What are 'Wounds'?

James Sparrow wrote:Or you could talk about pain or dizziness or disorientation, demonstrating that the fight is going badly. Blood doesn't have to come into it until critical hits.

Well I think we must agree to differ on this point.

I certainly can't see how I could realistically describe a character being hit by an arrow and suffering minor dizziness as a result, any more than allow them to fall from a roof, dust themselves off and walk away unscathed.

So, I shall continue to ignore the force field effect in my game and treat wounds as physical damage.

Didz wrote:

James Sparrow wrote:Or you could talk about pain or dizziness or disorientation, demonstrating that the fight is going badly. Blood doesn't have to come into it until critical hits.

Well I think we must agree to differ on this point.

Good heavens, I would never do something like that.

I'm right, you're wrong, and don't you forget it, matey.

(Some people might put a humorous smiley after that, but I hope the tone speaks for itself.)

I certainly can't see how I could realistically describe a character being hit by an arrow and suffering minor dizziness as a result, any more than allow them to fall from a roof, dust themselves off and walk away unscathed.

I work in a laboratory were we use exceptional sharp blades. I've seen people accidentally cut their hands to the bone, flaps of skin hanging loose. This is painful, dizzying and makes the victim sick to the bottom of his or her stomach. However, these injuries are a long way from being life threatening in themselves, unpleasant though they may be. An arrow in the arm or thigh is arguably similar.

People do fall of roofs and walk away with bruises and sprains. It mostly depends on circumstances and sometimes sheer luck. And even if they are lucky once, if they keep doing it over and over again, then sooner or later they'll land badly, snap their thigh bone and die from a fat embolism, or something. In a game, it's simply a matter of deciding just how much damage a particular fall (height, nature of ground, jump or fall, chance) is likely to do.

So, I shall continue to ignore the force field effect in my game and treat wounds as physical damage.

Actually, physical damage is what I'm describing - nausea, headaches, dizziness, sprains, bruises and cuts are all physical damage. They are just not permanent or terminal conditions (like critical hits), just physically weakening the victim (predisposing them to critical hits). Someone who is suffering from a fever and who has (in game terms) lost some Wounds, will be far easier to kill than someone who is well. They will be less able to withstand the effects of a toxin or even a secondary infection. Characters who are Tougher resist this general weakening better than those who don't.

It's not a perfect like-for-like explanation, I agree, but I don't think the force-field idea is that strong either. Now, if you want to say that the Toughness Bonus is a force-field, then I think you'd be on more solid ground. However, I think it, like Wounds, is a reasonable abstract representation of something worth representing abstractly.

Cheers

Sparrow

Didz wrote:What requires more thought and houserules is the long term management of non-lethal combat damage effects on both the fighter and his equipment.

As far as the non-lethal effects on a person goes, I'd think this would already be covered by Wounds? I know you think of them as a "force field" effect so this solution wouldn't work for you, but like many of the posters in this thread, I equate Wounds with the bruises from an unarmed attack and being struck by a glancing blow or blunt side of a blade just as much as I do being nicked by a dagger. The point of Wounds is that ever little bit drains you and makes you even more vulnerable to further attacks, it doesn't matter if that pain comes from being kicked in the leg, stabbed in the arm, or smashed in the face.

I guess the point I'm trying to make, which I realize not every one will agree with, is that it seems to defeat the purpose of a rules-light system to create additional rules for non-lethal damage and Wounds in general when Critical Hits already represent lethal damage and Wounds represent non-lethal damage and suffering pain without penalty. Dark Heresy's decision to add non-lethal rules is one of many reasons why I don't like that system and feel it is too bloated and redundant.

Sythorn wrote:Dark Heresy's decision to add non-lethal rules is one of many reasons why I don't like that system and feel it is too bloated and redundant.

Strange, I find it one of the improvements in the system. It allows you to fight without killing and allows you to disable someone out without having some special TKO ability.

PsyckoSama wrote:It allows you to fight without killing and allows you to disable someone out without having some special TKO ability.

You just summed up why I hate it, people should not realistically be able to reliably do that.

jadrax wrote:

PsyckoSama wrote:It allows you to fight without killing and allows you to disable someone out without having some special TKO ability.

You just summed up why I hate it, people should not realistically be able to reliably do that.

I disagree. According to the standard WFRP system, a basic BAR FIGHT would be extremely deadly when actually, you might get smacked around a bit but chances are you're just going to get roughed up and fatal injury would be very rare.

PsyckoSama wrote:

Sythorn wrote:Dark Heresy's decision to add non-lethal rules is one of many reasons why I don't like that system and feel it is too bloated and redundant.

Strange, I find it one of the improvements in the system. It allows you to fight without killing and allows you to disable someone out without having some special TKO ability.

To achieve the same effect you would simply need to allow Strike-to-Stun to be used without purchasing the talent (replacing it with something else or removing it entirely) and/or a simple house rule that allows you to lower your own Critical Hits on a target (I believe Josef suggested such a house rule in this very forum). Creating an entirely new mechanic was not necessary and the designers, quite frankly, should've known better.

PsyckoSama wrote:

jadrax wrote:

PsyckoSama wrote:It allows you to fight without killing and allows you to disable someone out without having some special TKO ability.

You just summed up why I hate it, people should not realistically be able to reliably do that.

I disagree. According to the standard WFRP system, a basic BAR FIGHT would be extremely deadly when actually, you might get smacked around a bit but chances are you're just going to get roughed up and fatal injury would be very rare.

Isn't this easily represented by the participants stopping before reaching the truly nasty Critical Hits? I can't say I've partook in many bar fights, but I imagine most do not end with broken limbs and missing teeth. In mechanical terms, this seems best represented by the fight being broken up before it gets to that level, either by spectators or by the first Critical Hit being inflicted and everyone realizing the fight has gone too far and standing down.

Well, DH has an elegant solution for that too... the "Stun" action.

Basically you don't need strike to stun, you just get -20 if you don't have it. That said, Wam-Bam TKOing people is rare. Its more common to beat them to the point they can't fight back

PsyckoSama wrote:I disagree. According to the standard WFRP system, a basic BAR FIGHT would be extremely deadly when actually, you might get smacked around a bit but chances are you're just going to get roughed up and fatal injury would be very rare.

Remember that with all combatants having a -4/-3 damage and probably being drunk and on penalties to boot it will not be that deadly, but that said - yes bar fights are very dangerous, nip down to A&E on a Friday night if you don't believe that.

That said its not the lethality that is the unrealistic bit, its the rendering unconsciousness - Certainly I have yet to ever see anyone be beat unconscious who is not significantly bleeding.

PsyckoSama wrote:Well, DH has an elegant solution for that too... the "Stun" action.

Basically you don't need strike to stun, you just get -20 if you don't have it. That said, Wam-Bam TKOing people is rare. Its more common to beat them to the point they can't fight back

Yes, I'll admit I liked that idea very much, which makes the non-lethal mechanics even more pointless and out of place in the core rules for Dark Heresy.

James Sparrow wrote:

Didz wrote:

James Sparrow wrote:Or you could talk about pain or dizziness or disorientation, demonstrating that the fight is going badly. Blood doesn't have to come into it until critical hits.

Well I think we must agree to differ on this point.

Good heavens, I would never do something like that.
I'm right, you're wrong, and don't you forget it, matey.
(Some people might put a humorous smiley after that, but I hope the tone speaks for itself.)

Never said that at all, its just clear that we have completely differing views and there is no point really going round the loop repeatedly.

I certainly don't consider your approach wrong, in fact its probably closer to the context of the actual rules than mine. The rules clearly are decribing a force field effect, I just don't consider it an option for my game as it creates too many problems in the narrative.

That was the original issue the OP raised and so it was worth discussing, but I really don't have any interest in persuading everyone to adopt a different approach, or being persuaded to change mine. Its basically, a case of 'horses for courses' as far as I'm concerned. We amend the rules to suit our games.

What I find puzzling is that some people are obviously paying lip-service to the fact that arrow hits and blows are inflicting minor wounds, but then not following through with any requirement for aftercare. I can only assume that such care is assumed to take place without the players roleplaying the process. But again I wouldn't allow that in my game which requires much more attention to detail from the players. Wounds would need to be bound and treated with the appropriate salves to avoid infection, which means that players need to anticipate the medical needs of their party and buy the appropraite supplies. That obviously costs money as does the equipment required to maintain their armor so it adds to the 'gold sink'mechanic of my game, whilst also adding to the burden of travel and general planning aspect of the activities.

Failure to treat minor wounds obviously runs a risk of infection, and thats the only real time I get involved in testing for such things as I like to give the players an option to avoid the risk rather than making it unaviodable by rolling for it anyway. It basically means that unprepared players put their characters in more danger than the veteran adventurers which makes sense to me anyway.

Sythorn wrote:

Didz wrote:What requires more thought and houserules is the long term management of non-lethal combat damage effects on both the fighter and his equipment.

I guess the point I'm trying to make, which I realize not every one will agree with, is that it seems to defeat the purpose of a rules-light system to create additional rules for non-lethal damage and Wounds in general when Critical Hits already represent lethal damage and Wounds represent non-lethal damage and suffering pain without penalty. Dark Heresy's decision to add non-lethal rules is one of many reasons why I don't like that system and feel it is too bloated and redundant.

I don't play DH so I can't comment. But my game is not intended to be rules-light, and I've never heard WFRP described as such. At the same time I don't see the need for complex rules about light wounds anyway.

So whilst I apply the concept that light wounds are caused by any damage, I don't need rules to confirm that or tell me what or where they are, or indeed what a character must do to treat them.

I just rule that any damage sufferred has caused some sort of wound whether its a sprained ankle or a bullet hole through the shoulder. I describe that damage in the narrative to the player and the player then needs to satisfy me that his character has taken appropriate action to mitigate the damage and avoid infection. In the meantime, his character will suffer a minor reduction in stats for a few hours or days until the wound is healed.

So, a character who suffers 1 wound jumping from wall might be declared to have a sprained ankle. I might declare that his movement is reduced by 1 for the rest of the day, and the player might be expected to have his character bind it for support or keep its weight off it until it heals. Failure to do so might result in the ankle becoming swollen and gradually more debilitating until the character can't get his boot on anymore.

Those things I just rule on as and when necessary and I think rules would just complicate the process.

Sythorn wrote:

PsyckoSama wrote:Well, DH has an elegant solution for that too... the "Stun" action.

Basically you don't need strike to stun, you just get -20 if you don't have it. That said, Wam-Bam TKOing people is rare. Its more common to beat them to the point they can't fight back

Yes, I'll admit I liked that idea very much, which makes the non-lethal mechanics even more pointless and out of place in the core rules for Dark Heresy.

They also make Dodge a basic skill which I like too... it allows for the difference between artful dodging and scrambling out of the way.

I'd also allow Strike to Disarm to be used without the talent at -20%.

My answer are, the are hits that don't kill or hurt you. You can think of it as fatgue and or bruses and or the natural toxins that build up in the body during stress and activities. They cause wear and tear on the body but nothing that want stop you from getting up and about if you need to.

Artemis Black wrote:
It seems Didz is the only person to even come close to understand what I was asking. I don't even get where half the answers are coming from to be honest.

I think I understand what you mean. Recently I had a similar discussion with some of my players.

The result of this discussion:

1. Everybody knows why there is this type of damage in WFRP. Because it lets you fight longer and makes the system not nearly as deadly as it would in reality. It depends on individual taste if this is good or not.

2. WFRP is not nearly as gritty and deadly as many fans think and claim. Yes it is gritty and deadly compared to many other games, especially to evil D&D (where the most fans rpg origins are) So its grittyness is a myth if compared to some other REALLY gritty rpg systems. But its a good tradeoff between realistic deadlyness and surviveabilty and much better than D&D.

3. Years ago I played WFRG1 TEW with good success and I did not use the critical tables at all. If you reached 0 you have been dead that was it. Every wound was a problem, even if it was only for 2-3 points. If even a small wound was not properly handled after a combat it could lead to bleading, infection and death. And every wound could have some effects like a -20% to skill rolls or dropping weapons etc. This I felt was the best way to simulate dirt, grittyness and darkness in the demonic Warhammer world in those days in the past.

4. We are discussing to introduce this old system again in order to increase the realism and terror of combat and to take away this unrealistic sissiness like it is handled officially.

I think one of the main problems why ot many people understands you is that the most players are glad that they dont die that fast and additionally are coming from D&D where you have even more hitpoints and combat ist the main focus of the game.

Not me. I am coming from the other direction. From BRP and Call of Cthulhu roleplaying. These rules are known for their deadlyness. For example in Stormbringer you have lets say 14 HP - and even experienced fighters often dont have more - and if you loose half of them or more in one single wound, you have a serious problem like loosing an arm or even more evil. Additionally every 4 HP you loose let you loose 1 DEX for initiative and weapon wielding etc. So fighting in this system is absolutely deadly. Weapons do alot of damage. Like an axe 1d8+2+db. So every average axeswing you catch gives you a good chance to be seriously wounded and a second kills you in most cases, which should be realistic and deadly enough. But of course WFRP with official rules is not BRP and thats ok for me.

There are even more problems with wound and damage in WFRP. Like the damage big creatures are doing. Eg. lets take a giant. Does anybody really believe that a giant only does 1d10+7 damage with his club, (any good human fighter can do the same damage) but has 5 attacks per turn? How realistic is this? Again survivability and "D&D"ism is here the king and replaces realism.

.

As I see it Warhammer works on the basis on that you (I use the term you to refer to a character) can go into combat and survive it.. though there is enough risk that its not always the top option.

A more deadly system works on the basis of avoiding combat all togeather, because the chances are you will die/be seriously injured if you enter combat at all.

I personaly like this aspect, I like to beable to throw players into battle from time to time, and if they aren't stupid about it they will survive. I dont want them just getting into fights for the hell of it.

All in all I like combat to be risky but not something to avoid, and I think warhammer works in this vein even if it does use some fugy mechanics to achieve it.

Loswaith wrote:
As I see it Warhammer works on the basis on that you (I use the term you to refer to a character) can go into combat and survive it.. though there is enough risk that its not always the top option.

A more deadly system works on the basis of avoiding combat all togeather, because the chances are you will die/be seriously injured if you enter combat at all.

I personaly like this aspect, I like to beable to throw players into battle from time to time, and if they aren't stupid about it they will survive. I dont want them just getting into fights for the hell of it.

All in all I like combat to be risky but not something to avoid, and I think warhammer works in this vein even if it does use some fugy mechanics to achieve it.

Of course I have no problems with the playing style of others who like the official rules more. Btw. in my games while deadly as such they dont die very often, but due to the fact that they dont combat very often and that if they combat they try to have the advantage from begin on.

I just felt that the OP has obviously a similar gripe than my group and me and thus I wanted to show him how we recognized and solved this problem.

Enpeze wrote:1. Everybody knows why there is this type of damage in WFRP. Because it lets you fight longer and makes the system not nearly as deadly as it would in reality. It depends on individual taste if this is good or not.

I changed the damage sytem in my game years ago, following one of the many huge debates on 'Naked Dwarf Syndrome' that sprung up regularly on the Critical Hit forum. I was quite taken with Ian Wards' Wardhammer supplement at the time and decided as a result of reading it to remove the adjustment for Toughness from the damage calculations.

At the time I was given dire warnings that this would just lead to my players characters getting killed in minor encounters and and complaints from my players.

In fact, that never happened, if anything survivability actually increased becuase the players, now aware of how deadly combat was, modified their own behaviour to compensate. Without the additional armour of their skin thickness to reduce the power of incoming blows most began to take much more interest in body armour, of all sorts, even silk shirts. More care was taken to explore non-combat solutions to problems posed and when combat was inevitable every expliot was explored to get the first blow and avoid getting hit.

Enpeze wrote:There are even more problems with wound and damage in WFRP. Like the damage big creatures are doing. Eg. lets take a giant. Does anybody really believe that a giant only does 1d10+7 damage with his club, (any good human fighter can do the same damage) but has 5 attacks per turn? How realistic is this? Again survivability and "D&D"ism is here the king and replaces realism.

That was another modification I copied from the Wardhammer supplement. In my game damage is scaled up or down according to the relative size of the combatants.

The Wardhammer supplement had a formula for doing this which basically compared greatest size of the combatants whether height or length and using the average size of a human as the norm placed other creatures into size categories of plus or minus damage modifiers.

Size -2 = 0-1 Foot (e.g. Rats)
Size -1 = 1-3 feet (e.g. Snotling etc)
Size 0 = 4-6 feet (e.g. Human, Dwarf Elf, Halfling, Orc)
Size 1 = 7-12 feet (e.g. Troll, Ogre)
Size 2 = 12-18 feet (e.g. Dragons, Wurms, Giants, some Demons)

I kept the process quite simple just adding or substracting the size difference from the damage roll. So, a snotling fighting a dragon would suffer -3 from all its damage inflicted and suffer plus 3 to anything the dragon did in return. Not a lot but it was enough to make our Trollslayer a little more cautious.

Didz wrote:

Enpeze wrote:1. Everybody knows why there is this type of damage in WFRP. Because it lets you fight longer and makes the system not nearly as deadly as it would in reality. It depends on individual taste if this is good or not.

I changed the damage sytem in my game years ago, following one of the many huge debates on 'Naked Dwarf Syndrome' that sprung up regularly on the Critical Hit forum. I was quite taken with Ian Wards' Wardhammer supplement at the time and decided as a result of reading it to remove the adjustment for Toughness from the damage calculations.

At the time I was given dire warnings that this would just lead to my players characters getting killed in minor encounters and and complaints from my players.

In fact, that never happened, if anything survivability actually increased becuase the players, now aware of how deadly combat was, modified their own behaviour to compensate. Without the additional armour of their skin thickness to reduce the power of incoming blows most began to take much more interest in body armour, of all sorts, even silk shirts. More care was taken to explore non-combat solutions to problems posed and when combat was inevitable every expliot was explored to get the first blow and avoid getting hit.

Enpeze wrote:There are even more problems with wound and damage in WFRP. Like the damage big creatures are doing. Eg. lets take a giant. Does anybody really believe that a giant only does 1d10+7 damage with his club, (any good human fighter can do the same damage) but has 5 attacks per turn? How realistic is this? Again survivability and "D&D"ism is here the king and replaces realism.

That was another modification I copied from the Wardhammer supplement. In my game damage is scaled up or down according to the relative size of the combatants.

The Wardhammer supplement had a formula for doing this which basically compared greatest size of the combatants whether height or length and using the average size of a human as the norm placed other creatures into size categories of plus or minus damage modifiers.

Size -2 = 0-1 Foot (e.g. Rats)
Size -1 = 1-3 feet (e.g. Snotling etc)
Size 0 = 4-6 feet (e.g. Human, Dwarf Elf, Halfling, Orc)
Size 1 = 7-12 feet (e.g. Troll, Ogre)
Size 2 = 12-18 feet (e.g. Dragons, Wurms, Giants, some Demons)

I kept the process quite simple just adding or substracting the size difference from the damage roll. So, a snotling fighting a dragon would suffer -3 from all its damage inflicted and suffer plus 3 to anything the dragon did in return. Not a lot but it was enough to make our Trollslayer a little more cautious.

Good idea.

Our solution for this problem is to let creatures with multiple attacks make a socalled "power attack" which adds up all attacks in one attack. This means that the giant makes not 5 different attacks per turn by mutating into a ninja giant. He makes only a single attack in his round but if it hits it does 5 damage dice with each 1d10+7 damage in one single stroke. toughness, armor and critical of the target counts on each single damage dice though as it would be normally. So its not unusual that a giant if he hits, to damage or kill a target with his strike. The problem for him is that it is not easy to hit a dodgy target.

So we have the advantage that the giant is in average not more lethal than in the rules, but IF he hits then "splash."

Hey Diz if you could start a new topic giving an overview on how that works and what it changes, would be great.
Im sure a few people other than myself are intrested in seeing how that works and its better not to bury that here