Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Icelander

The incapacitating mechanism for most wounds is a Fright Check, or at least something that would use substantially the same rules.

Sure, but note that most PCs won't be failing very often – and to make fights challenging, GMs will ensure that most NPCs won't be either. With high stats and all the bonuses for Combat Reflexes, Fearlessness, and so on, I've rarely seen a PC who'd care.

Such people are realistic, just not common. Changing their frequency in the campaign doesn't make the campaign any less realistic, because you're examining a statistically inconsequential population: "the PCs and their worthy foes." Dilute them enough with all the rest of humanity and you'll get entirely realistic averages for everyone surrounding a few entirely realistic-if-unusual people.

It would be an error when discussing an RPG – which is about the PCs – to let any of that change how you handle wounds for PCs. It would also be an error to assume that letting the PCs be statistical oddities in the Nth sigma makes the campain less realistic, or that you should limit how many PCs can be exceptional. Mostly, rules for this would be a boondoggle for representative PCs . . .

I think this gets at a bigger error in thinking, which is that realism is contingent on the PCs representing the statistical norm. Rubbish. If there's one guy who can fight legless, one seven-foot woman with ST 20, and one kid who's smarter than any adult alive in the world, then these are realistic people. It doesn't matter that the odds of them being in the same group are astronomically small. "Improbable" has nothing to do with "unrealistic."

[gjc8]

Originally Posted by Icelander

*Not just a minor fracture, but something permanently crippling without TL7+ surgery.

Keep in mind that not every crippled limb is hacked off (in fact, you need to hit a higher damage threshold for that) or otherwise horribly maimed. Crippled limbs can, at least sometimes, get better on their own.

In any case, as you point out, the forgiveness in GURPS is hardly unique to limb hits. See how well most people perform after significant injury to their torso. Under some hypothetical gritty realism for injured performance, any fright checks, will rolls to continue, etc, would apply just as much to significant torso wounds as crippled limbs. Such rules wouldn't really increase the attractiveness of the limbs as targets compared to the torso (probably the opposite, in fact, as current rules already significantly impair someone with a crippled limb, while someone with torso injuries can operate well past the point of probable psychological impairment).

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by umbros

I would say the difference between someone getting their nose broke in a fistfight and giving up and a Marine continuing to fire a machinegun after suffering multiple gunshot wounds is training. Repetitive ground in training. In both situations the individuals logical mind has shut down and "instinctual" response has taken over. It's just that the Marine's response has been altered back in basic training by a Drill Sergeant screaming in his face. He does what he was programmed to do under stress. Scared? keep shooting. tired? keep shooting. Hurt? keep shooting. Until you hear a cease fire.

Both training and innate psychological make-up play a role.

Note that this is why I allow Will-based Soldier skill to substitute for Will in Fright Checks made in combat.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Sure, but note that most PCs won't be failing very often – and to make fights challenging, GMs will ensure that most NPCs won't be either. With high stats and all the bonuses for Combat Reflexes, Fearlessness, and so on, I've rarely seen a PC who'd care.

If you make them roll the fright check, they probably care. Rule of 14 sees to that.

[Sabaron]

I'm aware this thread has been off topic for a while, but let me add in an on-topic concern I have yet to see addressed: shields.

Ordinarily a shield wielder gets an extra measure of protection for her shield arm. Instead of -2 to hit it is -4, and the hand is -8 instead of -4. The random hit rolls account for this in no way at all by my reading. That makes them somewhat less fair, yes? How should this be addressed?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Sabaron

Ordinarily a shield wielder gets an extra measure of protection for her shield arm. Instead of -2 to hit it is -4, and the hand is -8 instead of -4. The random hit rolls account for this in no way at all by my reading. That makes them somewhat less fair, yes? How should this be addressed?

Shouldn't a shield provide DR then to the affected limb?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by gjc8

Keep in mind that not every crippled limb is hacked off (in fact, you need to hit a higher damage threshold for that) or otherwise horribly maimed. Crippled limbs can, at least sometimes, get better on their own.

Realistically, the Fright Check for having a limb hacked off should be harder than just having it crippled.

Originally Posted by gjc8

In any case, as you point out, the forgiveness in GURPS is hardly unique to limb hits. See how well most people perform after significant injury to their torso. Under some hypothetical gritty realism for injured performance, any fright checks, will rolls to continue, etc, would apply just as much to significant torso wounds as crippled limbs. Such rules wouldn't really increase the attractiveness of the limbs as targets compared to the torso (probably the opposite, in fact, as current rules already significantly impair someone with a crippled limb, while someone with torso injuries can operate well past the point of probable psychological impairment).

All true.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Sure, but note that most PCs won't be failing very often – and to make fights challenging, GMs will ensure that most NPCs won't be either. With high stats and all the bonuses for Combat Reflexes, Fearlessness, and so on, I've rarely seen a PC who'd care.

Even by the relatively forgiving rules in High-Tech, Fright Checks at -4 and more, at the GM's option, are called for when someone is seriously wounded.

It is at least possible that there exists a PC or a significant NPC with Will+Fearlessness at less than 18. These people would care very much.

Originally Posted by Kromm

Such people are realistic, just not common. Changing their frequency in the campaign doesn't make the campaign any less realistic, because you're examining a statistically inconsequential population: "the PCs and their worthy foes." Dilute them enough with all the rest of humanity and you'll get entirely realistic averages for everyone surrounding a few entirely realistic-if-unusual people.

Well, in many games, the foes are normal humans. An exceptionally capable band of PCs is notable precisely because they are not as subject to the psychological weaknesses of the human race as their enemies.

Hence, roll the Fright Checks and have the normal people fail and the exceptional ones succeed.

Originally Posted by Kromm

It would be an error when discussing an RPG – which is about the PCs – to let any of that change how you handle wounds for PCs. It would also be an error to assume that letting the PCs be statistical oddities in the Nth sigma makes the campain less realistic, or that you should limit how many PCs can be exceptional. Mostly, rules for this would be a boondoggle for representative PCs . . .

I think this gets at a bigger error in thinking, which is that realism is contingent on the PCs representing the statistical norm. Rubbish. If there's one guy who can fight legless, one seven-foot woman with ST 20, and one kid who's smarter than any adult alive in the world, then these are realistic people. It doesn't matter that the odds of them being in the same group are astronomically small. "Improbable" has nothing to do with "unrealistic."

Given that the rules of injuries affect everyone, PC and NPC alike, it is not nice for realistic games when the rules don't support realistic results.

I have no problem with characters with Soldier at IQ+4, Will 14 and Fearlessness 4 being able to ignore pain and terror that would reduce lesser men to quievering jelly. I just object to it being considered an automatic feature of being treated with GURPS rules, as I want those rules to cover the Russian recruits guarding the barracks doors as well as the Spetznatz that come after the PCs once they have stolen the proto-type Redeye missile copy.

And pretty much everyone, PC or NPC, should at least have to be concerned that the most probable result of a truly terrible wound (like having a limb hacked off) will be psychological incapacitation. Simply because the penalty to the Fright Check is so severe.

[Bruno]

Having been in my own car crash, I can say that after recovering from Knockdown and Stunning from my head injury and before recovering from my temporary amnesia, I was up on my feet (on crushed and ripped muscles and cracked bones I might add) and dragging my bike out of the road. The driver was still getting out of the car, so I wasn't down long.

I didn't know where I was or how I got there, but I could see I was lying in a road, and I immediately recognized this as stupid. I could get hit by a car! So I got up and dragged my (bent) bike out of the road and sat down on the curb because I was feeling kind of sore and confused and I don't think well when standing up at the best of times.

That's the last time I walked without crutches for about eight weeks.

This is how all of my various crashes, wipe outs, and injuries have gone. Step one, recover from mental or physical stun (this occasionally takes quite a while, and outright knockout can keep me out long enough to invalidate the rest of the process). Step two, hie myself to saftey, usually doing something stupid to myself in the process. Step 3, figure out what the hell just happened. Step four, horrible agony.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Step one, recover from mental or physical stun (this occasionally takes quite a while, and outright knockout can keep me out long enough to invalidate the rest of the process).

Note that this is what I'm arguing usually functions as 'psychological incapacitation'. By the time you recover from this (which, as you note, usually takes longer than in the RAW), few people really decide to rejoin the fight. Instead, their primary concern is minimising their pain and not risk any future hurt.