Do you plan on using hit locations?

[rust]

I kept searching a bit, because the subject really interests me, and this could

perhaps be the FBI material you mentioned:

The Gun Zone -- FBI Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness

[Nightshade]

I kept searching a bit, because the subject really interests me, and this could

perhaps be the FBI material you mentioned:

The Gun Zone -- FBI Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness

I think this predates the studies I'm refering to, but since all I ever saw was summaries, I can't be sure.

[Al.]

Yet I've hit other people who read the same material on occasion,

Well that seems a bit extreme. Couldn't you limit yourself to flaming and personal attacks like the rest of us?

Al

[Nightshade]

Well that seems a bit extreme. Couldn't you limit yourself to flaming and personal attacks like the rest of us?

Al

I'm half Croasian. It goes with the territory.

[rust]

I'm half Croasian. It goes with the territory.

Mental note for next summer vacation: Do not go there. :eek:

[Nightshade]

Mental note for next summer vacation: Do not go there. :eek:

I'd skip Ireland too, then.

[rleduc]

Well, as I said, the reason I usually mention this is to forestall people who get a little too enthusiastic about hit location or death spiral systems on "realism" grounds. One thing that a lot of systems suffer from is that they're actually too lethal to be realistic; a lot of people in combat fold up from shock or blood loss but still can be saved if medical attention gets to them fairly quickly (even just as little as someone with some training and a basic first aid kit in many cases), so environments with high tech or magical medical capability at hand shouldn't necessarily be as lethal as many rules sets would make them, unless everyone is doing the equivalent of fighting with phasers on dematerialize.

I have addressed this issue. A long time ago I introduced in my games the idea of “tactical death”. Many people know the distinction between clinical and biological death (in a nut shell, clinical=heart stopped beating, biological=brain function stopped), while in my games tactical death means that your character is in such a condition that he or she can not take anymore relevant actions before death. Sure you might be bleeding or moaning but the character is unable to do anything that will intentionally change the outcome of the battle. After the battle, medical interventions of whatever sort can revive tactically dead characters – I have some homebrew mechanics that make it harder to revive someone the longer they have been “dead”.

[Nightshade]

I have addressed this issue. A long time ago I introduced in my games the idea of “tactical death”. Many people know the distinction between clinical and biological death (in a nut shell, clinical=heart stopped beating, biological=brain function stopped), while in my games tactical death means that your character is in such a condition that he or she can not take anymore relevant actions before death. Sure you might be bleeding or moaning but the character is unable to do anything that will intentionally change the outcome of the battle. After the battle, medical interventions of whatever sort can revive tactically dead characters – I have some homebrew mechanics that make it harder to revive someone the longer they have been “dead”.

Yeah. That's sort of the effect I think most games should have to some degree, and few do; even when they do, there's often too small a margin between "dying" and "dead".

(Not that you can't go too far in the other direction where its too hard to die, but usually games that have done that do it deliberately for genre related reasons).

[rleduc]

Yeah. That's sort of the effect I think most games should have to some degree, and few do; even when they do, there's often too small a margin between "dying" and "dead".

(Not that you can't go too far in the other direction where its too hard to die, but usually games that have done that do it deliberately for genre related reasons).

It took me a while to find a balance that works for my play style. With “tactical death” I (in most environments) allow a series of Medical skill checks and CON rolls. The “rescuer” rolls Medicine and the victim rolls CON. On a CONx1 or Medical critical the victim recovers. But, each roll takes one minute and after 10 minutes there are permanent stat losses and after 20 there is no hope. This leads to an exciting post battle session where hard decisions have to be made about who gets what medical care. In some cases, these can be as exciting as the battles…

[Nightshade]

It took me a while to find a balance that works for my play style. With “tactical death” I (in most environments) allow a series of Medical skill checks and CON rolls. The “rescuer” rolls Medicine and the victim rolls CON. On a CONx1 or Medical critical the victim recovers. But, each roll takes one minute and after 10 minutes there are permanent stat losses and after 20 there is no hope. This leads to an exciting post battle session where hard decisions have to be made about who gets what medical care. In some cases, these can be as exciting as the battles…

Triage is certainly not dull, though in practice I suspect it would end up being done by only a few characters; you don't have time to hash it out, after all.

[Rurik]

I find that in this argument (as in most) there is some truth to both sides of the argument. Two wounds to one arm may not be related at all in effect, but there certainly is at the same time a cumulative effect from damage - that is why boxers will work a weakened location. Perhaps kickboxing is a better example (as almost the whole body may be targeted) - a fighter typically targets a specific location on his opponent and works it, striking the same leg repeatedly to hinder his opponents mobility, going for body blows to wear him down, etc.

HP are an abstraction of many things, as is damage, including blood loss, tissue damage, shock, critcial body parts being damaged. A small knife can cut tendons rendering an limb useless as well as a poleaxe - that is why I have always liked the lethality of BRP where anyone with a dagger can pretty much kill or maim a tough dude with a critical.

As a side note, MRQ uses HP very much as a threshold rather than an absolute. In MRQ you never die from a loss of HP, instead when a Location takes enough damage it triggers Resilience rolls every round with failure meaning unconciousness or death depending on the location and severity of the wounds. This can make combats take longer as combatants may fight on for a few rounds after taking more damage than would incapacitate them in BRP, it probably does model damage a little better. And it encourages aimed shots - particularly against tough foes - even at penalties to hit. When fighting a large bear for example it is better to hot the same location 2-3 times using aimed blows than 5-6 times to different locations using normal strikes.

[Nightshade]

I find that in this argument (as in most) there is some truth to both sides of the argument. Two wounds to one arm may not be related at all in effect, but there certainly is at the same time a cumulative effect from damage - that is why boxers will work a weakened location. Perhaps kickboxing is a better example (as almost the whole body may be targeted) - a fighter typically targets a specific location on his opponent and works it, striking the same leg repeatedly to hinder his opponents mobility, going for body blows to wear him down, etc.

Well, with small enough hit locations, you'll get some effects like increased blood loss (because of successive abrasion and the like), reaction to the pain from repeated hits on sore spots and so on; but the fairly coarse locations used in RQ and its kin aren't detailed enough to show that for the most part; you'd need to break it down at least three times finer I'd think, and even then it acts more like a modifier on progressive effects than a simple accumulation.

[mrk]

One thing I've been mulling about is creating a new set of tables that instead of just rolling a random die to see were you "hit", would focus more if it was a "primarty" location or a "secondary" location. A skilled fighter like Muhammad Ali or Bruce Lee is going to be able to hit those primary locations much more frequently then a less experienced one. Of course, it t should also work the same way for the defender as well. Jacky Chan is going to be able to fend of an attack a lot more sucessfully and in MANY different ways then a guy who's only training has been in pillow fights with his older brother.

[Rurik]

Well, with small enough hit locations, you'll get some effects like increased blood loss (because of successive abrasion and the like), reaction to the pain from repeated hits on sore spots and so on; but the fairly coarse locations used in RQ and its kin aren't detailed enough to show that for the most part; you'd need to break it down at least three times finer I'd think, and even then it acts more like a modifier on progressive effects than a simple accumulation.

As in all cases it is a balance between realism and playability, and peoples sweet spots will be different.

The locations in RQ may be pretty general, but it does allow for that tactic of aiming for a specific location, and targeting on an already wounded location. Not using hit locations does not model these aspects of combat, while using locations does. The fact that the hit location chart used in BRP is a simple one is not necessarily a bad thing IMHO.

HP work for me as an abstract of all the things I have mentioned in my earlier post. In my experience the more detailed you get, and the more narrowly you define things like "what exactly is a HP" and "What exactly does damage represent?" the more you invite endless arguments on the minutae of what exactly damage is.

I have played systems with (supposedly) more realistic ballistics, location charts, damage models, etc, yet find myself frequently coming back to RQ/BRP based games, because they provide enough detail (and lethality) to allow seem realistic enough while remaining playable.

[Rurik]

One thing I've been mulling about is creating a new set of tables that instead of just rolling a ramdon die to see were you "hit", would focus more if it was a "primarty" location or a "secondary" location. A skilled fighter like Muhammad Ali or Bruce Lee is going to be able to hit those primary locations much more frequent then a less experienced one. Ofcourse, it t should also work the same way for the defender as well. Jacky Chan is going to be able to fend of an attack a lot more sucessfully and in MANY different ways then a guy who's only training has been in pillow fights with his older brother.

I think a neat system would involve somehow using the attack roll to determine if the attacker can pick the location hit or has to roll randomly, representing both the fact that the attacker will try to hit a specific loaction, but may take whatever opening is left by the defender as well.

A simple mechanic would be "On an odd attack roll, the attacker chooses location, on an even attack roll, the attacker rolls location". Though this does not take the comparative skill of the combatants into account as you mention, and ideally such a rule should.

Hmm. I see an easy way of doing this in MRQ, but I'm not so sure about in BRP. Need to think about this.

[frogspawner]

A simple mechanic would be "On an odd attack roll, the attacker chooses location, on an even attack roll, the attacker rolls location".

Maybe on a special?

[Nightshade]

As in all cases it is a balance between realism and playability, and peoples sweet spots will be different.

The locations in RQ may be pretty general, but it does allow for that tactic of aiming for a specific location, and targeting on an already wounded location. Not using hit locations does not model these aspects of combat, while using locations does. The fact that the hit location chart used in BRP is a simple one is not necessarily a bad thing IMHO.

The problem is that unless you're hitting a very narrow area--much narrower than an arm--its not appreciably more realistic than doing without, honestly, because it tells you just as many lies about combat as that does, just different ones.

That's really been my point; I've always preferred hit locations myself, I just don't kid myself that they're really any more realistic in any meaningful way any more.

[Rurik]

The problem is that unless you're hitting a very narrow area--much narrower than an arm--its not appreciably more realistic than doing without, honestly, because it tells you just as many lies about combat as that does, just different ones.

The point was that you can model aiming for a specific location and working on a wounded location with BRP locations. Whether the arm is broken down into one location or 30 different locations doesn't really matter to me - you can't do this without using some kind of location system.

And if you come up with thirty locations to the arm, I'm sure some surgeon will come along and tell you your location system is lying to you because it totally overlooks some tendon in location 14 that if severed can incapacitate locations 16 through 24 and location 26.

That's really been my point; I've always preferred hit locations myself, I just don't kid myself that they're really any more realistic in any meaningful way any more.

That's why I keep stressing the points that the damage system is abstract - it is not an exacting simulation of reality nor does it try to be, and my belief thet rules that try to be overly realistic create more reality problems than general ones.

That the end results of being hit the feel realistic is more important to me than the actual mechanics that give you that result.

[mrk]

Yeah, it's a very interesting concept and I don't think I've seen the idea of primary and secondary targets used in too many games, Actually, the origins of this method comes from the old microgame combat system were you would ratio the attackers vs the defenders stats and roll on the apporate index. Here's an example:

Opponent A has a weapon rating of 8 and Opponent B has an Armor rating of 2. you round it of by 2, so 2 divided by 8 is 4. On the combat matrix chart, you look at index 4 and roll a D6:

1) Critical Hit Target

2) Wound Target

3) Wound Target

4) No Effect

5) No Effect

6) No Effect

I know this is a very simplistic and works better for a wargame then a RPG, but you get the idea. It's also a bit similar to the non-location combat system BRP uses. Can't wait for my BOOK to arrive! :mad:

I think a neat system would involve somehow using the attack roll to determine if the attacker can pick the location hit or has to roll randomly, representing both the fact that the attacker will try to hit a specific loaction, but may take whatever opening is left by the defender as well.

A simple mechanic would be "On an odd attack roll, the attacker chooses location, on an even attack roll, the attacker rolls location". Though this does not take the comparative skill of the combatants into account as you mention, and ideally such a rule should.

Hmm. I see an easy way of doing this in MRQ, but I'm not so sure about in BRP. Need to think about this.

[mrk]

Perhaps kickboxing is a better example (as almost the whole body may be targeted).

Have you seen this clip on youtube? It's one of the best examples of just how complicated combat situations and outcomes are in true life when applied to game terms. Is it a hit? a miss? a fumble? a crit? or all four?!! Don't watch this if you have a weak stomach.

YouTube - kick boxer breaks leg - [noparse]http://youtube.com/watch?v=rEVaRrWL4Hg[/noparse]

[Trifletraxor]

That clip is really horrible... :eek:

It's a failed attack vs. a successfull or better parry - martial arts + damage modifier - at least 3D6 damage, enough to maim the other guys leg.

SGL.

[Nightshade]

The point was that you can model aiming for a specific location and working on a wounded location with BRP locations. Whether the arm is broken down into one location or 30 different locations doesn't really matter to me - you can't do this without using some kind of location system.

Depends on what you mean by "location system"; you can do it just as easily be having a roll for effect (and modifiers to produce effect) without referencing the specifics of location at all. For example, if you're trying to get a bleeder going, it doesn't really matter which of several possibilities for that you do, just that you keep doing the same one. Same thing for impairing mobility; its not relevant whether its the right leg or the left leg (or even much in situations where there's more than two whether its the front or back).

Mind you, that doesn't also get you the benefit of allowing for locational armor, but its possible to want either without the other. And in any case, its not necessary to actually reference _locations_ to get specific effects; and given that locations are to some degree abstract anyway (as I said, a system that doesn't distinguish between a shoulder hit and a hand hit is working in pretty broad strokes) you can just as easily abstract it one step further and get most of the effect. Effectively you're using a more sophisticated version of the major wound system.

It also has the virtue you don't need to really get into the vagueries of nonhuman hit locational tables.

And if you come up with thirty locations to the arm, I'm sure some surgeon will come along and tell you your location system is lying to you because it totally overlooks some tendon in location 14 that if severed can incapacitate locations 16 through 24 and location 26.

Yeah but it doesn't require a surgeon to notice the problem with the current level.

That's why I keep stressing the points that the damage system is abstract - it is not an exacting simulation of reality nor does it try to be, and my belief thet rules that try to be overly realistic create more reality problems than general ones.

The same arguement is made by people who don't use hit locations at all, I'll note. Once you say that isn't sufficiently representational, there's no good grounds but taste to say when the detail level _is_ sufficient.

That the end results of being hit the feel realistic is more important to me than the actual mechanics that give you that result.

But that, by its nature, is a moving target; what feels realistic to you isn't going to to other people.

[Shiba Homer]

[begins pet hate]

I always thought it was couldn't care less, which makes much more sense (could care less seems like an Americanism, one could always care less and suggest that one already cares quite a bit). And is what I have been saying for 35 years, as have all the people I know.

[Ends]

[Shaira]

[begins pet hate]

I always thought it was couldn't care less, which makes much more sense (could care less seems like an Americanism, one could always care less and suggest that one already cares quite a bit). And is what I have been saying for 35 years, as have all the people I know.

[Ends]

Well, you do have to remember that we're two (or more) nations separated by a common language...

Frankly, as a (ex-)professional linguist, I'm amazed sometimes we understand one another at all. >:->

Toodle-pip, ttfn, and cheerie-bye now, y'all! By 'eck, yon's a grandun and a reet pon-full, etc, etc, etc...

Blood and sand!

Sarah

[soltakss]

Have you seen this clip on youtube? It's one of the best examples of just how complicated combat situations and outcomes are in true life when applied to game terms. Is it a hit? a miss? a fumble? a crit? or all four?!! Don't watch this if you have a weak stomach.

A fumble, definitely. Like the old "Hit self, do maximum damage". In this case it's "hit someone else, snap own leg in two".

Although it could have been a failure and a critical parry.