Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-24-2015, 07:22 AM   #31
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: Actual Impaling Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
Making the 1xHP limit a damage threshold rather than an injury threshold is something I like, yeah.
3e had that, mostly, and it had some odd effects. For example, this means that a 7.62x51mm NATO APHC bullet doing 7d pi- would only ever do 10 x 0.5 = 5HP damage to a 1-HP target. Note that this is insufficient to create a major wound or to 'cripple' a limb. So we have the odd effect of AP rounds from full-bore rifles being unable to drop people or even slow them down unless they are shot 2+ times or a hit in a fairly limited number of places, while standard ball rounds (which generally have very similar wound tracks) can.

Back in 3e my rules was 'damage is capped at HP, injury at HP or HP x wound modifier, whichever is higher' to avoid this. It still makes .45 ACP ball noticeably more effective than 9x19mm ball rather than slightly, which is a bit annoying.

I think if I were to introduce a damage cap for piercing and impaling attacks today I'd go with twice the major wound threshold for limbs and extremities, and 2xHP for the torso.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2015, 07:29 AM   #32
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: Actual Impaling Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Frost View Post
12.7 x 99mm torso hit within effective range is instant death !
The temporary wound cavity expands so far beyond the bodies' recoverable elastic limit it bursts apart like a balloon .
S.O.P. when hit by .50 BMG is to spread yourself out over 10 square meters in several pieces then discover if there is an afterlife only in reverse order .
That is an exaggeration. Big hole, horrible mess, dead - yes. Splattered, not generally.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2015, 08:25 AM   #33
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Actual Impaling Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
3e had that, mostly, and it had some odd effects. For example, this means that a 7.62x51mm NATO APHC bullet doing 7d pi- would only ever do 10 x 0.5 = 5HP damage to a 1-HP target. Note that this is insufficient to create a major wound or to 'cripple' a limb. So we have the odd effect of AP rounds from full-bore rifles being unable to drop people or even slow them down unless they are shot 2+ times or a hit in a fairly limited number of places, while standard ball rounds (which generally have very similar wound tracks) can.

Back in 3e my rules was 'damage is capped at HP, injury at HP or HP x wound modifier, whichever is higher' to avoid this. It still makes .45 ACP ball noticeably more effective than 9x19mm ball rather than slightly, which is a bit annoying.

I think if I were to introduce a damage cap for piercing and impaling attacks today I'd go with twice the major wound threshold for limbs and extremities, and 2xHP for the torso.
I think that's why while I can see the argument for P-, P, P+ & P++ having different caps (bigger wound channels are bigger) and I've used the same tweak myself before now.

I prefer to demonstrate that extra effect via the worse bleeding. It's gets too all or nothing when you're talking about multiples of HP and -1xHP means a death roll.


But if you don't you can get oddities where low penetration high multiplier rounds will do more damage if they don't penetrate than if they do! (mind you how likely is that)


Maybe a solution is to only leverage the extra damage from Pi+ and Pi++ in terms of bleeding.

Last edited by Tomsdad; 09-24-2015 at 09:06 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2015, 09:04 AM   #34
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Actual Impaling Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
3e had that, mostly, and it had some odd effects. For example, this means that a 7.62x51mm NATO APHC bullet doing 7d pi- would only ever do 10 x 0.5 = 5HP damage to a 1-HP target. Note that this is insufficient to create a major wound or to 'cripple' a limb. So we have the odd effect of AP rounds from full-bore rifles being unable to drop people or even slow them down unless they are shot 2+ times or a hit in a fairly limited number of places, while standard ball rounds (which generally have very similar wound tracks) can.
If ball rounds and AP rounds have very similar wound tracks, then them having wounding factors differing by a factor of two is a problem whether or not it influences a damage cap.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2015, 01:07 AM   #35
Koningkrush
 
Koningkrush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Default Re: Actual Impaling Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
I think that's why while I can see the argument for P-, P, P+ & P++ having different caps (bigger wound channels are bigger) and I've used the same tweak myself before now.

I prefer to demonstrate that extra effect via the worse bleeding. It's gets too all or nothing when you're talking about multiples of HP and -1xHP means a death roll.


But if you don't you can get oddities where low penetration high multiplier rounds will do more damage if they don't penetrate than if they do! (mind you how likely is that)


Maybe a solution is to only leverage the extra damage from Pi+ and Pi++ in terms of bleeding.
Note that I am not a physics major or an arms expert, but low penetration rounds with high multipliers should do more damage if they don't pass through. Here's the definition of a hollow point for example.

"A hollow-point bullet is an expanding bullet that has a pit or hollowed out shape in its tip often intended to cause the bullet to expand upon entering a target in order to decrease penetration and disrupt more tissue as it travels through the target."

Really, there are two parts of injury that come from bullets.

1. Energy absorption by tissue.
2. Wound canal caused by round.

Of course, there should be an injury maximum for number 2, but I'm not endowed enough with science and math knowledge to figure out a solution for 1. My best guess is that there isn't much of a difference for 1 once the bullet passes through because it goes through so quickly that the body doesn't have enough time to absorb energy before the bullet punches through.
Of course, if this bullet was traveling SUPER damn fast, you would want it to punch through you so that the energy isn't completely absorbed by your soft tissues. This is why armor piercing bullets are **** against organics, but hollow points are a nightmare.

For game play convenience, I like my house rule since it's simple and reasonably close to reality. I already have infection rules (So if the bullet doesn't go through you, then you better get it out soon), and bleeding rules in play. Doesn't matter how bad ass your gun is, you're not going to drop someone instantly dead unless you hit vital organs or the brain. Of course, your bad ass gun is going to drop them to the ground and they are going to pitifully bleed out a pool of blood from a gaping hole in their torso though even if you do miss the vitals.

Last edited by Koningkrush; 09-25-2015 at 01:10 AM.
Koningkrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2015, 02:49 AM   #36
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: Actual Impaling Question

No, the reason AP bullets aren't that good at inflicting damage is that they tend to make nice little holes as they pass through, so unless their path intersects something absolutely vital they aren't good at stopping things. As the wound track is narrow, they also aren't good at causing bleeding on a scale that useful in personal combat (the victim might well die of internal bleeding and infection days later, but that's of little comfort if he's filled you full of holes in the meantime).

Expansive rounds make bigger holes, both by expanding to a larger diameter and also (sometimes) by shedding fragments or having sharp edges that cause tearing. A larger wound track means a better chance of hitting something vital, and a larger hole through which to bleed.

Unless you hit the brain, or other inelastic organ (i.e. 'the vitals'), energy transfer seems to have sod-all to do with lethality and short-term injury (aside from sometimes causing nerve shock, which GURPS models adequately well with the KO/stun rules, IMO). There's some evidence of longer term injury from shock transmitted to the nervous system and internal organs, but it's below GURPS' resolution.

Essentially for bullets and other deeply penetrating wounds, what matters is the depth of the hole (did it penetrate far enough to reach something vital), the size of the hole - and these together can be considered to be measured by the volume of the wound, and by how much cutting and tearing there is around the edge of the wound (which is why wounds from three- and four-edged knives, arrows, & etc. are so much worse than clean bullet holes). But note that it's entirely possible for a expansive bullet to not penetrate far enough to be useful and thus be worse than a solid non-deforming bullet - this is why hollow-points were not used for hunting deer and other large animals for decades after they were invented, and partly why they were unpopular in pistols as well.

Extra depth is clearly useless once the attack passes right through, thus suggestions to cap basic damage at HT or some multiple thereof. The size is represented by the damage type, with impaling having an unusually high multiplier to reflect (IMO) the cutting nature of the attack, and thus obviously needs to be applied after the cap is applied to basic damage. If we are to cap immediate damage in this way, really all there is to discuss is what the cap should be and how it should respond to damage type.

Now, I don't use a cap, but I also don't use the optional rule of 1-in-6 Torso hits hitting the vitals, so I just assume that massive damage from ball rounds in full-bore rifles is actually a hit to the vitals. If I were to use a damage cap, I'd also use this rule, plus the similar ones for artery hits, & etc.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2015, 03:24 AM   #37
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Actual Impaling Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koningkrush View Post
Note that I am not a physics major or an arms expert, but low penetration rounds with high multipliers should do more damage if they don't pass through. Here's the definition of a hollow point for example.
Ah my point was about GURPS mechanism and how it applies in different ways for the cap (i.e not talking about real life and energy transfer of larger bullets compared to smaller etc).

So say you don't apply the multiplier to the cap and you have HP10 target

He gets hit by a .45 for 9 points of damage, no penetration cap so immediate injury is 9x1.5 = 13 all good

But say he get's hit by a .45 for 11 points of damage, now that hits the penetration cap (10) leaving 10 to be applied, but if you don't apply the multiplier your left with a 10 point injury (but it bleeds like a 16 point one though)

It's just an oddity of not applying the multiplier on the cap.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Koningkrush View Post
"A hollow-point bullet is an expanding bullet that has a pit or hollowed out shape in its tip often intended to cause the bullet to expand upon entering a target in order to decrease penetration and disrupt more tissue as it travels through the target."

Really, there are two parts of injury that come from bullets.

1. Energy absorption by tissue.
2. Wound canal caused by round.

.
Gross tissue damage and injury are not the same things though (hell energy doesn't match directly to tissue damage either come to that)

Ultimately there is only one cause of death (oxygen starvation of the brain).

But it can be very difficult and circuitous path to get to that when pushing things at high velocity through different bits of such a highly variable thing as the human body.


Lots of factors (Rupert's point some out above)

Last edited by Tomsdad; 09-25-2015 at 03:36 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2015, 03:35 AM   #38
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Actual Impaling Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
N...

Now, I don't use a cap, but I also don't use the optional rule of 1-in-6 Torso hits hitting the vitals, so I just assume that massive damage from ball rounds in full-bore rifles is actually a hit to the vitals. If I were to use a damage cap, I'd also use this rule, plus the similar ones for artery hits, & etc.
At least that way you get more variation and you don't get the automatic x3 damage (not all those vitals in that picture are equally or immediately 'vital')

and I guess the assumption is larger more powerful bullets leaving larger wound tracks are more likely to hit something bad.


But in that case do you allow people to directly target the vitals then? (and would you apply the penetration cap on that and apply the x3 multiplier afterwards so as not to double dip)



Ultimaltely it's only really going to speed things up unless you getting shot at in working operating theatre the bleeding form such big wounds will get you anyway I guess
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2015, 04:13 AM   #39
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: Actual Impaling Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
But in that case do you allow people to directly target the vitals then? (and would you apply the penetration cap on that and apply the x3 multiplier afterwards so as not to double dip)
My current game uses RAW, pretty much. No caps, only aimed shots hit the eyes or vitals, no bleeding (too much paperwork) except in exceptional circumstances (such as a severed limb and no first aid at all).

If I used random Vitals hits I'd not cap them, or would apply the multiplier after the cap (to be consistent with all other caps, if nothing else), and I'd use the bleeding rules (with penalties based on the full, uncapped and multiplied damage), but that would be for a different game than my current 'vaguely 'realistic' but low book-keeping' Traveller game that's no longer so realistic due to 800-900 point characters.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2015, 05:04 AM   #40
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Actual Impaling Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
My current game uses RAW, pretty much. No caps, only aimed shots hit the eyes or vitals, no bleeding (too much paperwork) except in exceptional circumstances (such as a severed limb and no first aid at all).

If I used random Vitals hits I'd not cap them, or would apply the multiplier after the cap (to be consistent with all other caps, if nothing else), and I'd use the bleeding rules (with penalties based on the full, uncapped and multiplied damage), but that would be for a different game than my current 'vaguely 'realistic' but low book-keeping' Traveller game that's no longer so realistic due to 800-900 point characters.
Cool cheers

The reason I was asking about weather you allow vitals to be separately targeted is if the argument is rifles do so much damage (uncapped) to the torso because that represents the fact that they are more likely to hit vitals within the torso due to wound size etc. Hitting vitals would appear to already be included in the basic damage roll. So would allowing them to directly target the vitals and then giving x3 damage multiplier be doubling up?


I.e if a 7.62 doing 24 point of damage is inferred to already be hitting a vital compared to 9mm doing 9, should that same 7.62 do 24x3 = 72 when it specifically hits a vital?

Anyway just a theoretical question that popped into my head reading your post it's not important to the thread, and at the end of the day hitting something vital with a battle rifle should have serious consequences!

and as you say not that relevant to your campaign.

Last edited by Tomsdad; 09-25-2015 at 07:14 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
injury, rules, rules clarification

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.