Unintentional slam suicide

[Ts_]

Slamming has a lot of broken aspects. There are a couple of threads on this topic. (Compare google or other keywords.)

Originally Posted by trooper6

It shouldn't matter if I'm slamming into glass or metal? A small kid or a big sumo wrestler? If you use falling damage for everything...then it doesn't matter *what* you are slamming into, and that also doesn't seem right.

If the glass is meters thick, then it shouldn't matter. If you run through glass, that's a completely different experiment and probably involves cutting damage ...

One of the easier fix for slam suicide is to limit the damage based on the smaller of the two opponents. Spaceships has a rule that the larger damage cannot be more than twice the smaller one, me thinks.

Regards
Ts

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by gjc8

Why should slamming into an 8ft stone wall do less damage than slamming into an 80 ft stone monolith? Which is exactly what the rules for collisions with immovable objects support.

Because neither the wall nor the monolith is contributing anything to the kinetic energy in this situation?

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Because neither the wall nor the monolith is contributing anything to the kinetic energy in this situation?

I fail to see how this would lead to colliding with the wall doing less damage than colliding with the monolith.

[alimantando]

The collision rules are kind of not very sensitiv ...

http://www.gamesdiner.com/2003/05/fr...llisions-right

tbones rules in Gulliver for 3e where better:
http://www.gamesdiner.com/GULLIVER/B...htm#Collisions

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Because neither the wall nor the monolith is contributing anything to the kinetic energy in this situation?

The kinetic energy of the situation is only the combined velocity of the collision. There is no significant difference between a head-on collision of two cars going at 30mph each or crashing into a parked car at 60mph. There is no extra "contribution" made by the mass of the moving car than by the mass of the parked car.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

The kinetic energy of the situation is only the combined velocity of the collision. There is no significant difference between a head-on collision of two cars going at 30mph each or crashing into a parked car at 60mph. There is no extra "contribution" made by the mass of the moving car than by the mass of the parked car.

There is no contribution made by the parked car at all.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

There is no contribution made by the parked car at all.

Agreed, but how does this mean that a crash into a 1 ton parked car is more survivable than a crash into a 100 ton parked car?

[Silhouette]

Originally Posted by Classic Uncle Sam

The simple answer is:
I would apply all damage to an arm. Your shoulder and or arm is broken/shattered but all damage passed that threshold is dropped. I think you're still alive.

Well, I'll try to convince GM. I think he's tired of our arguing too, and will be happy to find an easy solution that saves my character from obviously stupid and illogical death and also protects "THE STRICT RULES!!!" that he loves so much.

Thanks a lot.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Langy

Agreed, but how does this mean that a crash into a 1 ton parked car is more survivable than a crash into a 100 ton parked car?

I thought it was more important to try and point out that crashing into a 100 ton parked car should be no more damaging than a 1 ton car but if you want to focus on the opposite have fun.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Langy

Agreed, but how does this mean that a crash into a 1 ton parked car is more survivable than a crash into a 100 ton parked car?

It would depend on how big you are.

If you are very, very small. You won't survive the damage from either one. On the other hand, if you are the size and durability of a 1 ton car, crashing into a 1 ton car will be much more survivable than crashing into the 100 ton car.