Quote from: John Morrow;579360I disagree to the extent that I do think that battles being decided in one blow can be fun, but if the game designers want to avoid the PCs being killed with one shot, then I would prefer them to give the PCs script immunity through some sort of Fate Point (Warhammer FRP version) or Fudge Point mechanism rather than nerfing the entire combat system so that nobody, PC or NPC, ever dies with one blow.

Yep, that's an accurate summation of the system I use, I limit the "script immunity" fairly severely though so it isn't abused.

PCs aren't dropping like flies either - while they might be killed in one blow, they are usually quick enough on the dodge and well enough armoured that its quite unlikely, especially if they don't do things like single handedly charge a column of the city guard. The possibility adds a wonderfully keen edge of excitement to combat however, its betting with real money.

Quote from: John Morrow;579366In the real world, there are things that people can recover from and things that they don't recover from, which also raises the fairly gruesome possibility of characters dying slowly, something most RPGs avoid.  Of course another thing that many role-playing games gloss over are scars and worse, such as the loss of limbs, eyes, permanent brain damage, and so on, which is a very real problem in the real world after incapacitating injuries.

That's one of the things I'm trying to address.  As an example from my work with Living Steel:

QuoteSome time after the previous example, Mike is unfortunate enough to be the recipient of a sniper attack. He takes a 5000 PD hit to his abdomen, failing his KV roll and becoming incapacitated for 6 days. The Physical Damage is converted to 2000 Damage Total, and Mike's Critical Time Period (the time until the character must receive medical aid or make a Fortitude save or die) is 28 rounds, with no chance to survive.

Luckily, Mike's team medic is nearby and rushes to provide First Aid.  His assistance increases Mike's CTP to 15 hours, however there is still no chance that Mike will be able to survive a wound of this severity. A MEDEVAC is called, and Mike is moved to a nearby base with a Field Hospital. Mike's CTP is now 25 days, but the Recovery Roll (the fort save) is still a hefty 27. The decision is made to move him again, this time to a Bondsman Trauma Center.

At the Trauma Center, Mike's CTP is still 25 days, but his RR is now 17. The doctors recommend that Mike remain in the Trauma Center for the full 25 days of his CTP, as well as the extra 3 days to reach the 1/3 of his total Healing Time (84 days) (which reduces the overall healing time by 20%). Mike's team agrees to this (he is still unconscious), and after 25 days Mike will make his RR at a DC of 11.

Essentially, in the idealized example, they continue to escalate the care that Mike is receiving until it's possible for him to survive; but if they didn't have access to the MEDEVAC, there would honestly be no chance for him to live.  It falls right in with John's comments about some things not being survivable.

Here's my rule for disabling injuries (for the purposes of the table, this is a d20 game, so stat mods have the same effect that you would expect)

QuoteDisabling Injuries and Permanent Disability
Whenever a character receives a serious injury (more than 300 PD in a single wound) or a disabling injury, the possibility exists that the character will not heal completely, leaving him permanently disabled. After the recovery roll is made for survival, additional recovery rolls must be made for each critical wound the character received, at the same DC as the survival roll. If the character fails this roll, then the injury has resulted in a permanent disability as shown on the Disability table. Exceptional Merit Swords roll multiple times to resist these effects as well. All effects of permanent injuries are cumulative.

Additionally, characters who receive 700 PD or more to an extremity have suffered from a traumatic amputation at GM discretion.

Injury Type - Disability
* Arm - Arm Injury, -4 to actions using that arm
** Arm - Serious Arm Injury, -8 to actions using that arm
* Leg - Leg Injury, Move reduced to 7m,
** Leg - Serious Leg Injury, Move reduced to 5m
Body (<1000 PD) - Body Injury, -1 to STR and CON
Body (<5000 PD) - Serious Body Injury, -3 to STR and Con
Body (<40000 PD) - Extreme Body Injury, -6 to STR and Con
Body (<100000 PD) - Crippling Body Injury, -8 to STR and Con
Upper Head - Brain Damage, -4 to INT and WIS
Eye-Nose - Missing Eye, -4 Traps & Spotting (Spot Checks), -2 to Ranged Combat, -2 to Defense rolls in Armed Combat
Mouth - Mouth/Jaw Damage, -4 CHA (Has difficulty speaking)

Do you think that's too harsh to use on PC's? Do you think that PC's should have some sort of safety net in games with higher lethality?

Quote from: gleichman;579368Think of it as a limited version of "script immunity through some sort of Fate Point" that's skips the additional rule overhead and is just directly applied post-combat.

Well, that's my question to deadDMwalking about such mechanics.  Are they for everyone or just the PCs and special NPCs?  And, of course, if they too readily save the PCs from situations that can kill them, it can raise the problem deadDMwalking mentioned about Burn Notice, that "Taken in isolation, most of his actions could be understood as possible - but taken in conglomerate, the idea of him having survived is pretty ludicrous."  That's really the problem with a lot story-oriented techniques (in fiction as well as role-playing games).  In isolation, they work fine and seem realistic but, used again and again, they can create serious believability problems.  Having some red shirts in the landing party die once to show how dangerous the situation is can work pretty well.  Done week after week, and it becomes the stuff of parody.

Quote from: John Morrow;579380but taken in conglomerate, the idea of him having survived is pretty ludicrous.[/i]"  That's really the problem with a lot story-oriented techniques (in fiction as well as role-playing games).

One either accepts genre conventions or one doesn't. The nice thing about doing one's own rules (or house rules) is that you get to pick and chose.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;579371Do you think that's too harsh to use on PC's? Do you think that PC's should have some sort of safety net in games with higher lethality?

Those negatives could have serious repercussions for characters with abilities that rely on attributes.  The last 3 seem like pretty severe jumps, and there should probably be a less severe version or versions of them.   For a game with magic, it's possible to have the application of magical healing reduce or eliminate the negative long-term effects of wounds that will happen if they heal naturally.

Quote from: gleichman;579382One either accepts genre conventions or one doesn't. The nice thing about doing one's own rules (or house rules) is that you get to pick and chose.

Sure, and there are certainly people who feel such genre conventions are critical to running a game like the fictional work in question and I understand where they are coming from.  It's my opinion that overused storytelling techniques are usually simply that -- overused storytelling techniques that are a problem.  I think that the original Star Trek, for example, was good despite the overuse of the red shirt storytelling technique, not because of it, and it's the reason (with a few notable exceptions) that movie sequels that use the same storytelling techniques as the original quickly get old and are rarely considered as good as the original.

Basically, I think there are two ways to emulate a genre.  One way is to emulate the milieu of the genre.  An example would be playing a game set in the Star Trek universe and I believe the Starfleet Battles-derived Star Trek games such as Prime Directive take this approach.  In such a game, the bridge crew doesn't necessarily beam down to every planet and the red shirts are not always the first to die.  The other way is to emulate the type of stories typical of the genre.  A GM emulating Star Trek stories would deliberately set up scenes so that red shirts die, the captain talks an evil computer to death, the Chief Engineer does something "impossible", and so on because that's what happens in Star Trek stories.  Either can be seen as a legitimate goal, but players expecting one and getting the other can be seriously disappointed.

Quote from: John Morrow;579389Basically, I think there are two ways to emulate a genre.  One way is to emulate the milieu of the genre.



The other way is to emulate the type of stories typical of the genre.

Or you do a mix of both, keeping elements of the latter (like a lower chance of death than one would expect) and flowing otherwise with the former.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;579334That is a pretty interesting example, and one that makes me wonder:  when you're wounded in FB, how long does it take to heal, and what are the negative effects of it?

Hit points heal at the rate of one point per location per week.

Say a character with 10 total hit points gets hit with a pistol ball for 6 points in the arm and amd a sword thrust for 2 points in the leg; his arm is useless for 1D6 days after missing an Endurance check. A surgeon heals three points of damage, distributed among his wounds, so he gets two back on his arm and one on his leg. That means it takes one week to heal the light wound to his leg and four weeks to heal the serious wound to his arm completely.

A character can regain two points per location per week with bed rest, so he could heal completely in two weeks if he wishes; that's time than can't be spent adventuring, practicing, and so forth.

Some wounds can result in long-tem injury or disability as well. Say the character had already lost two points of general damage from a grenade blast, and the serious wound from the pistol ball dropped him to zero. The character goes unconscious for 1D6 hours and rolls 1D20 - 1-11 no long term effect, 12-16 bad scar (no other effect), 17-18 broken bone (1D6+2 weeks to heal the break before normal healing can begin), 19-20 lose hand, (-2 Dexterity, -1 Endurance, replace with hook that gets treated as a dagger thereafter).

Quote from: Panzerkraken;579334I read your example combat for your house rules, on the surface it seems like a combat system that's quick but with some depth to it.

What I like about it is that it captures the back-and-forth of swordplay while integrating firearms and brawling smoothly. There are good reasons, for example, for parrying with a sword and then punching the other guy in the face, and no matter how good a swordsman may be, he's still vulnerable to a pistol shot or getting poked with a pike.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;579343If death is too common, you don't really role-play your character because he's seen as expendable.

Develop-at-Start sorts find this to be a problem; Develop-in-Play gamers couldn't really care less as long as they're having fun playig the game.

Quote from: gleichman;579382One either accepts genre conventions or one doesn't.

Be very clear on exactly whixh genre conventions you're trying to emulate.

Quote from: gleichman;579390Or you do a mix of both, keeping elements of the latter (like a lower chance of death than one would expect) and flowing otherwise with the former.

Yes, a middle ground is certainly possible, but doing so just shifts the same problem to a more granular level, if a player expects something to go one way and it goes the other, instead.  I'm not saying that it can't be resolved.  I'm pointing out that it's important that both players and GM be on the same page.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;579397Develop-at-Start sorts find this to be a problem; Develop-in-Play gamers couldn't really care less as long as they're having fun playig the game.

I'm very much a Develop-In-Play person and thus consider a character that is well-developed in play a pretty substantial investment in time.  I once played a D&D game where I went through a lot of characters and I got pretty detached from caring about the game or my characters as a result.  So I see that as a legitimate concern.

Quote from: John Morrow;579398I'm pointing out that it's important that both players and GM be on the same page.

Generally speaking, the rules themselves will make this clear.

Those detailing how a character dies will speak to how how lethal battle is to PCs (and important NPCs) as opposed to NPCs. If there are no rules for the Chief Engineer to do impossible things, then he clearly can't.

Of course the players may be willing to read the rules in the first place.

Quote from: gleichman;579400Generally speaking, the rules themselves will make this clear.

In your case, that may be true, but how accurate a predictor that is can depend on how much fudging the GM engages in.  And, of course, things like red shirts dying in Star Trek as as much a matter of how the GM has NPCs pick targets to kill as an application of rules.

Quote from: John Morrow;579401In your case, that may be true, but how accurate a predictor that is can depend on how much fudging the GM engages in.

As you know, I'm not a big fan of the GM fudging.

Quote from: John Morrow;579401And, of course, things like red shirts dying in Star Trek as as much a matter of how the GM has NPCs pick targets to kill as an application of rules.

It should be more a matter of how the players deploy their landing party.

Red Shirts (i.e. security personal) are suppose to stand between any dangers and the crew they are sworn to protect. They have point and perimeter and are the natural first targets. Add in the fact that they will throw themselves in the way of fire much like the secret service and the genre convention of Red Shirts dying rather takes care of itself.

D&D, GURPS, and HERO are all pretty deadly at the baseline.  A level zero commoner, or a guy with straight tens in the other two will die very quickly.  His only hope of survival is the whiff factor and that's set at 50% in all three.  (hits AC10 on a 10, DX 10, Dex 10 / 3 + 11 - foe's 10 DX /3).

In D&D you're looking at a d6 or d8 damage verses a d6 hitpoints.

In GURPS you're looking at a pistol doing 2d6-2 (x3 vs Vitals x4 vs Brain) against HT x 2 (before this you're just knocked out after it you have a second by second chance of dying)  Sure he's got a dodge of 8- on 3d6 if he's aware of the attacker or didn't all out attack.

In Hero you're looking at a pistol doing 2d6 Killing against a Body of 10.  Which is the highest survival margine of the three.

It's just they have options that make character survival more likely.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;579334I wasn't trying to place a judgement on either of those systems, they fell in with the others because they make use of a hit point system that, by default, doesn't take into account injury with regards to performance.

Just to correct a misunderstanding about now GURPS works: it most definitely does take injury into account with regard to effectiveness.

For example:

• Immediately following taking damage, a victim suffers a shock penalty equal to the damage suffered (to a maximum of -4, which is pretty serious in GURPS terms).
  
• If you take damage equal to half your Health in the Torso (average HT is 10, so 5 points) in a single wound you must make a HT check; fail and you are knocked down and stunned, fail by 5 or more and pass out.
  
• If you have lost 2/3rds of your hit points then your Basic Speed, Move and Dodge are all halved.
• If you take damage equal to half your Health in a major limb (arm or leg) in a single hit then the limb is crippled and unusable. Make a HT check at the end of the combat - a success means the effect passes, a failure means it is lasting and a critical means it is permanent!
  
• A minor limb (hand or foot) is crippled if you take 1/3rd your HT in a single hit.
  

So whilst the game does have hit points, they are used in a radically different way to how D&D uses them, for example.

GURPS high-tech (current era) is pretty dangerous as guns dish out a lot of damage and armour is relatively weak. The balance is different in different time periods dependent on the weapons and armour available. And to keep this relevant to the point of the thread, GURPS combat does make players more likely to consider tactics other than a frontal assault against superior numbers...