Fire and lowtech questions.

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Plenty of fun stuff from wood too. And whatever paints and sealants they used.

True, but compared to the muck you get from burning halo-organic compounds it's not that exciting.

[dcarson]

I read that people are more resistant to the toxic stuff in smoke then most other animals since we have had quite a while to evolve resistance. I assume dogs also. Doesn't mean it doesn't bother us just that it bothers most things even more.

[Evil Roy Slade]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

Full thickness burns can be almost painless because the underlying nerves are gone. Of course, those are also extremely hard to heal without skin grafts and very prone to infection.

This actually reminds me of a slightly related question: how much can magical healing actually repair -- not in terms of HP, but more the physical results of major trauma, specifically burns? Last session in a DF game I had a dwarven demolisher (from Pyramid #3/36) have his burner (likewise) get destroyed while he was holding it. The resulting damage brought him down to about -3 X HT, but Hard to Kill and a couple of potions saved him until they got him to a healer a few hours later.

Would magical healing remove the scarring effects of these serious burns?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Evil Roy Slade

Would magical healing remove the scarring effects of these serious burns?

There aren't any particular rules in GURPS for acquiring lasting injuries other than crippling, so whether the character recovers fully or suffers artistic scarring (with no mechanical effect) is up to the GM and/or player. A harsh realism campaign might have permanent lesser injuries, but harsh realism and DF aren't really compatible.

[starslayer]

Originally Posted by Evil Roy Slade

This actually reminds me of a slightly related question: how much can magical healing actually repair -- not in terms of HP, but more the physical results of major trauma, specifically burns? Last session in a DF game I had a dwarven demolisher (from Pyramid #3/36) have his burner (likewise) get destroyed while he was holding it. The resulting damage brought him down to about -3 X HT, but Hard to Kill and a couple of potions saved him until they got him to a healer a few hours later.

Would magical healing remove the scarring effects of these serious burns?

Beimg that magic can cover regrowing whole limbs from nothing I would say 'it can completely treat anything'.

Worst case a talented healer cuts off all the scarred skin and regrows the tissue with magic.

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by Evil Roy Slade

This actually reminds me of a slightly related question: how much can magical healing actually repair -- not in terms of HP, but more the physical results of major trauma, specifically burns? Last session in a DF game I had a dwarven demolisher (from Pyramid #3/36) have his burner (likewise) get destroyed while he was holding it. The resulting damage brought him down to about -3 X HT, but Hard to Kill and a couple of potions saved him until they got him to a healer a few hours later.

Would magical healing remove the scarring effects of these serious burns?

Guess it depends on the setting, the nature of the magic healing and whether the player needs a few extra points for something and feels like taking a disadvantage. Alternatively, a GM might allow a character who would otherwise die to take a level of extra life and pay for it with some disads.
Otherwise, there's no specific mechanics so just assume that it fixes everything brand new ... and that natural healing does as well...

[sir_pudding]

Disadvantages gained in play don't give back any points, they just lower your point total.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by dcarson

I read that people are more resistant to the toxic stuff in smoke then most other animals since we have had quite a while to evolve resistance. I assume dogs also. Doesn't mean it doesn't bother us just that it bothers most things even more.

Once we had both fire and the idea of living in enclosed spaces (caves or huts, either one) we were constantly subjected to smoke inhalation until the invention of the electric lamp. The invention of chimneys helped reduce the exposure but definitely didn't eliminate it; franklin-style stoves helped also, but ultimately you have to remove all the candles and lamps to stop smoking us to death.

Of course then you'd step outside your home in London and nearly die because of the coal smoke, until the mid 50s. All the news we heard about Chinese air quality around the last Olympics? The London air quality was worse.

The long and the short of it is that we've had serious pressure to tolerate smoke - but it's always cool smoke, not the hot smoke you get from being in a fire. Small birds can be killed pretty darn quickly by second hand cigarettes, but nobody likes having the insides of their lungs blast-heated.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Of course then you'd step outside your home in London and nearly die because of the coal smoke, until the mid 50s. All the news we heard about Chinese air quality around the last Olympics? The London air quality was worse.

Yup. Very revealing graph of deaths during The Great Smog of 1952 here.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Bruno

...
The long and the short of it is that we've had serious pressure to tolerate smoke - but it's always cool smoke, not the hot smoke you get from being in a fire. Small birds can be killed pretty darn quickly by second hand cigarettes, but nobody likes having the insides of their lungs blast-heated.

But have there been studies proving that modern humans are significantly more resistant to toxic smoke than other primates?
Birds are notoriously susceptible to respiratory problems.