Damage

[Gollum]

All the replies above are very interesting. And I'd like to answer them.

Furthermore, those who know me enough (here or anywhere else) know that I'm very open-minded: I never hesitate to change my mind when I am wrong, and to recognize it clearly. So it would even be a true discussion, not just a way of trying to prove that I am right...

Icelander, I perfectly agree with you about GURPS rules and even about Boxing and MMA in reality. I was just trying to answer to an argument - very clumsily, I have to admit it...

Having said that it is not anymore the topic of this thread. It is even not anymore a discussion about GURPS.

So if someone really wants to talk about this new topic, he can do it by posting private message to me or, if we are more than two, we can do it in the SJG Forum "General Chatter" rather than here.

Make me know your choice. Here or with a private message. It can be: "We don't care about this boring discussion anymore, stop it!" I can understand it.

Sorry for this new digression. The last one. Honestly!

[lwcamp]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

There's actually some room for symmetry here. We have pi(1), pi+ (1.5), and pi++(2), for QHP (Quadratic HP) of 1, 2, and 4.

We could easily have pi- and pi-- which might be wound modifiers of 1/2 and 1/4 as well. That would cover middle case rounds that would 'normally' have a 0.7 and 0.5 modifier.

You might go like this:

Less than 6mm: QHP (1/4)
6mm to 7.5mm: QHP (1/2)
7.5 to 10.2mm: QHP (1)
10.2mm to 15mm QHP 2
15mm to 90mm QHP 4
90mm+ QHP 8


600m/s or more muzzle velocity and a tumbling ogive bullet: move up one step.

Yes, indeed. If you wanted, you could even introduce more granularity to avoid the 10 mm cutoff I've seen people complaining about (that makes GURPS .40 S&W clearly superior to either 9mm P or .45 ACP). Since apparently multiplying by 1.5 isn't too difficult for people, you could have a range of calibers that multiplied by 1.5. In fact, we could read the multiples off the speed-range table if we wanted: 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 5, 7, and factors of 10 of these. Of these, I would find multiplying by 7 the most difficult, but I don't think it would be a game stopper (it might be easier to multiply by 7.5, actually). Then the issue becomes assigning what bullets get which multiples.

Luke

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by lwcamp

Yes, indeed. If you wanted, you could even introduce more granularity to avoid the 10 mm cutoff I've seen people complaining about (that makes GURPS .40 S&W clearly superior to either 9mm P or .45 ACP). Since apparently multiplying by 1.5 isn't too difficult for people, you could have a range of calibers that multiplied by 1.5. In fact, we could read the multiples off the speed-range table if we wanted: 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 5, 7, and factors of 10 of these. Of these, I would find multiplying by 7 the most difficult, but I don't think it would be a game stopper (it might be easier to multiply by 7.5, actually). Then the issue becomes assigning what bullets get which multiples.

Luke

As you can tell by the granularity in my post, I was going off of a sliding scale based off a log formula (which I have at home...). Converting the raw caliber or cross section of the bullet to a size modifier would be pretty darn easy to do.

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by lwcamp

One option I'd been kicking around to deal with this (and with the detail that armor should subtract quadratically from damage) is to use quadratic hit points. This involves squaring all hits, hit points, DR, and so on after the rolls.

Forgive me for being dense (and too lazy to math it out), but could you elaborate on what the point in doing this is? Does it make small damages smaller and big damages bigger? Does it make the first QHP lost more important than the last, or vice versa?

[lwcamp]

Originally Posted by Daigoro

Forgive me for being dense (and too lazy to math it out), but could you elaborate on what the point in doing this is? Does it make small damages smaller and big damages bigger? Does it make the first QHP lost more important than the last, or vice versa?

For the damage from a single wound (without armor) there is no effect. The same damage will cause the same result (major wound, roll for loss of consciousness, roll for death, stunning, etc.).

For multiple wounds, the wounds accumulate slower. A person can thus take more small wounds and keep on going. Whereas in the standard system ten 1 HP cat scratches would force unconsciousness checks, in this system it would take 100 1 HP scratches to reach the same point. This is more realistic, wounds are not simply additive. It probably does not go far enough in this regards, but I wanted to keep the math and procedures simple.

The interaction with armor is a bit more realistic as well. In the standard system, small amounts of armor tend to absorb more damage than would be expected. In this system, Armor that would stop a blow will still stop the blow, but armor that will let a blow through will let through more of the damage.

I haven't yet worked out how to include bleeding with this system. For a system designed to be realistic, a good bleeding simulator is a must.

Luke