Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-22-2005, 11:22 PM   #21
Ze'Manel Cunha
 
Ze'Manel Cunha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Default Re: Damage from falls

Quote:
Originally Posted by lwcamp
I'd expect a fall into a 20 yd pit to break your legs but not kill you. A fall from a 4th floor window would probably leave you broken and dying, but not immediately dead. Quick work at the emergency room could save you still.
I'm not sure you are comparing those two falls properly.
A story/level of a building is normally at most 12-15 feet, which is the same as 4-5 yards. Four stories is usually at most 50-60 feet, or around 16-20 yards. (Unless you're in Europe where they don't count the first/ground floor.)
An American four story fall is very survivable, even without immediate medical care.
A European four story fall is a bit mroe dangerous since that'd be a 5th floor fall.

Latest local fall from a 4th floor:
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar.../ln/ln30p.html

It happens several times a year around here, and most of the time the kids survive, with more or less damage, it's usually just the drunk co-eds who die when they fall from their lanais head first onto the concrete.

Last edited by Ze'Manel Cunha; 06-22-2005 at 11:30 PM.
Ze'Manel Cunha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2005, 06:50 AM   #22
Luther
Grim Reaper
 
Luther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Italy
Default Re: Damage from falls

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camillus
Take your pick, relating mortality to the height fallen is more intuitive, and from a game perspective easier to model, so I'd probably go with that approach.
Interesting stuff. Thank you.
__________________
bye!
-- Lut

God of the Cult of Stat Normalization
Luther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2005, 07:48 AM   #23
Luther
Grim Reaper
 
Luther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Italy
Default Re: Damage from falls

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lupo
I guess you're right - 10 point of damage means -2 to HT rolls, and it's not easy rolling three times in a row 8 or less.

Would you mind to check for HT 11 and 12 (more common for PCs) as well? ^^
No prob: Death Probability From Fall, Without Medical Help (bleeding rules used)
Code:
HT  HP  Dice of Damage  2d     4d     6d
10  10                  74%    94%    99%
12  12                  18%    59%    88%    
14  14                   0%     9%    42%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lupo
Or... would you make your bleeding simulator available to us? I find it really interesting!
I wrote it in a rush, but if there is interest I can post the C source code.
__________________
bye!
-- Lut

God of the Cult of Stat Normalization
Luther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2005, 07:58 AM   #24
digoraccoon
 
digoraccoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Orlando, FL
Default Re: Damage from falls

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lupo
digoraccoon,
giving the average person 5 HP doesn't seem the right way to fix falling damage ^^
At least because reducing HP you will reduce collision damage too... so it doesn't matter that much if you have 2 HP or 200, in any case you won't be killed by 40 yards or less falls.
I disagree that in GURPS PC are so heroic that routinely surviving falls seems right.
Well, what I do is base the collision damage on the average ST 10 person and then apply damage to a reduded hit point threshold. Or another way to put it, simply deal more damage on a fall. I believe Gurps 4e Campaign book stated that collisions with hard or immovable objects (e.g. the ground) deals double damage to the victim. So simply have most falls onto firm surfaces deal double (or triple, or whatever you feel is "Realistic") damage as you see fit. ^_^

Again, I don't deal much into realistic mechanics of a game. What I like about the GURPS system is the rules can be a modular as the character generation. Pick and choose what rules are good. Modify what you need so it fit's the campaign you want. I've never seen any two GMs use the same rules in the GURPS system. Even here, most of us seem to have idfferent ideas on resolving the damage dealt on a fall. And that's fine to me, everyone has different tastes and I personally feel that if all my GMs used the exact same rules, the games would get a little boring, mechanically speaking.

As for the heroic survival rate of PC, my gaming group and I enjoy movie cinematic syles more then realistic styles of play. It's just personal preference with that. ^_^
__________________
Dungeon Master Digo
"I'm going to start rolling damage dice and then I'll let you know if Saving Throws even matter."

The Arbiters Conspiracy comics at its Fnordest.
digoraccoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2005, 04:32 PM   #25
Camillus
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In the backrooms of my mind
Default Re: Damage from falls

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob
Interesting. In those French studies, were statistics given on time from injury to hospital? My instinct would be that, on average, the RTA would get medical treatment more quickly. Why? Because when you're hit by a car, at least one person knows you're injured, and goes for help. When you fall from a building, you might be on your own, and just have to hope someone comes along...
There was no specific mention of time between injury and hospitalisation in either study but that is probably because the authors didn't consider it significant. There is one paper from a group in Belfast that discusses massive injury and its outcome that talks about transit times. Their 8 patients were all hospitalised between 25 mins and 75 mins after ambulance arrival on scene. The longest period of time was for a patient trapped in a vehicle after a collision.

The paper that compared the severity of injury from FFH and RTA used a scoring system called the Injury Severity Score (ISS) to compare the two groups and the fallers had a significantly higher score. Prehospital time wouldn't have affected this.

Quote:
No hard and fast rules, of course, but I would imagine that in general, the RTA will get to hospital quicker than the FFH victims. And time from injury to hospital is a very important factor in surviving wounds of any kind...
Possibly. All modern trauma care is based around the concept of the "golden hour" but there's in fact no evidence that it actually makes a difference. It seems that it got adopted because a prominent trauma surgeon in Maryland pushed the idea in the early/mid 1970's. However there have never been any significant studies that actually say its as important as people believe.
Camillus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2005, 06:53 PM   #26
Kyle Aaron
MIB
 
Kyle Aaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Default Re: Damage from falls

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camillus
Possibly. All modern trauma care is based around the concept of the "golden hour" but there's in fact no evidence that it actually makes a difference. It seems that it got adopted because a prominent trauma surgeon in Maryland pushed the idea in the early/mid 1970's. However there have never been any significant studies that actually say its as important as people believe.
The idea was around before then, in essence - get to those with life-threatening injuries as quickly as possible.

It's not a quantitative study, but qualitively you can certainly say that survival rates from serious injuries have gone up for US soldiers from WWI to WWII to Korea to Vietnam to the Gulf. That's because transport for the wounded to the hospital went from being stretcher-carriers on foot to vehicles to helicopters. Even when you factor in antibiotics, there's still a significant difference.

Plus, qualitively speaking, it's common sense. People die from lack of oxygen to the brain, in the end. And this is caused by suffocation, shock, or loss of blood. All three take time to kick in; the longer you leave the person, the more likely they are to die. How many people every year are brought back to life with CPR? For example, one site mentions that every year in British Columbia, 2,500 people suffer cardiac arrest; one in five of those receive CPR from bystanders. Of those not receiving CPR, 95% die; of those not receiving CPR, 50% die.

Yes, studies need to be done to determine the exact effects. There are many basic things we don't know. But the essential truth is that in all cases, the sooner you receive treatment, the better. You have then less time to suffocate, go into shock, or bleed to death.
__________________
* husband * father * personal trainer * gamer * ... in that order
"Kyle's games aren't remotely thespy... I'd say they're more high-minded hack."
Kyle Aaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2005, 04:56 AM   #27
Qohelet
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Italy
Default Re: Damage from falls

[QUOTE=Lupo]I guess you're right - 10 point of damage means -2 to HT rolls, and it's not easy rolling three times in a row 8 or less.

Would you mind to check for HT 11 and 12 (more common for PCs) as well? ^^

Or... would you make your bleeding simulator available to us? I find it really interesting!

Hi

Lupo[


Yes Luther, please!
Anyway, I tend to agree with you - but i also ABSOLUTELY agree with Sidis, when he says
"Damage from falls higher than 10 yds should get a x3 modifier (vitals)".

That's very very true, and it's the way i'm dealing with falls in my plays. (actually i set a threshold of 15 yds, but 10 is maybe more realistic. i'll think about it...) It's a very simple HR, but it makes falls much closer to reality.
Consider that internal organs are slightly movable, and they oscillates whenever the body suffers a sudden deceleration. With strong deceleration, they make BiG oscillations, thus dislocating an d tearing vital structures (aorta rupture is a common lesion of high falls, for instance. I should really get some statistic to know how much common, but don't have time..). The spine too would most likely get damaged from a very high fall, no matter in what position you fall.
__________________
Your Lordship's faithful observer
Q.
Qohelet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2005, 05:21 AM   #28
Qohelet
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Italy
Default Re: Damage from falls

I still think that damage from high falls is a bit underrated in gurps - I knew some people who worked in emergency medicine, and did sometimess rescues of climbers who had fallen off the Pietra di Bismantova - a very popular climbing site near my town. Well (sorry to sound gruesome) they told me that they often had to collect all the pieces of the body, in order to do a rescue... I didn't see those poor bodies, but that would probably be a 10xHT dmg in GURPS - almost impossible with the official falls rules. It is true, though, that those poor guys probably bounced several times on the cliff (don't have the manual at hand. Do 2 25 yds falls do more damage thaan one 50yds? seems odd.) and they maybe landed on uneven, sharp rocks - nasty GMs should probably introduce another damage multiplier for landing on really BAD ground...

What they told in this thread about realism and fun is true of course. If you don't want your PCs to die too likely from a fall... just don't add damage multipliers!
__________________
Your Lordship's faithful observer
Q.
Qohelet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2005, 06:42 AM   #29
Luther
Grim Reaper
 
Luther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Italy
Default Re: Damage from falls

Qohelet,

send me a PM with your email and I'll send you the source.

Beware that adding multiplier can kill the average guy too easily! Have you read the statistics I posted above?

Using bleeding rules, even a 2d fall is extremely nasty: 3 out of 4 die.
__________________
bye!
-- Lut

God of the Cult of Stat Normalization
Luther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2005, 05:16 AM   #30
Camillus
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In the backrooms of my mind
Default Re: Damage from falls

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob
The idea was around before then, in essence - get to those with life-threatening injuries as quickly as possible.
I think it's a more recent concept than people imagine. It's worth noting that in article about helicopter transport from 1969 there is a discussion of the disagreement between doctors as to the importance of time in trauma management.

Quote:
It's not a quantitative study, but qualitively you can certainly say that survival rates from serious injuries have gone up for US soldiers from WWI to WWII to Korea to Vietnam to the Gulf. That's because transport for the wounded to the hospital went from being stretcher-carriers on foot to vehicles to helicopters. Even when you factor in antibiotics, there's still a significant difference.
The problem with the increasing survival rates for military casualties is that there is no data (that I'm aware of) that says that soldiers who survived had a shorter period of time between evacuation and hospitalisation. All the data says is that survival increased for the population as a whole. Certainly there was an improvement in evacuation time but there was a similar improvement in a myriad of other treatments as well. There is simply no way of knowing whether rapid evacuation is key factor.

You can make a case for the generalised improvement in trauma care being responsible for increased survival. For example between 1989 and 1990 during the battle of Jalalabad, Afghanistan, casualties got basic care, roughly equivalent to WW2 level battlefield first aid. Only 75% of those who reached hospital in Pakistan survived. In the period 1991-1992 the casualties started getting modern battlefield first aid and mortality rates halved, with about 87% surviving. I doubt anyone would make an argument that evacuation from first aid stations in Afghanistan to Pakistan was quick during that period.

It is also important to remember that 90% of combat deaths occur on location and 70% of those happen within 5 minutes of the initial injury, usually from massive, uncontrolled haemorrhage.

Quote:
Plus, qualitively speaking, it's common sense. People die from lack of oxygen to the brain, in the end. And this is caused by suffocation, shock, or loss of blood. All three take time to kick in; the longer you leave the person, the more likely they are to die. How many people every year are brought back to life with CPR? For example, one site mentions that every year in British Columbia, 2,500 people suffer cardiac arrest; one in five of those receive CPR from bystanders. Of those not receiving CPR, 95% die; of those not receiving CPR, 50% die.
Cardiac arrest is not comparable to trauma. A person in cardiac arrest is already dead, the purpose of CPR is to try and buy them time until they can be defibrillated. There is a clear timeline in this situation and an individualís chances of resuscitation are very much dependent on the rapid reversal of the cause of their arrest. In contrast someone who has suffered trauma is not dead yet; the question is if they are still alive after an hour or so are their chances any worse than someone who was rushed straight to hospital. As you say it would seem to be common sense that the faster you get definitive treatment the better your chances of survival, but that may not actually be the case and there is, in fact, no evidence to say that it is.

Quote:
Yes, studies need to be done to determine the exact effects. There are many basic things we don't know. But the essential truth is that in all cases, the sooner you receive treatment, the better. You have then less time to suffocate, go into shock, or bleed to death.
I donít think anyone would dispute that it is better to be treated quickly than to wait. However in situations where immediate resuscitation isnít needed there is a question about whether the rapidity of definitive treatment (as opposed to advanced trauma life support) is the primary deciding factor in survival.
Camillus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.