Re: (TFT) Revised Healing and Injury rules.

["Charles Gadda" <cgadda@earthlink.net>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <ErolB1@aol.com>


> > (BTW the above is not meant to put Erol or anyone else on the spot -
this is
> > a complicated issue and I do not expect anyone to have all the answers.
But
> > do keep in mind that impairment and functionality are two almost totally
> > separate issues, and evidence that addresses the latter has only
marginal
> > applicability to the former.)
>
> I wrote a long reply and decided not to send it.

Most kind!

> We'll have to agree to disagree
> unless new evidence comes in. (And maybe not even then :-/  I don't agree
> that "impairment and functionality are two amost totally separate issues,
and
> evidence that addresses the latter has only marginal applicability to the
> former.")

I may have overstated that somewhat - there probably is a connection. But it
is not fair on your part to insist, in the absence of any proof whatsoever
(at least, that you have ever presented or even outlined), that there IS a
strong connection. At very best it is simply a possibility, and any
insistence that goes beyond that simple statement does indeed qualify as
counter-scientific (note that it may still be *right*, but science implies
proof or at least a logical basis. The problem is you've not presented even
a logical basis, much less proof, that there is a connection here - hence my
reason for wording this the way I did.)

It is unlikely that any new evidence will come in, though, given that the
folks putting on the studies you cited are far more interested in whether or
not the perp is still *up* - if he's up, its bad, if he's down, its good.
Simple "0" or "1" proposition. The nuance of "is his accuracy reduced by
22.7% or more?" is unaddressed, let alone answered.

> But I do want to object to your calling my position "counter-scientific":
> Without
> the evidence that you yourself say is lacking you can't properly make that
> claim.

Weeellllll, I *CAN* point to the fact that I have done cutting exercises
with exacting reproduction weapons in my collection (Del Tin, Arms & Armor,
Albion Armorers) and I *CAN* state as a matter of irrefutable fact that you
*DO* involve your whole body in using a sword (and any other melee weapon,
as well) - thus, any injury that would in any way impact your ability to
maintain proper posture, etc. *WILL* in absolutely no uncertain terms
adversely affect your ability to wield such weapons.

Now, if you can show me evidence (and the following may exist) of someone,
say, being able to run at top speed with a broken leg with no obvious
impairment at all, then that would constitute strong evidence in your favor.
And I mention this as it is possible that, perhaps, something like this is
out there.

Let me ask you this: if I use a hammer and smash a cylinder in your car's
engine (why your car? Well, I'm certainly not going to damage *my* little
chariot...), will it still *function*? Yes it will, most likely. But will it
function at 100%? Hardly - even though it feels absolutely no shock or pain.
Your engine will be, well, *impaired*. While bio-mechanical humans are far
more versatile than any machine I think it is a wide and unsubstantiated
stretch to assume that they will function flawlessly after a decent mace
smack...

You know, if you really want to prove your point, we can actually test this.
I have a collection of over 2 dozen swords and a smattering of other arms -
if you are feeling particularly brave and masochistic, we can arrange a
number of coordination tests after I smack you solidly with one of 'em! I
purely jest of course, but if you really want to put your money where your
keyboard strokes are, then the invitation is open...

So going back to the whole "counter-scientific" statement, I'm afraid I have
to stand by it - for the present, anyway. By which I mean this: to be
considered to possess a truly scientific standpoint one would have to at
least provide some sort of logical basis for the assertions, which here is
utterly lacking. You have provided some actual *evidence*, which would
ordinarily be excellent but unfortunately said evidence does not appear to
be directly relevant to the actual point being discussed (it may well be,
but there is no definitive evidence that it is). It is NOT good science to
simply say that "since people can function when badly/lethally injured,
therefore they can function completely unimpaired" - there is no logical
evidence of that! Scientifically speaking one simply CANNOT state that is
unequivical fact. One could propose a theory along those lines, but you can
hardly insist that it is proven fact on its face, which is what you are
doing and why I doth protest.

Say what you will, at least I have provided a solid, rational basis for (a)
regarding the evidence presented thus far as being only marginally relevant
and (b) for believing that a person, even if not in pain, could well be
impaired without even quite realizing it owing to structural damage to
his/her/its body. This could be wrong, but it is still a very solid basis
for my current viewpoint thereof.

Since you won't provide your basis, I have no real means for agreeing or
disagreeing - but I *CAN* state as a matter of straightforward fact that,
absent any further evidence or at least solid rationale, there is no reason
to accept your viewpoint as being scientific or even rational (it quite
possibly is ultimately *right*, but as presented is not *scientific*, an
important distinction - one has to use some sort of solid method and proof
to achieve that).

> A couple of minor points:
> Comment - it looks like you used special characters, which came
> throught the e-mail garbled: "B= ST or more damage..." (Is this
> suppose to be "1/2 ST or more damage"?)
>
> Query: Are the Dx penalties cumulative?

Yeah, those characters they kinda pop up automatically in MS Word. The
fractions will be either 1/2 ST or 1/4 ST - I'll repost corrections later.

And, yes, the DX penalties are intended to be cumulative, at present at
least. In general, the 1/2 ST or more hit is intended to represent
"structural" injury, while the penalty for being at 1/4 ST or less is to
abstract heavy blood loss.
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"