Re: (TFT) Experimental Injury and Healing rules - comments appreciated.

[ErolB1@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/27/2004 10:24:10 PM Central Standard Time, pvk@oz.net 
writes:

>At 09:00 PM 12/27/04 -0500, ErolB1@aol.com wrote:
>>I use to think that myself, but I've been convinced otherwise. When it
>>comes to real fights - especially life-and-death fights - I've been
>>convinced that such results are the rule rather than the "surprising
>>exception." Or rather, they're only the surprising exception in those
>>cases where an *fatally* injured person (negative St, in TFT terms)
>>fights at full effectiveness for a brief time before dropping dead.
>
>Doesn't this kind of depend on how you interpret the damage scale, though? 
>In GURPS, there is a negative damage scale. In by-the-book TFT, negative ST 
>is dead. So perhaps what you are thinking of as the negative ST point, is 
>what by-the-book TFT would define as down to ST 3 or less. No?

No, because I'm talking about *lethal* wounds - the kind that normally would 
drop the guy dead at once. (In particular I'm thinking of a case where the guy 
remained standing and shooting for about 10 seconds after taking a 12-gauge 
slug through the heart.) How can that be interpreted as anything but negative 
St in by-the-book TFT? Especially since the guy does drop dead, without having 
taken any further damage, after a couple of turns or so. 

[snip]

>I think it also affects both balance and tactics to remove the damage 
>effects on DX. In general I think it would favor the stronger, armored, and 
>very-hard-hitting characters. 

I agree that it affects tactics - but I think it makes hard-hitting 
characters less favored, not more. With Dx penalties for damage, a character who hits 
hard enough to inflict a Dx penalty is favored over one who hits less hard, 
even if he hits sufficiently more often that his average-damage-per-turn is the 
same. 

>Also it would encourage continuing to fight 
>when nearly dead. I suppose if the damage system is changed so ST can go 
>negative without dying, then that's another story... again, it's more like 
>redefining the damage scale - saying people can take more damage or weapons 
>can do less.

Except that it's realistic for people in deadly-serious fights to keep 
fighting at full effectiveness until dead (and occasionally to keep fighting at full 
effectiveness even after they're dead...) 

Although I suppose I am reinterpreting the damage scale slightly, even though 
I'm tring to think in terms of b-t-b TFT rather than my own house rules: I'm 
thinking of negative St in terms of "down and will die very quickly (possibly 
within one turn, probably within one minute, certainly within one hour) unless 
given medical aid." rather than "dead before they hit the ground." 

>Also, another element I miss in TFT (compared to GURPS, for instance) is 
>the ability to use one's skill to reduce the chance of getting hurt... 
>except by hitting first and causing effects, two big ones of which you're 
>suggesting removing.

I agree that's a problem; it's just that using Dx penalties due to damage as 
a fix for this is a cure worse than the disease, IMO. 

>I still haven't read the proposed rules, and Erol, I don't remember what 
>your house rules are. Just commenting from the original TFT perspective.

I don't always succeed, but I do try to comment from a "by-the-book" TFT 
perspective when I respond to the list. (Unless, of course, I'm specifically 
talking about my own house rules.) 
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"