Why Damage types at all?

First, thanks to James and Alexander for commenting in the previous blog. Those kinds of things really keep me going. Don't feel like you have to tell other programmers about this blog, though the more input the better!

Since this blog is still on the subject of damage types and resistances. I have asked for the brainstorming, and I still fail to explain they "why" of the need for damage types. We need damage types because of the need to fulfill the RPG mantra: "Easy to Learn, Difficult to Master."

Please meditate on that while floating in the lotus position. oooohhhmmmmmm..

An example why might help. Let's say that I designed a game that was easy to learn, but not hard to master. In this game, players have hit points, an attack rating, and an armor rating. Higher numbers are better. Charter A has "10 Attack" "12 Armor" and 50 hp. Character B has exactly the same. There are no other imbalancing variables or hidden knowledge from the players in the game. This is going to be rather boring duel. I might as well flip a coin to see who wins.

The player who controls character A is getting an edge on this easy to learn, easy to master game. He increase his attack to 13. Now he wins most fights. This means he has just mastered the game. The only other thing another character can do is either increase his armor or his attack. This game is now mastered, and it is also boring. This is pretty much how Castle Age feels, if you have ever played that game.

How can this made a little bit more difficult to master? By adding imbalancing forces, specifically damage types and resistances. Lets say that Character A and Character B are fighting again. This time, however, Character A is using electrical damage. Character B is wearing metal armor. Electrical damage will do extra damage to metal armor, thus exploiting a weakness. Character B could go into fights with leather armor instead, but that would lower his overall armor rating. Players then would face a challenge of what armor they wanted to wear and what kind of attacks they wanted to use.

Notice, that emphasis here is not on a complete, rigid, realism. If realism was the focus, than all players would die in a single fireball. They would all be crippled by a single arrow, they would all most likely die after getting hit only two or three times. Could such a game make a great RPG in which players develop their characters over long periods of time? Where they fight battles that last several rounds? Not entirely.

Now, there is certainly room for realism. I am not sure how much though. Think about every RPG that you have played. What was the level of realism in it? Obviously, there is such a thing as being completely over-the-top, but do you generally find that RPG game mechanics are concentrating on how realistic the battles and damage mechanics are? This is an open question. I am an RPG veteran, but I have by no means been playing them over the last few years.

Why not add a few damage types now?