Fox1's Hero Debate

[Fox1]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

I guess main main thrust of what I'm saying (fueled by the document you linked to' date=' and reflective of the way I've always run things) is that "taking someone out of the fight" (or incapacitating them) does not have to equal taking them to zero stun.[/quote']

 

It should in HERO, that's how the games played.

 

HERO is genre gaming, people in the movies and fiction I watch don't curl up in corners when shot, they fall down. It just so happens that reality also indicates that they fall down. Happy is I.

 

 

 

Ego rolls have been a part of the game since the beginning.

 

Bad ideas and construction have been in HERO from the beginning too, I see no need to honor them either.

 

I tend to think of a vitals hit as a hit to the heart. I'd lump spinal hits in with headshots.

 

Sadly, the hit location chart doesn't let it quite work out that way.

 

 

 

 

 

The article seemed to imply that high caliber rifle wounds are a lot nastier than handgun wounds, giving some justification for this.

 

However a flat x3 or x4 body check needed to bring Handguns into line would make nearly any rifle hit immediately life-threatening. That's not good either for the game or for reality.

[Lamrok]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

It should in HERO' date=' that's how the games played. [/quote']

 

That's how the game is played by you. Not by everyone.

 

HERO is genre gaming' date=' people in the movies and fiction I watch don't curl up in corners when shot, they fall down. It just so happens that reality also indicates that they fall down. Happy is I.[/quote']

 

That's doesn't match what I've read or the article you referred to. If you want to simulate people consistently dropping to unconsciousness from a single shot, you aren't simulating reality, you're simulating some manner of cinematics. Here's what your source has to say about this: "With the exceptions of hits to the brain or upper spinal cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the torso is a myth." If you want to simulate something else, that's entirely fine. But you need to be a little clearer about your actual goal.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

Has absolutely everyone forgotten that in a Heroic game (which is I presume what we are talking about) you can increase the damage done by a gun with CSLs? Hellooooo. 6 points and I've probably increased the amount of damage my little pistol does by quite a bit....

[Fox1]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

That's how the game is played by you. Not by everyone..

 

I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

 

 

 

That's doesn't match what I've read or the article you referred to.

 

The article I linked to sadly doesn't provide the whole story although it is useful for a number of important elements.

 

There are other articles I've used in the past that reflect what I constructed the rules around, the simple concept that in general most people when shot fall down and can no longer function. In HERO, that's what happens when people run out of stun.

 

Sadly the online articles I used for that are no longer available, the website for the IWBA is down and before that much of their work was taken offline. You'll have to take my word for it or contact the IWBA (International Wound Ballistics Association) directly for the needed back issues of their journals.

 

But you need to be a little clearer about your actual goal.

 

I believe I was rather upfront about my goals on the theory page and the real world conversion page. I continue to hold to those statements.

[Fox1]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

Has absolutely everyone forgotten that in a Heroic game (which is I presume what we are talking about) you can increase the damage done by a gun with CSLs? Hellooooo. 6 points and I've probably increased the amount of damage my little pistol does by quite a bit....

 

Not an acceptable solution to the problem.

 

First, firearms should be useful and dangerous even in untrained hands- or even by accident. Using CSLs to resolve the problem does nothing for this.

 

Second, I've disallowed the use of CSLs to increase damage by house rule. Something I need to note on the website now that you've reminded me.

[Lamrok]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

I believe I was rather upfront about my goals on the theory page and the real world conversion page. I continue to hold to those statements.

 

Fair enough. I don't have anything more to offer on the topic. The article was an interesting read, though.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

It should in HERO, that's how the games played.

 

HERO is genre gaming, people in the movies and fiction I watch don't curl up in corners when shot, they fall down. It just so happens that reality also indicates that they fall down. Happy is I.

 

So you want them to drop dead when shot (because that's what happens in the movies) but you don't want them to curl up in a corner because they've been shot (because that's not what happens in the movies).

 

If they're dead, my experience is they don't keep fighting.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

There are other articles I've used in the past that reflect what I constructed the rules around' date=' the simple concept that in general most people when shot fall down and can no longer function. In HERO, that's what happens when people run out of stun.[/quote']

...or you use the full optional damage rules, such as bleeding, and they are a normal who realizes they're probably going to die if they don't get medical attention.

[Fox1]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

So you want them to drop dead when shot (because that's what happens in the movies) but you don't want them to curl up in a corner because they've been shot (because that's not what happens in the movies).

 

No...

 

Specific to HERO:

 

- I want a small percentage of normal (stat 10) people shot to die.

 

- I want a better than 50% percentage of normal people shot with a 9mm class weapon to drop from lack of stun (i.e. to be incapacitated in HERO terms).

 

- I don't want to use Mook rules

 

- I don't want to use Saving Throw rules/GM overides, i.e. I want HERO combat to remain HERO combat. This is an important requirement- I don't want to replace or overule the existing standard combat methods if possible.

 

- I want the weapons to scale relative to each other.

 

- I want to be able to use the same constructions in any of my HERO system campaign settings.

 

 

In general, of the following 7 item list of "concepts important to realistic rpg firearm combat" found on my website, here is my selection of wants/don't want:

 

Want: 1. Most people when shot are incapacitated (down and useless)

 

Want: 2. Most people are not killed when shot if medical attention is prompt

 

Want: 3. Those who are not incapacitated by a injury often don't notice the wound, let alone suffer additional negative effects beyond the those one would expect from the local area of the wound itself (limping, inability to stand on a broken leg, etc.).

 

Want: 4. Multiple gunshot wounds seem to have no cumulative effect on performance beyond bleeding

 

Want: 5. Besides the location of the injury, bullet diameter is the most important factor in damage followed by bullet fragmentation. If penetration is too low, damage is reduced (over penetration has little effect).

 

Want: 6. Hydrostatic Shock (the big gun of the discredited RII) has no impact on damage except for brain and liver hits.

 

Want: 7. Most combatants have a very difficult time hitting their target. The typical police officer hits with only one out of six shots at ranges under 20 feet!

 

 

 

Point 7 isn't very fun in HERO (although it's actually not far off for normals given the actual types of modifiers faced in the real world).

 

Point 3 & 4 are in reference to Death Spirals something that HERO System nicely doesn't have anyway (but games like Shadowrun do). The cumulative effect of stun in HERO was accepted as it's a core element of the game system, but it doesn't provide negative modifiers.

 

The above 7 points by the way don't all come from the same article, but from years of research (some small part of it backed up by personal experience). Sadly as I've noted, not all of it is online. It can however be found by the determine researcher in other ways.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

- I want a small percentage of normal (stat 10) people shot to die.

 

- I want a better than 50% percentage of normal people shot with a 9mm class weapon to drop from lack of stun (i.e. to be incapacitated in HERO terms).

 

- I don't want to use Mook rules

 

- I don't want to use Saving Throw rules/GM overides, i.e. I want HERO combat to remain HERO combat. This is an important requirement- I don't want to replace or overule the existing standard combat methods if possible.

 

- I want the weapons to scale relative to each other.

 

- I want to be able to use the same constructions in any of my HERO system campaign settings.

You could just consider Stunned enemies to be out of the fight (about 50% for a 1d6 KA, since average Stun is 9.3). I don't think that's much of a mook rule. It is just a simplification that is likely plausible for anything but very non-mook NPCs. Besides, if you're looking for realism, that moment of being on the ground (okay, slightly dramatic, since being Stunned doesn't necessarily mean you are Knocked Down), dazed, losing track of what is going on around you, then regaining your bearings to realize you are hurt and bleeding is probably enough for most people.

[Fox1]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

...or you use the full optional damage rules' date=' such as bleeding, and they are a normal who realizes they're probably going to die if they don't get medical attention.[/quote']

 

The bleeding rules as given in the book do not provide that result. Wound rules with optional saving throw enforced on everyone do at the cost of what are in effect D&D style saves vs. incap.

 

 

 

Note the following requirement I gave above:

 

.

- I don't want to use Saving Throw rules/GM overides, i.e. I want HERO combat to remain HERO combat. This is an important requirement- I don't want to replace or overule the existing standard combat methods if possible.

 

 

So...

 

Why am I getting flak on this? Just what are we debating now?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

Why am I getting flak on this? Just what are we debating now?

I intended no flak. It was just an idea for integrating some human element to get the effect you are looking for. I didn't realize that by:

I don't want to use Saving Throw rules/GM overides, i.e. I want HERO combat to remain HERO combat. This is an important requirement- I don't want to replace or overule the existing standard combat methods if possible.

you meant that you didn't want to use any optional rules. It sounded like you didn't want to make up any new rules, or decide things by the seat of your pants.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

No...

 

Specific to HERO:

 

- I want a small percentage of normal (stat 10) people shot to die.

 

From your prior comments, I would add "instantly". As several people have pointed out, a small percentage will bleed out on a head hit. If I were trying to implement this (a problem common to many game systems, and exacerbated by the 100 hit point systems), I would consider a critical hit system where, perhaps, hits with half or less of the base roll to hit would take double body.

 

However, this would be equally lethal to PC's, and sooner or later someone will get a lucky shot in on any PC. For that reason, I do not want such a rule. That's personal preference.

 

I also echo that "normal" is 8 BOD, 16 STUN. "Low level combatant" may be a descriptor for someone with straight 10 primaries. Most normals have no business being in combat, so they don't get into it very often.

 

- I want a better than 50% percentage of normal people shot with a 9mm class weapon to drop from lack of stun (i.e. to be incapacitated in HERO terms).

 

This should mean a lot more PC's suffer the same one shot result. Again, a reason I don't want it. If this is for heroic campaigns, the answer is probably increased stun multiples. But do most people shot in the arm, hand or foot drop from lack of Stun?

 

- I don't want to use Mook rules

 

What's good for the NPC is good for the PC. Agreed.

 

- I don't want to use Saving Throw rules/GM overides' date=' i.e. I want HERO combat to remain HERO combat. This is an important requirement- I don't want to replace or overule the existing standard combat methods if possible.[/quote']

 

To me, you just said "no mook rules" again. Same rules for everyone.

 

- I want the weapons to scale relative to each other.

 

If a small % (say 5%) die and 50% drop from lack of stun from a handgun, what percentage should get the same results from a hig powered rifle? If you make a pistol more lethal then evertything else has to scale up, and pretty soon combat is decided almost exclusively by who gets the first shot. If that's the kind of game you want, go for it.

 

- I want to be able to use the same constructions in any of my HERO system campaign settings.

 

A lethal handgun in Cops will be useless in Supers, but it's still the same gun. Fair enough.

 

The issue to me comes down to "if I make handguns more lethal, I have to scale it up the chart, and I make the game more likely to kill off PC's with a lucky shot". Not the game I want. Not the way the chart was designed, hence the writer's comment "if you want more lethal guns, here's how you do it".

[zornwil]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

So you want them to drop dead when shot (because that's what happens in the movies) but you don't want them to curl up in a corner because they've been shot (because that's not what happens in the movies).

 

If they're dead, my experience is they don't keep fighting.

But you know, sort of, I am into that. I don't penalize PCs at 0 BOD - they can keep fighting, if they aren't stunned or knocked out. Right down to the point they die. I like that because it allows them to really go down swinging, all bloodied and broken, barely alive, like in some fiction. Though I've only really seen this happen a handful of times (not the death part, I mean just getting down to 0 BOD), I find it to be neat, simulating the flavor I like. I don't recommend it as a rule, though.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

This is an intersting conversation but I think you (Fox1) are being a bit too limited in what you are willing to call incapacitated. HERO as far as I know it uses 0 STUN to represent someone who is unconcious and -10 BODY for someone who is dead. The closest in the core rules to incapacitated is STUNNED but that only lasts a phase and doesn't lead to knockdown.

 

My first thought was that the EGO roll was the best representation. A failed roll would result in incapacitation etc. Now it is obvious that you don't want another roll - not a bad thing when combat takes as long as it does but why not use the EGO roll in another fahion. The average human has an EGO Roll of 11 or less which they would make 50% of the time. That chance decreases rapidly as you go to 10, 9 and 8 or less due to modifiers due to damage done.

 

Assume a 1D6 Killing Attack. A result of 3 BODY would means the average human would take 3 BODY and need a roll of 8 or less to remain active in the fight (1 in 4).

 

That means that only 25% of average people would remain in a fight after an 'average' (didn't want to use 3.5) damage roll from a 1D6 pistol - but you have to use the roll.

 

You could introduce an Incapacitation number (EGO/5). If the BODY done in a single attack exceeds the Incapacitation number then the victim is incapacitated. You would have to decide what incapacitation meant and how long that state lasted but you would then take 2 in 3 average humans out of a fight with one hit from a pistol.

 

This is something new but it is only noting a number and comparing it during combat - and is based on an existing mechanic. I think this would allow you to do what you want. It is also easy to modulate depending on what you want - you want incapacitation to happen less often? Use a different divider or make it 1+(EGO/5).

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

This is an intersting conversation but I think you (Fox1) are being a bit too limited in what you are willing to call incapacitated. HERO as far as I know it uses 0 STUN to represent someone who is unconcious and -10 BODY for someone who is dead. The closest in the core rules to incapacitated is STUNNED but that only lasts a phase and doesn't lead to knockdown.

 

Not to mention down to -9 STUN being still standing, just in a deeply stuinned condition, below -10 being KO'd. In fact, one could consider - 10 to 19, -20 to -29 and -30 and lower to each be separate degrees of incapacitation.

[Lupus]

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

 

Not to mention that in Hero, characters are assumed to be acting at FULL CAPACITY at all times (unless 'out of combat', or restricted by rules). In real life, combatants don't always fight at full capacity. Many of the 'incapacitated' results are in fact people falling down and going 'ow, this hurts, I'm gonna sit still and blubber for a while.'

 

You may choose to interpret that as negative STUN. I interpret that as 'has been Con-stunned, and has simply chosen to stay out of the fight until things calm down.'

 

It's not a 'mook rule.' It's somethign that applies to all characters, PC and NPC alike. PCs make decisions for their characters - do I keep fighting, or do I cower? The GM makes the decisions for the NPCs, saying 'is he really motivated enough to keep moving with a wound?'

 

That's the way I choose to interpret things. Requiring people to go down to negative STUN is a valid interpretation, but I don't believe it's NECESSARILY more realistic. But yes, it does work for the right kind of game.