STUN and stunning attack

[Dr Divago]

My player have argued that stun damage done by weapon (3 or 4 times body damage, according with DC rules and Hit Location rules) are too much, that are greater possibility to go down 'cause of stun damage than for real BODY damage

 

my reply is that for a modern time cyberpunk campaign is normal to go stunned before be killed, but player argued that is normal go down for "a single system shock" rather than for "loss of stun points"...

 

so, in your opinion, i must reduce stun damage multiplier? (for sake of simplicity, i use standard effect: 3 for normal killing attack, 4 if increased stun multiplier is used, et coetera) or simply ignoring my players rant?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: STUN and stunning attack

 

Before making any changes, I'd talk to your players about what they actually want.

 

Do they want a more lethal game, where faling in combat is more likely to mean "dead" than "unconscious"? Reducing stun multiples is a good way to go about this. You could also leave stun multiples unchsanged, but increase BOD damage by 50% or 100%. Either approach will also mean a higher PC mortality rate, as any battle ending with a PC or two down is likely to end with a PC or two dead. Do they want to make characters more frequently?

 

Do they want a game where one punches ("massive system shock" is more common? If so, perhaps the answer is to enhance stun multiples so one punches are more common, not reduce them. This will mean more one punches, and thus a greater likelihood for a PC to be KO'd after only getting one shot, or perhaps before he even gets to act. Again, is this what the players want.

 

And, again, I would discuss this with your players first. Making changes for a single player who's vocal often means making changes the calmer players don't want.

 

In the and, it depends on the kind of game you want to run, and they want to play. The present system is, to me, designed to have a failry low PC mortality rate (ie preserve the heroes so the story goes on - James Bond doesn't get shot in the head and die in the opening scenes!), and gradually inflict damage so the PC's get a few moves before being KO'd, and don't have a high chance of being KO'd and out of the action early on. I like that design, so I don't make a lot of changes. If you're going for a different result, you'll need to make some changes.

[Ura-Maru]

Re: STUN and stunning attack

 

Three is probably too much for a standard effect. Rolling gives you an average of 2.5, or 3.5 with increased stun multiplier. At 3, Killing and Normal attacks do the exact same stun on average, so what's the use of Normal?

 

2 and 3 are probably better if you want a game to be fairly deadly.

 

Ah, you are letting players use their normal PD against killing stun, as long as it had to pass through some rPD, right?

 

Though it sounds like the player is actually complaining that Hero and Interlock work differently. Have little kids throw rocks at him, and ask him if he'd prefer to have to pass 20 con checks to avoid getting knocked out, or just take 10 stun.

 

Actually, Interlocks damage system was very good. Not as flexable as Hero's, but as long as only guns were involved, very good.

 

The stun system really shines in longer combats where people get to take recoveries. Don't forget recoveries? In CP gunfights, after you dive for cover, you can take recoveries anytime you want. Just keep your head down while you do it.

 

---

"I agree. By which I mean, there are more of you than me, and you're threatening me into following your moral code."

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: STUN and stunning attack

 

It seems to me like your group is simply not yet used to dealing with the concept of Stun Damage. Most games don't use it. I'm sure they're okay with a Stunned result as most games use some mechanic for this effect, but being knocked out rather than killed seems slightly strange to most RPGers.

 

In my opinion, a Stunned result is simulating system shock.

 

Also, as mentioned above, remind your players that they can use one of their characters phases for a Recovery. I find that segment/phase 12 is good for this. Why? Because you get your free recovery immediately after, so you effectively recover twice in a row and get double effect. This way someone with even a moderate recovery can still get a decent amount of Stun and Endurance back and be ready for action next turn.

During Recovering, I allow characters to perform 0-phase and some 1/2 phase actions that are effortless (i.e. requires no End) such as reloading a gun, or using Perception to take stock of the situation ("How many are there?" [perception roll] "Two behind the stairs and two behind the bar. Four total. Take your recovery") calling on the radio for backup...that sort of thing.

 

However, if your players don't like the fact that they are knocking out the enemy rather than killing them, then I'm not sure what to tell you. A good fix to this depends entirely on the most common form of attack in your campaign; if you are playing Cyberpunk, and the most common form of attack is by guns (i.e. RKA) then increasing the normal PD/ED of the enemy will help fix this somewhat; especially when the enemy wears a bit of armor. Thus, they take less Stun damage from attacks. Unfortunately, this route makes Martial Artists and other characters of this type less effective, because their normal attacks will do less damage on average.

 

Reducing the Stun Multiplier on the Hit Location chart by 1 is one method, but IMO it itsn't necessary. I think mainly you simply have to tell your players to experience to core system for a little while before you guys tinker with it to get a better feel for the games balance and rythyms.

[Dr Divago]

Re: STUN and stunning attack

 

Also' date=' as mentioned above, remind your players that they can use one of their characters phases for a Recovery.[/quote']mumble mumble...

good...

However' date=' if your players don't like the fact that they are knocking out the enemy rather than killing them,[/quote']I will use some of optional rules for lower NPC:

some of this includes that low-level enemies stunned (ie: 0 STUN) are considered killed and like....

Unfortunately' date=' this route makes Martial Artists and other characters of this type less effective, because their normal attacks will do less damage on average.[/quote']This is not a problem: Martial artist use katana...

Three is probably too much for a standard effect. Rolling gives you an average of 2.5, or 3.5 with increased stun multiplier. At 3, Killing and Normal attacks do the exact same stun on average, so what's the use of Normal?

 

2 and 3 are probably better if you want a game to be fairly deadly.

i'm using Hit Location rule, so a "chest" shot mean x3 STUNx... that is standard multiplier (somewhere in FREd say this... but i cannot consult FREd in this moment, so page reference are not available...)

[ghost-angel]

Re: STUN and stunning attack

 

You can also tell your players that in Hero, STUN is a form of system shock. It might work.

[Dr Divago]

Re: STUN and stunning attack

 

You can also tell your players that in Hero' date=' STUN is a form of system shock. It might work. [/quote']Yep

but player argued that "system shock is no something can be represented with point loss".

[Sean Waters]

Re: STUN and stunning attack

 

I'm very much into fixing it in the build: if they want a game with less stunning and more blood, agree that PCs and villains will convert half their resistant defence to non-resistant defence. Instant gore-fest.

[Ganesh]

Re: STUN and stunning attack

 

Yep

but player argued that "system shock is no something can be represented with point loss".

 

 

Heh. System shock can't be represented with point loss? Why not?

 

It almost sounds like what he wants is "probabilistic hit points" -- like what they have in Warhammer 20k, where when a figure takes a hit, you roll to see if they're down or not -- if they're down, they're a casualty, but if they're not, there's no sort of lingering effect. Is that what your player wants? All-or-nothing takedowns, with only actual BODY damage being tracked?

 

It's a valid mood for combat, just not the one HERO typically uses. You have to keep in mind, though -- if you're just as likely to go down from the 10th hit as from the 1st, then PCs going down on the first hit won't be too unlikely. That's the nature of an all-or-nothing -- only with "point loss" of some sort can you simulate cumulative effect.

 

If you want to do that, it should be possible to modify HERO a little to make it happen...let's see, some ideas...

 

Well, the simplest would be to make all EB, RKA, and HA abilities have the limitation "stun is all-or-nothing." Use the stun lottery (i.e. roll the stun multiplier) and state that people who are down to zero or less stun are down for the fight barring someone giving them a hit with a stimpack or something.

 

This will probably require adjusting the numbers somewhat to make KO even possible -- perhaps, since you're mostly using Killing Attacks, just balance a -1/2 limitation (stun doesn't linger) with a +1/2 (stun is BODY * (d6+1) or BODY * 5 for simplicity) or simply increase the DCs to keep point values for weapons similar. I like the former -- it's a universe change from normal rules, so you just make a new set of "attack" powers and it keeps things simple.

 

Keep in mind that you should apply the same rules to your players as to the NPCs, unless you specifically want to create a Name Character/Mook distinction.

 

You should look at the actual damage numbers, and this may require a little fiddling to find the new balance points, but if they want all-or-nothing takedowns, it's a way to do it...

[Mister E]

Re: STUN and stunning attack

 

Yep

but player argued that "system shock is no something can be represented with point loss".

And wounds 'can' be represented with point loss? A sucking chest wound is not in the same catagory as an open femur fracture, or an abdominal wound. Yet all of these thing are represented by BODY, Hitpoints, and other such conventions in roleplaying games.

 

In most emergency cases, shock is the most dangerous thing you have to worry about. Loss of blood... allergic reactions to toxins in the system... damage to the central nervous system... emotional distress... all of these things are factors... and all of these are better simulated with the loss of BODY, slowly building up and adding together, and finally resulting in shock and unconsciousness, when the character reaches zero BODY.

 

But STUN is all about how much stress and general trauma the character can take, before loosing motor control, fainting, passing out, getting his "bell rung", becoming ill, or going to sleep.

 

These two concepts are related... obviously, and they are different... sure. I don't see any problem with representing either with point loss. Tell your players that you know a guy in America that used to be a battlefield medic for the United States Marines, and he thinks the STUN system is plenty realistic.

 

If they don't believe you... ask them if it is cool for you to run a test, where you sock them in the head with the 5er a few dozen times... it might be interesting to find out roughly how many hits it takes before they throw-up, or pass out. If they pass out, you should probably stop...

[Mister E]

Re: STUN and stunning attack

 

I'm very much into fixing it in the build: if they want a game with less stunning and more blood' date=' agree that PCs and villains will convert half their resistant defence to non-resistant defence. Instant gore-fest.[/quote']This will work. Do this.

[Sean Waters]

Re: STUN and stunning attack

 

...Hero also uses the more descriptive 'Imparing and Disabling' rules - optionally. Effects beyond unscious/unconscious or alive/dead.

 

These rules could probably do with some expansion but they are an excellent starting point if you want more detail.

 

If you want very little detail, ignore Stun damage entirely and rule that a hit doing BODY damage equal to your BODY total kills if it hits (except head or vitals where it only has to do BODY/2).

 

Normal attacks will rarely have any effect if you use this system.

[Fox1]

Re: STUN and stunning attack

 

so' date=' in your opinion, i must reduce stun damage multiplier? (for sake of simplicity, i use standard effect: 3 for normal killing attack, 4 if increased stun multiplier is used, et coetera) or simply ignoring my players rant?[/quote']

 

I understand where they are coming from to some extent. They should also be complaining that BODY damage is cumulative as well...

 

If players are not having fun, you'll have to change it or move to a different game.

[Dr Divago]

Re: STUN and stunning attack

 

If they don't believe you... ask them if it is cool for you to run a test' date=' where you sock them in the head with the 5er a few dozen times... it might be interesting to find out roughly how many hits it takes before they throw-up, or pass out. If they pass out, you should probably stop...[/quote']LOL

well, i cannot say if was useful to convince him, but i'm sure he stop arguing

[Mister E]

Re: STUN and stunning attack

 

LOL

well, i cannot say if was useful to convince him, but i'm sure he stop arguing

 

Every game I've ever been in, has had some kind of rules/reality lawyer in it. Usually I'm lucky that it's me.

[ghost-angel]

Re: STUN and stunning attack

 

LOL

well, i cannot say if was useful to convince him, but i'm sure he stop arguing

 

welp.. if it's just one guy who is instigating everything just use the old standby "Just because".

 

It kind of sounds like they're arguing just to argue a point.

 

Here's this:

 

STUN is how long you can stay concious.

BODY is how long you can stay alive.

 

System Shock is simulated with the Disabling Rules. If they want they perhaps you should introduce that section into the game (along with Bleeding rules).

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: STUN and stunning attack

 

i suggest the bleeding rules made up by Fireg0lem (look up "New bleeding rules" thread i started) and also giving everything +4 stun multiplier! there's your system shock!