RE: (TFT) Fatigue Damage?

["David Michael Grouchy II" <david_michael_grouchy_ii@hotmail.com>]

> > Rick wrote . . .
> > Hi all,
> >         I treat the two as different forms of damage.
> > Also I don't allow normal fatigue to kill you, (you fall
> > unconscious first). In those rare cases where people
> > die of fatigue (usually fatigue and exposure or fatigue
> > and sickness) I say that in this case the character
> > takes fatigue damage until they are at zero, and then
> > they start taking real damage.

> From: Michael Taylor
>
> I like that alot.
>
> Im was trying to think of a way to make "Barroom brawls" less fatal by
> allowing all unarmed combat to be fatigue damage. This way, the only
> accidental deaths are from crits. Anyone given any thought to this?


Death by Fatigue
    A look at some reality tests, and the TFT rules.  This post is in three 
sections.  Reality tests from history, gaming, and the news, and finaly the 
TFT rule on TAKING PRISONERS.  To put my conclusion first, I feel that all 
barroom brawls are attempts to subdue.  If a lethal duel breaks out, usually 
everyone in the bar backs off and watches.  That or the bar tender pulls a 
crossbow and demands it be taken outside.


> From history . . .
    "Marathon was a run of 24 miles. The distance corresponded to the 
distance of the legendary run made by a Greek soldier named Pheidippedes. 
The story has it that the soldier ran all the way from Marathon  the site 
of a battle between the Greeks and the Persians  to Athens, where he 
delivered news of Greek victory before falling over dead."
    -Greek history and legends

    My take on this:  The soldier had gone berserk.  Apparently the Greek 
victory had a lot to do with high morale and Pheidippedes couldn't wait to 
deliver the news.  The outlook at the begining of the conflict was rather 
grim and the people in Athens were expecting to loose.  He ran the whole way 
at MA+2, and suffering no reactions to injury.  Upon delivering the news he 
dropped out of berserk and died.


> From Gaming . . .
    "All successful attacks were considered kills.  The character then got 
a saving throw."
    - Dave Arneson "First Fantasy Campaign"

    Gary Guygax introduced Hit Points into role playing (a mistake I think, 
but that is another discussion.)  The point here is that even D&D and TFT 
opperate on the asumption that any attack is an atempt to kill.  Both game 
systems go on to list specific exceptions to this.  When characters are not 
trying to kill but subdue.  Be it for the taking of prisoners or the 
conversion of monster followers.

    My take on this:  The existing TFT rule serves very well as it is.  I 
specificaly allows that one can not be killed by subdual damage (page 26 
AM).  Even if using a weapon!  Further, and to specifically address your 
question Michael ("I was trying to think of a way to make 'Barroom brawls' 
less fatal")  I feel that the intent of the attacker should be obvious to 
all witnesses.  If during the course of a 'Barroom brawl' an attacker starts 
trying to kill their opponent the entire demeanor of their attack will 
change.


> From the news . . .
    "03/07/2001: An American boxer has died nearly a week after he was 
knocked unconscious in the final round of a bout on the aircraft carrier 
Intrepid.
    Beethavean Scottland, 26, was knocked out by light-heavyweight George 
Khalid Jones in the 10th round of the fight after standing in as a late 
replacement.
    The father of three lost consciousness within minutes of his knockout. 
He underwent two operations to relieve pressure on his brain, including 
three hours of neurosurgery." - AP

    My take on this: these guys were wearing gloves.  If this isn't death 
by subdual turned critcal, I don't know what is.  TFT allows for this with 
the critical = lethal rule on sudual damage.  In a boxing match, like a 
barroom brawl, one is trying to force the other person to submit or go down. 
 If boxers fought with lethal intent they would go straight for the 
kidneys, knee the groin, and stomp the neck once down.  It would be obvious.

    David Michael Grouchy II

For the Curious . . .
Here is the section on TAKING PRISONERS in AM

    From time to time, the players may wish to take a foe prisoner rather 
than killing him - or they may wsh to settle differences among themselves 
with a non-lethal brawl rather than a duel to the death.
    If you wish to subdue a foe rather than killing him, you may "pull" 
your blows, strike with the flat of the blade, etc.  Tell the GM that you 
are attempting to take the foe prisoner.  All your blows then do half damage 
(rounded down).  In addition, your blows will not kill your foe; any hits he 
takes which would drive his ST below 1 are simply not counted.  EXCEPTION: 
if you are trying to take a prisoner, but roll double or triple damage on 
your "to hit" roll, your blow does FULL double or triple damage, including 
crippling hits if that rule is being used, and may kill your prisoner.
    Also, any figure attacking with bare hands may elect not to kill.  His 
blows do full damage, but do not drive the foe's ST below 1 - unless double 
or triple damage is rolled.
    If you enter HTH combat, you can try to subdue your foe by pinning him 
- see PINNING, under HTH combat.
    It is also possible to call for surrender at any time.  A good GM will 
not always have his creatures fight to the death - after all, they like 
living, too!  Characters who slaughter prisoners who surrendered should 
probably LOSE points, unless the characters have already been established as 
very evil.  In that case, they might GAIN experience.



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"