Is limb destruction too easy?

[Tomsdad]

Regarding the accumulated HPs lost by multiple hits, I was playing about in my head on the way to work.


one possible solution Each subsequent hit to the torso (that isn't a vital hit) has the final damage in terms of HPs lost divided by the number of hits received round down (minimum 1 damage). I would apply the over penetration cap to this adjusted damage.

But each wound bleeds at the full penalty based on what was rolled. And bleeding is calculated separately for each wound.


( Edit: I'm not sure about melee weapons (specifically cut and cr) and I can see issues with working out the period of time this occurs in and that the order you get hit by significantly different bullets will lead to some oddness)

So for example say some 10HP chap get hit by 3x 9mm at 2d+2 pi for 9 each

normally that would 3x 9 = 27 hp lost, ending up on -17 so taking 1 death roll before he even starts to bleed out. but instead he'll lose 9 + 4 + 3 = 16 hps but suffers ongoing bleeding from 3x -1 bleeds.



Ultimate I think people will be unable to act pretty much as quickly as before (you still going to hit 0hp pretty quick), but it should slow down how quickly you get to, -1xHP, -2xHP etc, etc




Personally I like calculating bleeding for each wound separately anyway because it means you have a choice to make as to which you tackle first, and ultimately five small bleeds should individually not be as hard to stop as a bleed that is five times as bad.

Obviously doing this means every thing bleeds separately which can lead to odd instances, E.g if you've had you left femoral artery completely severed, and a gun shot in you left calf most of the blood you'd be losing out of that left calf wound will actually be squirting out of your thigh.

But generally I think bleeding separately is better than totalling all mods and bleeding once. It's obviously more to keep track of though.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

True, but resuscitation is just about ABC (I.e it not really about dealing with the long term cause).

It also tends to be something that's done as ongoing process (when the heart/breathing stopping is an effect of something else).

Obviously at some point it stops being worth doing, or as you say not worth starting i.e decapitation.

I mentioned it more because failing a death roll by 3+ isn't actually irrevocably dead in GURPS if you can resuscitate.

And you system can stop from blood loss (I.e. fatal blood loss) but can be restarted as well (especially if supported with transfusions and stopping the bleeding).

The issue really is this is a complex question with umpteen factors, and the treatment section doesn't go into a lot of detail (although it goes into way more detail than most systems). HP lose / failed HT rolls is also IMO a combination of a lot of negative effects on the body



True and even then resuscitation to keep someone alive as part of first aid to get to the hospital and/or log term solution etc can occur (its just less likely to have happy ending than is you on the surgeons table)

That all deals with the difference between completely dead and mostly dead. Comical, yet very real as simple heart stoppage used to be called death. But now with hypothermia surgery and artificial hearts, people lacking pulses can survive for quite a bit of time.

Perhaps in the future medical technology could save even the decapitated if their heads were placed in some kind of cellular stasis rapidly enough and/or minor brain damage could be cured. That would lead to a readjustment of what death means yet again.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Perhaps in the future medical technology could save even the decapitated if their heads were placed in some kind of cellular stasis rapidly enough and/or minor brain damage could be cured. That would lead to a readjustment of what death means yet again.

It's coming. People have done head transplants on animals.

Sure the immune response is an even worse problem than for most transplants and until we can figure out a way to connect spinal cords there isn't much point, but I suspect even now it might be possible for a sufficiently mad surgeon to remove and reconnect heads and have some of his victims survive, if not with much quality of life.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Given that death rolls can occur from attacks that are physically incapable of causing instant death, either that's not what a failed death roll actually means, or GURPS is being deliberately cinematic. Most failed death rolls should actually be converted to mortal wounds.

In relation to that I've been considering a houserule, aimed somewhere in that curious space where cinematic grit and realistic limitations of stopping power meet, that would allow any character who fails a death check to a wound that isn't to the Vitals or Skull to potentially remain active for a time.

As currently drafted it would cause the full consequences of the death check to come to bear immediately when they lose consciousness. That's presumably a bit to the cinematic side of things.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

As currently drafted it would cause the full consequences of the death check to come to bear immediately when they lose consciousness. That's presumably a bit to the cinematic side of things.

The difference between "dead" and "incapacitated and dying" only matters for purposes of just what sort of medical care, if any, will help, so it's not like treating them as equivalent is a big problem.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The difference between "dead" and "incapacitated and dying" only matters for purposes of just what sort of medical care, if any, will help, so it's not like treating them as equivalent is a big problem.

Well, the 'what sort of medical care' question is intended to be part of it, because I do take an interest in that sort of thing.

I think forcing all those Dead results to become Mortal Wound results may be going too far, though. A Mortal Wound gives you a minimum of half an hour recoverable time, 60 minutes with trauma maintenance, assuming you're not finished off by bleeding.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

That all deals with the difference between completely dead and mostly dead. Comical, yet very real as simple heart stoppage used to be called death. But now with hypothermia surgery and artificial hearts, people lacking pulses can survive for quite a bit of time.
...

That's what i was thinking in terms of maybe allowing it in some cases after a death roll failed by 3+, I thinking in terms of death by blood loss

It would have to be within certain amount of time, (and seriously penalised by delay, benefited by hypothermia) etc, etc.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by malloyd

It's coming. People have done head transplants on animals.
...

I've seen some of those horrific videos. It makes me wish there were a hell for such people.

[tanksoldier]

Originally Posted by Anthony

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.

With handguns, in real life, the single shot that forces a death roll hits the vitals.

One shooting instructor I had likened it to having a target that's two tennis balls on a piece of rebar. For the purposes of a gunfight THAT is the area inside a human that's more or less a "one shot stop"... tho people have continued to fight for several seconds even with their heart destroyed by a shotgun.

A handgun round HAS to hit something important to FORCE an opponent to stop fighting... and those important things: the heart, spine and cerebral cortex, are VERY small. MOST people who stop fighting when hit in handgun engagements stop for psychological reasons, not physiological ones.

There is a case of an officer fighting a perp in and around his squad car, teh Peter Soulis Incident. The officer hit the perp 22 times, 17 of those COM, with a .40 S&W. Perp died in the hospital, after shooting the cop 4 times all of which were stopped by the vest:

http://www.lawofficer.com/articles/p...ulis-inci.html

There is ALSO a case of Trooper Mark Coats killed by a .22 LR after shooting his opponent 5 times with a .357:

http://www.odmp.org/officer/420-troo...-hunter-coates

Coates and Shoulis didn't hit the vitals. Coates' opponent did.

Only about 10% of all gunshot wounds are fatal. Requiring that the handgun HIT the target AND hit a vital area to generate the possibility of immediate death seems reasonable to me.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

Coates and Shoulis didn't hit the vitals. Coates' opponent did.

And possibly Coate's opponent also got a critical hit, and rolled one of the really good results, like max damage, double damage, or triple damage. The critical hit table adds a second axis of variation to injury results, albeit in a small percentage of cases.