Is limb destruction too easy?

[Skarg]

From a realism perspective, it shouldn't be only a damage roll that determines whether a limb is permanently crippled. The hit needs to not only be strong enough, but to hit the right part of the limb. I don't see a good universal way around having two determining factors (usually die rolls) - one for damage, and one for whether something vital was hit (e.g. bone, joint...), with a vital hit and enough damage both being needed to cause a permanent crippling (OR a failed HT roll for recovery from disabled limb).

This is needed (for realism) because even common weapons have a wide range of damage values, which don't map well to the actual cause / effect / statistics of bullet wound effects on limbs.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Skarg

From a realism perspective, it shouldn't be only a damage roll that determines whether a limb is permanently crippled. The hit needs to not only be strong enough, but to hit the right part of the limb. I don't see a good universal way around having two determining factors (usually die rolls) - one for damage, and one for whether something vital was hit (e.g. bone, joint...), with a vital hit and enough damage both being needed to cause a permanent crippling (OR a failed HT roll for recovery from disabled limb).

This is needed (for realism) because even common weapons have a wide range of damage values, which don't map well to the actual cause / effect / statistics of bullet wound effects on limbs.

Damage rolls for bullets, insofar as they correspond to reality at all, correspond to placement...

[tanksoldier]

The hit needs to not only be strong enough, but to hit the right part of the limb. I don't see a good universal way around having two determining factors

...unless you interpret the damage roll as an abstraction of both.

A relatively minor would to JUST the right spot, and massage general damage have the same relative game effects... both are represented by a high damage roll.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

...unless you interpret the damage roll as an abstraction of both.

The problem is that GURPS damage rolls are nowhere near random enough when looking at wounding to complex targets (though they're often too high when looking at penetration, or damage to homogenous targets).

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The problem is that GURPS damage rolls are nowhere near random enough when looking at wounding to complex targets (though they're often too high when looking at penetration, or damage to homogenous targets).

How is 2D+2, for example, not random enough? When you add bleeding rules and how brain/vitals wounds are so much more difficult to treat, you have an almost open ended form of damage.

Allowing super high damage for hitting just the right spot on a person may be technically realistic, but reality shows that even expert marksmen aren't that perfect. Not to mention how sometimes people survive wounds they really shouldn't.
Then of course there's the gaming aspect that players will boost targeting ability to where such shots are routine rather than exceptional.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Skarg

From a realism perspective, it shouldn't be only a damage roll that determines whether a limb is permanently crippled. The hit needs to not only be strong enough, but to hit the right part of the limb. I don't see a good universal way around having two determining factors (usually die rolls) - one for damage, and one for whether something vital was hit (e.g. bone, joint...), with a vital hit and enough damage both being needed to cause a permanent crippling (OR a failed HT roll for recovery from disabled limb).

This is needed (for realism) because even common weapons have a wide range of damage values, which don't map well to the actual cause / effect / statistics of bullet wound effects on limbs.

While I agree that it takes far less force to destroy the knee than the femur, crippling could easily be an issue of nerve damage. And that does run through the entire leg.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

How is 2D+2, for example, not random enough?

It can neither do a single point of damage, nor force a death roll, both of which are well within the realistic range for results for being shot in the torso.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by Anthony

It can neither do a single point of damage, nor force a death roll, both of which are well within the realistic range for results for being shot in the torso.

Is a death roll for such a torso shot (which don't hit the vitals) really "well within the realistic range"? Sure such a wound can kill you, but a lack of an immediate death roll don't exclude death due to bleeding or infection.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Andreas

Is a death roll for such a torso shot (which don't hit the vitals) really "well within the realistic range"?

To the extent death rolls are realistic at all, sure. There's not an awful lot that can happen due to being shot three times (which will reliably trigger a death check) that doesn't have a chance of happening on a single shot.

[hal]

Short of introducing something like Phoenix Command wound tables, I seriously doubt that GURPS can handle that level of finesse.

Another thing to keep in mind, as Anthony points out - using a bell curve with multiple dice becomes self-defeating after a period of time. The ONLY way I could come up with that permits a range of damage from 1 to X, is to use multi-sided dice, or to use percentiles times the maximum range of damage values. Neither of these approaches are used in a game system that sticks to die sixes...