, let’s imagine a game where one character has 2 hit points, and another character has 4 hit points, twice as tough. We meet both conditions for Granularity and Comparative Abstraction: We have dials, and those dials "say something” about the diegesis. However, these structural difference don’t mean anything if all enemy attacks do 100 damage. In all cases, the time-to-kill is immediate, and the characters are functionally identical. Hit points, though they may be coded into the game, are not a part of the functional player experience.
Let’s extend this one step further. Consider a game with two weapons: The starting minipistol, and the upgraded hand cannon that we’ll call the MEGAPISTOL! For ease, these weapons are identical except for their damage stat. If enemies have 100hp, and the minipistol does 50hp of damage, then the megapistol HAS to do 100hp of damage. This is because players don’t experience enemy hp as a number of hit points, they experience it as a number of interactions required to change the game state. If the minipistol (doing 50hp of damge) and the megapistol (doing 70hp of damage) both take 2 shots to kill an enemy, then they are functionally the same to the player. I acknowledge there are other dials to turn, like number of bullets or reload time, but I’m keeping this discussion along a single axis to discuss the use of hit points.
The takeaway lesson, then, is that hit point granularity (and thus, the comparative abstraction between different weapons or enemies) doesn’t mean anything on its own. We can’t have comparative abstraction by granularity of numbers, but rather comparative abstraction by granularity of game states. Players experience these game states by presence or absence, which means the addition of a measurable unit adds two game states: Presence and Absence. In the case of hit points, Alive or Dead. But a designer can define stages along that measurable unit to add additional states, and again because of presence and absence, it leaves us with this note: For every game state defined by a measurable unit, there is also a state defined by its absence.
The options provided by that definition of game state is a magical opportunity. I’m so frustrated by our obsession with a binary of “active vs inactive” game states. In Call of Duty I am as effective after taking one round as I am beforehand. In Dungeons and Dragons the dragon and the wizard are both dealing full damage until one side loses their final hit point. Now, for a game like Call of Duty, with a short time-to-kill (usually within a quarter of a second), this lack of granularity is perfect. Players cannot consider the change of game states within a firefight. Spray, as they say, and pray. This is not a tactical approach. However in Chess (yeah, I’m not putting a year here), the game state is usually measured with much finer comparative granularity. Material (how many pieces), Position (more activated pieces), Time (in timed games), or better Endgame availability are all the “hit points” of Chess. While a knight and a bishop are both valued at “3 points”, any player of experience would rate one higher at different states of play. The pace of the game allows that considered approach to comparative abstractions.
So why, in tactical games that have a more considered flow, like XCOM (2013), Wildermyth (2020), and yeah, Dungeons and Dragons, Fifth Edition (2014), do we not support the player in developing other interesting game states?
Additional States Generate Additional Play Experiences
Pew, pew. I shoot a laser beam from my sword, giving me and Link a ranged attack against these more dangerous enemies. Across the series (but starting at the start) The Legend of Zelda (1986) has included a game state where an Undamaged (full hit points) Link can shoot a beam from the sword. Placing a game state at the top end of hit points rewards mastery, and gives a low-risk bonus to players that are able to get through a level without taking damage.
I love Games Done Quick and the work they put in, and there’s an interesting state change in Pokemon Red (1996) that is only utilised in the speedrun. When a pokemon is on critically low health (“Red Bar”), the game preferences the two-tone health warning music over pokemon cries and level-up jingles. This creates a “faster state” where the following have to be true:
The player has to take enough damage to be put into “red bar”
The player cannot take enough damage to make their pokemon faint
The player must maintain this state throughout subsequent fights.
Placing the beneficial game state at the lower end of health has created a high-risk, high-reward position that players will need expertise to juggle.
Opportunities to Consider
Doom (2016), and Doom Eternal (2020) meets Pokemon’s Red Bar
Doom lives and dies (pardon the pun) off a health system that drives the player forward. In Doom, players regain health by performing melee kills against weakened enemies.
AND
IT
IS
AWESOME!
I can’t speak highly enough of this Glory Kill System, but now I want to ask, what happens if we give Doom Guy a few states to pass through? Given the dynamic up-and-down bounce of health, I think it’s appropriate to utilise a single additional state, at the bottom end of the hit point pool, maybe the last 25%. When players are in this critically reduced health state, their damage is increased by 100% through a “berserk” feature.
The granularity dials of hit points interact with this too. Players on low difficulty, where monsters do less damage, will find it easier to remain in this “Red Bar” state take advantage of this benefit, giving players who are “Too Young To Die” the opportunity to feel powerful and have “clutch comebacks” against dangerous monsters. It does not, however, engage with comparative abstraction as only one character (the player character) is engaging with this mechanic.
However, because we’re placing it at the back-end of hit points, players on harder difficulties will find it more difficult to be safely put into the state, and more difficult to maintain it without dying, but where they can maintain it, will be able to take great advantage of the bonus it provides.
Major risks will be by making a change to health as an incentive, players may not be as willing to engage in Glory Kills and maintain the momentum the game holds so dear. Given that we don’t see players preserving health by hiding away from combat while at full, I think it is an unlikely outcome, but one to look out for nonetheless.
Dungeons and regaining dynamic states of Dragon health
The fourth edition of Dungeons and Dragons (2008) had a monster state called “bloodied”. All monsters would enter bloodied at the same state, defined by having half hit points remaining. This state gave descriptive granularity to the GM (players would want a fictional bark that described the character as wounded), and comparative abstraction as some monsters became more dangerous when bloodied, and some became less dangerous.
Given the exceptionally low time-to-kill in Dungeons and Dragons, I suggest that baddies may even have more states. Rather than using Bloodied as a binary on/off switch for abilities and recharges, there is the option for a state that is “Wounded”. Remember I said when measuring you can create a state by presence and absence. This could be a state where the monster was not at full hit points (ie where the “full health” state was absent); when the monster has taken some damage, but not enough to be considered something as critical as “Bloodied”. This provides an option for turning on or off early-round threats, or showing a monster ablating under the withering attacks of the Player Characters. A gorgon (the magical armoured cow version) may start with an Armour Class (AC) of 20, quite high. But after that first big hit, that ablates to 16, when Scathed. The extra granularity of states gives us an early bark, and gives the Gorgon an interesting early advantage to show it’s metallic resilience without dragging out a fight.
Four Damage States to Consider in Future Designs
Unhurt
A stage designed for alpha strike threats and ablative skills. Unhurt is defined as “not notably damaged", this includes not having taken damage, but also having received little scratches. A dragon with a sword through a scale may remain “unhurt” for extra comparative abstraction (“look how tough it is!”).
Unhurt is excellent for when the Designer wants to provide a high-interest threat that grabs attention immediately, where you want to draw player attention and make a splash, but not create an overpowering threat.
Alternatively, Unhurt provides an option for a slow, creeping threat. Something that doesn’t reveal its full hand of cards until the fight has already started.
Usage:
“The Ferret Armoured Scout Car has extra speed while Unhurt”.
”The Shapeshifter does not need to make checks to maintain its form while Unhurt”.
Bloodied/Scathed/Damaged
This is “noticably damaged”. “Shit, that hurt” but “I’ve had worse”. It’s a wound, it’s pain, but it’s mostly cosmetic damage. A secret agent with a round through the bicep. It’s Daredevil taking Elektra’s sai through his shoulder in the 2003 film and then fighting Bullseye minutes later with no noticeable consequence. I like shifting the term “Bloodied” earlier in the piece to increase the impact of combat. Bloodied, to me, is the villain with a split lip, tasting their own blood from their finger (or dramatically snapping their fingers). They’re not down, not even half, in fact, they’re just getting started.
Bloodied is an ideal state for showing the “adrenaline surge” of combat. You’re not going to wait until you’ve taken real damage to get that blood pumping, are you?
Usage:
”A Bloodied Barbarian adds 1d4 damage to their attacks as their humours get up.”
”A Bloodied player’s Hunger bar decreases more slowly.”
Wounded
Wounded is wrecked. Ruined. Lost limbs. For some characters this dips down on the power curve, for others it spikes up (comparative abstraction). Wounded should feel big, and depending on game tone, messy. Wounded is a great place for barks and VFX to be reactive of the situation a character has gone through: An orc ravaged by Legolas’ arrows should LOOK a different Wounded to one hit by Gimli’s axe.
Wounded is a state for showing things are nearing the end of their life, so don’t hold back on your design choices here. It’s a good place for sentient characters to break and run, or surrender like in Griftlands (Klei Entertainment, 2021). It’s also a great place for those big bloodlusty threats to dig in and fight with all of their remaining vigor.
Usage:
”The Predator gets -4 defence when Wounded - ‘If it bleeds, we can kill it.’”
”The ogre cannibal does double damage when Wounded.”
Dead
is dead. It’s an absence. It’s the punitive state or the win condition. It’s a bottom-out, rather than a functional state in itself.
Usage:
”You died” - Dark Souls (FromSoftware, 2011)
Conclusion
Players think in game states, they talk to each other in game states. Let’s let them play in game states. Numbers are a wonderful tool, that I will never begrudge the use of in games, but let’s not make them our primary communication method.
There is an argument to be made that this approach recreates HP, with my 4 states acting as a 4 hp system, and I can see what that’s saying, but it’s actually a result of hp being conceptualised as changing game state for so long. We’ve become conditioned to seeing the little white numbers pop up above that boss and consider it progress.
What I’m suggesting is not so much a change in structural approach, but a change in how we communicate these outcomes to players. Even if numbers remain in the game as the structural building blocks that make damage and health happen, I’m asking us to conceptualise damage as a changing condition of the player’s play experience, not as a changing condition of an abacus.
Design Challenge
If we have four functional states, do we need hit points at all? Let’s, as an exercise, take this to the furthest conclusion of replacing hit points with states entirely. Consider a game that uses hit points as it stands, and think about whether it could instead deliver the same experience with these states instead?
The answer won’t be yes for everyone, but as a design challenge, this will flex your understanding of how players functionally experience the dynamic movement of health for both goodies and baddies.
When you find a game that could do this, draft up some paper-prototype rules for how you would implement this, and review them using the first three elements we discussed:
Time-to-kill - Does this dramatically change the flow of combat in this game? Does the new flow meet design intent?
Granularity - Are there enough states to use as a dial to respond to player choices? Maybe there’s too many and you don’t need both Bloodied and Wounded? What else could you tune to make weapons feel different now that you can’t just add a “+4 damage” sticker and colour it blue?
Comparative Abstraction - How do the states make enemies feel different to each other? Are Bloodied enemies functionally different for players than Unhurt enemies?
Sample thoughts:
XCOM could easily use Unhurt, Wounded, Bloodied, and Dead, maybe even maintaining its Bleeding out/Dead split that is rolled when a friendly operative reaches 0 hit points.
Some draft rules would include:
Phalanx characters (with shields) ignore changes of state from the front 180 degree arc.
A sniper rifle critical sets the target’s state to Dead.
All other crits double state movement.
Light weapons (pistols) do one state of damage
Assault weapons (rifles, smgs) do two states of damage
Heavy weapons do three states of damage.
A flanked enemy takes one additional state of damage.
A Faceless (big gooey tough enemy) requires two consecutive hits in a round to move from Unhurt
Maybe a fun additional mechanic called “cued shot”, where operators line their shot up with each other to break through defensive enemies? We could also tie this in with XCOM 2’s Bonds system that joins pairs of soldiers together as bffs.
Against our criteria:
Time-to-kill remains roughly the same. An assault rifle with an appropriate tech level will move default enemies two states, which means two shots to kill, unless you crit. That’s about where it is. There’s some tweaking around an assault rifle crit doing 3 or 4 “states”, meaning one or two hits to kill, but I’d be happy to take that to playtesting.
Granularity is I think maybe a little weak. XCOM is a GREAT test for this, because one of its most fun elements was enemy variety. However, that’s also a good teaching point for this kind of health system. A 4 hit point “Thin Man” (acid spitting guy in suit) is a functionally different enemy to a 4 hit point “Floater” (jetpack cyborgs who can zoom behind your cover to flank). They even use the same weapon (the light plasma rifle), but given the other dials left to turn, they still feel totally different to play against. For this reason I want to keep an eye on granularity during playtesting.
Comparative Abstraction is a tough one to decide on my own because it’s so much about feeling. I can make guesses, but I might not be able to accurately predict a player’s understanding of the abstraction at play. I think one of the hardest abstractions to communicate will be increasing damage by tech level. In base XCOM this is simple to communicate: a floater has 4 health. A heavy floater has 14 health. Each still takes either one shot from a heavy weapon or two shots from light weapons (as player technology advances along the same rate as alien reveals) but the player can easily see that change just by the number of bars at the top. This would probably be won and lost in the missions between where a player upgrades their equipment and then when the player encounters Heavy Floaters (or, for the unfortunate souls, vice versa). That emotional impact still lands in base XCOM, and the advantage here is that it would be communicated with barks and vfx versus some white numbers floating above the enemy’s head.
