Quote from: RunningLaser;936038In my experience, players love to roll on critical charts and dealing pain and woe to those foes that they face.  However, they are loath to have those same critical charts rolled against them.

In the case of Aliens, no one expected to live through the scenario. Especially with the GM having Yautja statted. It really forced you to think out your strategy and to make judicious use of terrain and cover.

Good stuff everyone. I don't particularly have a desire or need for a more detailed system, I just wondered why they are so rare and have seemingly gone out of favor. Many of your reasons reflect my own.

As to the one "Its a game, geeze get over yourself" answer, I find that odd. Other arguments are made embellishing the importance of the integrity of the game, the freedom of action of the characters, the simulation v.s. story telling elements... and yet here 'Its just a game' is acceptable wherein if stated in one of those other discussions its heresy.

Some more thoughts on this.  I haven't read much on historical battles, melees and one on one fights.  I don't know how many life and death fights a warrior back in the day fought- did they have more combats or as many as an average player character has?  It seems that with a super detailed wound system, at some point, your number is going to come up.  

I'd say another thing that seems to have fallen out of favor would be morale systems.  I haven't seen many games with a strong focus on morale.

Quote from: Krimson;936060In the case of Aliens, no one expected to live through the scenario. Especially with the GM having Yautja statted. It really forced you to think out your strategy and to make judicious use of terrain and cover.

For one shots, I could see that being really cool and detailed hit locations and damage a nice add on.

Quote from: RunningLaser;936064For one shots, I could see that being really cool and detailed hit locations and damage a nice add on.

Tod's suggestion of an app is a really good one. The time spent pouring over tables is quite a bit and having something that can resolve things quickly could improve pacing and probably disturb players. Definitely good for one shot scenarios.

Quote from: Krimson;936068Tod's suggestion of an app is a really good one. The time spent pouring over tables is quite a bit and having something that can resolve things quickly could improve pacing and probably disturb players. Definitely good for one shot scenarios.

That would be cool.  You know, I'm surprised there aren't more game related apps out there to make running more complex games easier.  The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Kenzer has a ipad one for Hackmaster that was supposed to be really good.  I imagine that if there was a tablet program where you could just touch icons for range, cover, armor and all that and it spit out a target number or something.

Quote from: RunningLaser;936063I'd say another thing that seems to have fallen out of favor would be morale systems.  I haven't seen many games with a strong focus on morale.

I'd venture a guess that that's largely because most players don't like the idea of the dice making the decision for them about whether they should keep fighting or not, which is basically what morale rules that affect individual PCs boil down to.

Morale as a rule in mass combat systems that determine when the troops you're leading break and flee have shown up a little more often, but mass combat also doesn't show up in individual adventuring RPGs that often, again because it takes away from the emphasis on individual player actions that make critical differences to outcomes.  Players generally prefer to be Frodo and Sam executing the critical sting action than they do Aragorn leading the defensive/distracting battle, in my experience anyway.

Quote from: RunningLaser;936063Some more thoughts on this.  I haven't read much on historical battles, melees and one on one fights.  I don't know how many life and death fights a warrior back in the day fought- did they have more combats or as many as an average player character has?  It seems that with a super detailed wound system, at some point, your number is going to come up.  

I'd say another thing that seems to have fallen out of favor would be morale systems.  I haven't seen many games with a strong focus on morale.

True that on Morale. As to combat, only thing that comes to mind right off is the comparison of time in actual conflict between WWII and Vietnam. I don't have the numbers at hand and will be horribly off target but I seem to recall that in WWII the typical GI was fighting only a day or two per month in service, perhaps less than that, while the Vietnam Grunt could expect to see action far more often. The result was a much higher chance of casualty for any one individual.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935964Meaning - when one is exposed to trauma, be it penetrating, blunt force or whatever.. the effects are typically very minor (scrapes, grazes, superficial cuts, bruising etc.) or pretty damned serious (hemorrhage, broken bones, internal injury and so on) rarely is it in the middle.

(snip)

Do you know of any systems that model it accurately?

That is essentially hit points. Scrapes, bruises, superficial nicks with no serious effect until BAM you're down and bleeding out.

All these other systems (for good or ill) are trying to model the middle ground that is, in your experience, an edge case.

Quote from: RunningLaser;936063I'd say another thing that seems to have fallen out of favor would be morale systems.  I haven't seen many games with a strong focus on morale.

Yep. And I use some kind of morale system in every game I GM. I like to keep the foes tactics (or lack thereof ) partly unpredictable.
Plus for games where combat can drag out (4th ed, Rifts, etc) it shortens a combat when the foes flee or surrender, instead of fighting to the bitter (and most often boring) end.
If a game doesn't have a morale system, I'll usually have to ad-hoc one from another ruleset.

First, define to me realistic health. Now get that formula, bring it to your health services workplace, and run it by your colleagues as if it is a useful quantification. Watch them look at you, look at all the complex medical equipment around you both, look at any medical journals laying about debating even more things, and then realize perhaps this might be an unfruitful line of development.

Finally return back to the joys of abstraction for their gaming simplicity!

Quote from: rgrove0172;935964Ive been gaming for decades and spent the last two and a half as a Paramedic in the field, instructor and EMS Coordinator. One thing that has always amazed me is how completely unrealistic damage application is in most RPGs. Ive played plenty and read countless more sets of rules and none, NONE of them get it even close to right. (the conventional HP being the absolute worst) Now I know Im not the only medically educated individual to ever game, certainly some game designers have had or enlisted the aid of someone who had a little medical background right? Why does it appear that there isn't even an attempt to represent trauma in a fairly realistic manner?

Because of all the ideas many people have from other games and fiction that doesn't do it that way, and the various justifications for it.
There are some games that have tried to some extent.
I'm certainly interested and in favor of trying.
I like GURPS for this pretty well, including the bleeding rules and effects of minor injury rules of Martial Arts, and some house rules which I tweak from time to time. I am always up for discussions about how to model realistic effects of injury in agonizing detail.

QuoteNow some will say trauma is just, well too deadly for fun games. Ok, I get it, ...

Well those people should just be allowed to continue to play how they play.

Quote... but there are many ways to artificially reduce the potential for serious injuries prior to the character effect. To be honest it would far more realistic if targets were missed or grazed more rather than soaking up huge amounts of damage without effect.

Yes. The gameplay can be about avoiding getting attacked effectively, avoiding and defeating attacks, hurting enemies and causing such effects before they do the same to you being one of them. And yes, the things that make the difference between a minor hit and a debilitating or killing one, such as armor (DR, typing) and hit location rules.

QuoteIt might be fun to discuss how damage systems could get it right.

Yep.

QuoteFor starters, and this is just a blurted out opinion here - trauma tends to lean towards the extremes. Meaning - when one is exposed to trauma, be it penetrating, blunt force or whatever.. the effects are typically very minor (scrapes, grazes, superficial cuts, bruising etc.) or pretty damned serious (hemorrhage, broken bones, internal injury and so on) rarely is it in the middle. In addition, almost anything but the most minor of injuries SERIOUSLY inhibits the activity of the host. Lying down and groaning (or screaming) is the typical reaction to a great number of injuries be it in combat or a vehicle accident. Without immediate help most pass out or are as good as passed out very soon. Minor injuries almost always have  annoying effects too, causing limping, pain upon movement of a limb, shaking, difficulty concentrating, blurred vision, shock effects leading to loss of consciousness, etc.

Yes. It also means that tactics can be about trying to get your enemies to do this before they do it to you, and so on, not just racing to reduce the enemy to zero hitpoints. And that characters can survive combat (because there are clear reasons to stay down rather than ineffectually try to make the enemy finish you off) without having powerful magic healing that removes consequences from combat.

QuoteA patient of mine fell down a hill through a mesquite thicket. (think thorns) He was essentially uninjured except for dozens of superficial but painful lacerations and punctures. He was a mess, could barely stand, shock had him shaking like it was freezing outside and he could barely answer questions. This all without a major injury anywhere or a significant loss of blood. In most games we would have handed him a couple HP and played on.

Yeah, and I just burned my right hand by grabbing a metal handle that just came out of a 450-degree oven. OMFG. Thank the gods I got it into cold water right away and soaked it for hours. I've had an interesting couple of days discovering all the things I can't do with only one left hand. If I had been in combat, I might have been able to TRY to use my right, but good freakin' luck to me - it probably would have been agonizing and ineffective and greatly worsened my injury. I also could barely get to sleep - as soon as it dried out after a few minutes, it would start to hurt like heck. Thanks to the immediate cold water and not using it, I'm now pretty much healed up two days later, though blistered and I probably shouldn't do much with it so it will heal more, as it feels like if I put any more than light pressure on the blisters it will be bad.

QuoteSure, there are those 'walking wounded' injuries such as a wound to the shoulder, broken nose, severely bruised thigh or whatever that allow heroes to grin and bare it and continue on but its incredibly rare. Ask any field medic that has served in combat. How many guys finished the day wounded but still functioning with more than superficial injuries. Few to none. If your hurt, your typically out.

Yeah, most people are out in one, but in some cases people do keep fighting despite major wounds, which makes it more tricky to model. In GURPS there are some rolls to see if you can keep fighting or not. Playing with those is one way to try to model such things.  You can get people who continue to fight but then collapse or (if using the bleeding or infection rules) die without being injured again.

QuoteWhy do you think this sort of thinking has been avoided in most games?

Reasons that may lead to arguments. Probably we should start a thread in the Design forum so people can whine about "death spirals" and "no fun" here, while we quietly design things there.

QuoteDo you know of any systems that model it accurately?

I'd like to start with GURPS. Others could include Aftermath (IIRC) and Phoenix Command (which is mostly overkill even for me, and also didn't seem that great to me as despite its detail it still has growing hitpoints, and it has lots of interrelated tables with fixed numbers so it seems like even more of a nightmare to analyze and mod than it is to play).

Quote from: Opaopajr;936084First, define to me realistic health. Now get that formula, bring it to your health services workplace, and run it by your colleagues as if it is a useful quantification. Watch them look at you, look at all the complex medical equipment around you both, look at any medical journals laying about debating even more things, and then realize perhaps this might be an unfruitful line of development.

Finally return back to the joys of abstraction for their gaming simplicity!

That said I could totally write a damage subsystem to cover Ulcerative Colitis which could work for Crohn's in a pinch.

Quote from: krimson;936089that said i could totally write a damage subsystem to cover ulcerative colitis which could work for crohn's in a pinch. :d

too abstract!

Quote from: RunningLaser;936063Some more thoughts on this.  I haven't read much on historical battles, melees and one on one fights.  I don't know how many life and death fights a warrior back in the day fought- did they have more combats or as many as an average player character has?  It seems that with a super detailed wound system, at some point, your number is going to come up.  

I'd say another thing that seems to have fallen out of favor would be morale systems.  I haven't seen many games with a strong focus on morale.

That's why you use armor, tactics, and comrades (or soldiers, minions, etc), pick your fights, etc.

In medieval Europe, often the men at arms and especially peasants did much more of the dying than the nobles and knights, who had the best armor and would tend to surrender and be taken prisoner for ransom.

But medicine was not very good - injuries often led to death sooner or later, as well as lasting injuries, amputations, etc.

Having almost always played deadly tactical RPGs, yes it's slow and deadly at first, but then you learn tactics and caution and the rules become internalized (at least for me, or you find a GM who has mastered them) and relatively quick. Except in especially deadly games and situations, I don't see a whole lot of PC death, almost no TPKs, and lots and lots of combat. One of the main reasons I play is combat, and to face and overcome nasty situations using tactics and discretion.

Oh, and yes morale, though mainly we handle that through roleplaying. We know how deadly combat is, and unless we're intentionally just being crazy gung-ho, both PCs and NPCs run away or surrender when the odds look grim.

I also take into account combat awareness/sense, either by roleplaying or rules, so the experienced people have more freedom of detailed action than the inexperienced people.