Hazards: Cold. Of wind double-dipping, clothes into water single-dipping et al.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I've seen/heard cases of frostbite affecting e.g. toes, and surely arctic explorers wouldn't have their feet exposed during travels

Yeah, this is due to a simplification on GURPS's part. Realistically, exposure isn't necessary for frostbite to come into play - you simply have to be losing enough body heat (be it due to direct exposure or inadequate protection) for the body to start basically shunting heat from the extremities to protect the core. A better rule might be to simply state that once you've taken over FP/2 or so in FP damage from cold, further cold damage means a roll against HT - failure causes equal HP damage to both hands and both feet. Having the fingers/toes exposed - or worse, wet - gives an HT penalty against the crippling effect. Characters can attempt to protect their digits by breathing on them, rubbing them together, etc - the reason toes get frostbite so frequently is because you'd have to sit down and take your boots off to keep them warm.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

there is a warning not to 'defreeze' extremities unless one is sure that warmth can be maintained, so that seems to indicate that damage works not from cold exposure alone.

As Edris noted, a lot of the damage from actual freezing is due to formation of ice crystals, which will rip cells apart. A decent number of cells typically luck out and don't get damaged beyond repair during a freeze, however, so when you thaw them out they can start up functions again. Continually freezing and then thawing the cells will result in far more loss of function - if 80% of cells survive each freezing (this is probably a rather high number above cryogenic temperatures - the longer it takes to freeze the more cells will die), then one freezing kills off 20%, two freezings kill off 36%, three freezings kill off nearly 50%, and so forth.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Hmm. Just for a bit of calculation: it takes 2×(More Than HP/3) injury to permanently cripple an extremity. So at least 8 HP per hand for a typical person, and there doesn't seem to be a reason for all frostbite damage to concentrate on a single extremety. That seems to indicate that frostbite is unlikely to be a serious problem until a person risks unconsciousness and subsequent death anyway.

Frostbite should probably be 1 HP of damage to each finger and toe (or, rather, each hand and foot, as fingers and toes aren't legitimate targets in GURPS), but either no HP loss overall or only 1 HP loss overall. Thus, at 8 HP of frostbite injury, all of the character's hands and feet have been permanently crippled beyond recovery (they've hit the "severed" category of damage). Note, however, that at a mere 4 HP of frostbite injury the hands and feet are crippled, with an HT roll to see how long it will take - if it will indeed be possible at all - to recover.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

But AFAIK the existence of effective temperature is precisely the thing that was caused by needing a way to indicate 'more cooling' as adjusted for wind?

This is the case to the best of my knowledge. Both lowering the temperature and increasing the rate of FP loss are good ways of representing this effect, but applying both really is double-dipping.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Yeah, this really stinks of double-dipping. Windchill could be represented by more frequent HT checks (as it's leeching heat from your body more rapidly) or a reduction in effective temperature. I don't think it should be both.

I principle, it can represent the compounding effect reflecting that in real life, wind speed and low temperature synergize real fast real strongly adding up to greater and greater danger.

In practice, it may well be bad design.

Also the wet clothes RAW thing sounds bad. Or at least imperfect

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Clothing should alter temperature tolerances and/or ranges, not give bonuses to Ht rolls.
A warm jacket plus regular clothing kept me comfy down to 0 F for as long as I wanted.

That certainly seems like the way I'd design things. It's rather more logical than the roll bonuses.

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Cold checks start at 35°F and below. Winter clothes provide +0 to those checks, no or light clothes provide -5 to them. What's the point of 'normal' clothing as far as staying warm goes? It doesn't seem to serve any niche game-mechanically.

Wet clothing gives an additional -5 to HT checks to resist cold, which is as bad as no clothing (apparently except in the case of arctic clothing, which has an inherent +5, resulting in +0 . . . I don't think it makes sense, but maybe I'm wrong). Anyway, I did once hear in some natgeo-clone show that getting out of wet clothes is a #1 priority but . . .

is it really better to strip naked after climbing onto the shore from under the ice?

IF you somehow end dry after stripping naked, perhaps.
otherwise, I would say that since no clothing and light clothing are the same rules-wise, I guess wet light clothing and wet naked are likewise as bad ?

Celjabba

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

IF you somehow end dry after stripping naked, perhaps.
otherwise, I would say that since no clothing and light clothing are the same rules-wise, I guess wet light clothing and wet naked are likewise as bad ?

Celjabba

I've been wondering about this myself. I suspect that while a wet naked skin is worse than a dry naked skin, it doesn't harbour as much water as clothing can. Just how practical it is to rub off at least most of the water under radical field conditions (i.e. without any dry cloth) I'm not sure. Edit: cold air might be an extra complication - I'm not sure how much it affects the drying speed.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I principle, it can represent the compounding effect reflecting that in real life, wind speed and low temperature synergize real fast real strongly adding up to greater and greater danger.

The effect is that it's effectively a great deal colder when there's a strong wind. I don't know if GURPS gets the drop in temperature correct or not, but it should probably be using one or the other, not both.

Originally Posted by Celjabba

IF you somehow end dry after stripping naked, perhaps.
otherwise, I would say that since no clothing and light clothing are the same rules-wise, I guess wet light clothing and wet naked are likewise as bad ?

Celjabba

Assuming low humidity (common when it's cold), water evaporates fairly quickly when exposed to body temperature, particularly if you're moving around a lot and/or there's a strong wind. The small amount that remains on your body will probably be gone fairly quickly, but as Vicky points out your clothing can hold onto a lot more.

If you'd like (and your living arrangements allow for it - I suggest against this if you have a lot of windows and/or have roommates), you can try a simple experiment. Take a shower normally (a cold one would be most effective, but a hot one will work without as much discomfort), then walk around the house (not the bathroom - humidity there will be too high thanks to your shower) without drying yourself off (you may want to put down some towels). Use a timer to check how long it takes your chest to dry off. Now hop into the shower fully clothed and repeat the experiment, and use a timer to check how long it takes your shirt to get dry.

If you've ever gone swimming, you probably already know how much more quickly a bare chest (or the parts of the chest that are bare, for women in bikini tops and the like) dries on its own than clothing does.

[Celjabba]

I certainly agree.
No test needed, you will dry faster without clothes, simply walking around. (but the clothes will dry slower on their own, all other things being equals)

On the other hand, I never tried at below freezing temp, and it may fall under the rules resolution.

Honestly, I have no idea, but it is a nice simmetry rules wise, and it avoid the possibly counter-intuitive result of being better naked than in wet clothing in sub-zero temp... Inside the comfort zone, it is definitively better, no discussion.

Celjabba

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

On the other hand, I never tried at below freezing temp, and it may fall under the rules resolution.

I do it regularly during winter, although after being in an outdoor hot tub rather than submerged in just-above-freezing water. With the exception of my swimming trunks, and the water that runs off them onto my legs, I'm pretty much completely dry in less than a matter of minutes if not sooner.

Originally Posted by Celjabba

Honestly, I have no idea, but it is a nice simetry rules wise, and it avoid the possibly counter-intuitive result of being better naked than in wet clothing in sub-zero temp... Inside the comfort zone, definitively.

That's hardly counterintuitive to anyone who's been in the cold in soaking wet clothing. If I don't wrap a towel around my waist - where my swimming trunks are - it feels like I am going to literally freeze my you-know-whats off. With the towel blocking my soaking wet trunks from the outside world, I am perfectly comfortable and can take my time checking the tub's water level and chemicals and covering it up, despite my feet and everything above my waist being completely exposed to the elements. I've also had cases (like a lot of us, I'd imagine) of getting completely drenched in the rain and then entering a rather cold (thanks to AC) building. Staying clothed is miserable. If stripping naked to change clothing, I feel more much more comfortable even before I get the new clothing on.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I've been wondering about this myself. I suspect that while a wet naked skin is worse than a dry naked skin, it doesn't harbour as much water as clothing can. Just how practical it is to rub off at least most of the water under radical field conditions (i.e. without any dry cloth) I'm not sure. Edit: cold air might be an extra complication - I'm not sure how much it affects the drying speed.

Human skin copes amazingly well with being wet compared to clothes. Just think about wet socks. That's quite nasty (I want to buy a SOP Perk "Always Carries a Pair of Dry Socks in Sealed Plastic Bag" but I haven't gotten it yet - the socks are in a knotted-up bag, but I very rarely carry them with me). But wet bare feet? *shrugs*

Cold makes it a lot trickier, of course, but I'd still say that skin sheds water many times more efficiently than any kind of cloth that is capable of absorbing water (such as cotton or non-felted wool, as well as many, many others).

[Peter Knutsen]

Note that clothing affecting Temperature Tolerance tresholds doesn't have to be zero-sum.

It's quite possible, in terms of game mechanics, to have clothing that lowers the cold threshold by 10F but only raises the heat treshold by 5F, for instance.

I'm not making a statement as to whether or not it is simuatively good to do so. I'm merely pointing out that being stuck in "Feature think"-mode might be ungood.