Not Dead Yet, Only Mostly Dead, Etc.

[bigdamnhero]

I've always played it that a character* at Negative Body, but above -2x BODY, is conscious (STUN permitting, obviously) and can still act in some fashion while they heroically bleed to death. Or y'know, until they get healed. But I can't actually find that specifically stated in the rules anywhere. Am I missing it? Or is that just a forum rule?

 

I'm posting this here rather than as an Ask Steve, because I'm curious how others handle this? Is the walking-not-quite-dead at any penalty or disadvantage? Or is negative Body incapacitating?

 

* Only for PCs and major NPCs, obviously.

[Scott Baker]

6E2 107. CC 159.

[Lucius]

I always thought that was the whole point to having BOD distinct from STUN - that you can be unconscious but not mortally wounded, or dying but active.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary remembers a bizarre conversation with Zornwil once about whether or not a character can remain active even when DEAD.

[bigdamnhero]

6E2 107. CC 159.

Ah, thank you! I was looking under "Death" not "Injury." (Tho the CC page does not specifically reference Negative Body.)

 

I always thought that was the whole point to having BOD distinct from STUN - that you can be unconscious but not mortally wounded, or dying but active.

Agreed, and I've always loved that distinction. But it game up in game last week, one player wasn't aware of the rule and we couldn't find the cite.

 

The rule does say the GM may impose any penalties/restrictions they feel are appropriate. What do folks feel is appropriate? I don't generally impose penalties for BODY loss - and my players are usually good enough to roleplay it if they're down to their last point - but it seems like a character who wants to continue fighting while at Negative BODY should be at some disadvantage. I'm curious what others do?

[bigdamnhero]

FWIW, a great example of continuing to fight at Negative BODY is the 1986 FBI shootout in Miami. Both of the bad guys sustained eventually-lethal injuries in the first few minutes of the fight, but kept going long enough to tragically kill two Agents before they could be stopped.

[Scott Baker]

Ah, thank you! I was looking under "Death" not "Injury." (Tho the CC page does not specifically reference Negative Body.)

 

Agreed, and I've always loved that distinction. But it game up in game last week, one player wasn't aware of the rule and we couldn't find the cite.

 

The rule does say the GM may impose any penalties/restrictions they feel are appropriate. What do folks feel is appropriate? I don't generally impose penalties for BODY loss - and my players are usually good enough to roleplay it if they're down to their last point - but it seems like a character who wants to continue fighting while at Negative BODY should be at some disadvantage. I'm curious what others do?

In CC, Injury doesn't need to specify anything about negative body. It states there are normally no penalties for losing body. The next section on Death talks about the effects of negative body (i.,e., bleeding out and dying).

 

Check the rules for Impairing and Disablement if you want to add penalties for taking body damage.

[bigdamnhero]

In CC, Injury doesn't need to specify anything about negative body. It states there are normally no penalties for losing body. The next section on Death talks about the effects of negative body (i.,e., bleeding out and dying).

Sure, I agree it's clearly implied; just pointing out that it's not explicitly stated, so I can understand how at least one of my players might miss that, especially given that it's fairly unique to Hero. I understand (and appreciate) that they were trying to keep the word count down.

 

Check the rules for Impairing and Disablement if you want to add penalties for taking body damage.

Well aware of them; have been using them for 30-some years. But that wasn't my question.

[Lucius]

 

Ah, thank you! I was looking under "Death" not "Injury." (Tho the CC page does not specifically reference Negative Body.)

 

Agreed, and I've always loved that distinction. But it game up in game last week, one player wasn't aware of the rule and we couldn't find the cite.

 

The rule does say the GM may impose any penalties/restrictions they feel are appropriate. What do folks feel is appropriate? I don't generally impose penalties for BODY loss - and my players are usually good enough to roleplay it if they're down to their last point - but it seems like a character who wants to continue fighting while at Negative BODY should be at some disadvantage. I'm curious what others do?

 

 

In my opinion, being mortally wounded and dying is a pretty big penalty already. They are already under a time limit.

 

 

The last thing I'd want to do is impose any further penalties on the last thing a character wants to do.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

 

The palindromedary wants to go out in a blaze of glory - not spend its last moments flailing around in futile and ineffectual spasms.

[Scott Baker]

Well aware of them; have been using them for 30-some years. But that wasn't my question.

You wanted to know what people thought was appropriate. I pointed you to the rules that address that (so they're appropriate from the game designer's perspective). So yes, it was your question.

[Markdoc]

The rule does say the GM may impose any penalties/restrictions they feel are appropriate. What do folks feel is appropriate? I don't generally impose penalties for BODY loss - and my players are usually good enough to roleplay it if they're down to their last point - but it seems like a character who wants to continue fighting while at Negative BODY should be at some disadvantage. I'm curious what others do?

 

I have seen, up close and personal a person with mortal gunshot injuries (who literally died right in front of me) and he did not appear in any way physically impaired - well, apart from the whole bleeding-to-death part. Other people with personal experience make similar claims (I'd specifically recommend "Shooting to Live With the One Hand Gun" - a short, very informative read by two guys with a great deal of experience in shooting and being shot at in close combat). These anecdotal stories are backed up by a huge amount of data from combat injury studies. Basically, even with a mortal wound, if a bullet does not hit something  structurally important (bones or major muscle complexes) or critical (spine, brain) the target is likely to be up and fully functional until they die - running on adrenaline, basically. Capt. Fairbairns comments on a physical fight (admittedly a short one) with a man who had been shot through the heart with a bullet from a heavy handgun, and the guy I saw had been shot through one lung with a 7.62, and another 7.62 that grazed both his heart and his spine. He was still capable of sprinting about 200 metres and was both lucid and physically active right up until the point he passed out.

 

So, I don't impose any penalties on people at negative body - I assume the kind of hits which take down the target in real life are reflected in-game by those which also cause sufficient STUN to render the target hors de combat.

 

It also allows the occasional cinematic last stand where a character dies on their feet.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hyper-Man]

An alternative to a physical penalty would be an Ego check to continue fighting if a wounded character recognizes that they will die without immediate medical attention (if only holding a bandage on their own wound).  This would depend greatly on the situation and any applicable Pysch Complications the character might have.

[NuSoardGraphite]

I've always played it that a character* at Negative Body, but above -2x BODY, is conscious (STUN permitting, obviously) and can still act in some fashion while they heroically bleed to death. Or y'know, until they get healed. But I can't actually find that specifically stated in the rules anywhere. Am I missing it? Or is that just a forum rule?

 

I'm posting this here rather than as an Ask Steve, because I'm curious how others handle this? Is the walking-not-quite-dead at any penalty or disadvantage? Or is negative Body incapacitating?

 

* Only for PCs and major NPCs, obviously.

Thats how I have always done things. Negative Body but positive Stu , the character can continue acting until the point of death. Its very cinematic.

[bigdamnhero]

In my opinion, being mortally wounded and dying is a pretty big penalty already. They are already under a time limit.

 

The last thing I'd want to do is impose any further penalties on the last thing a character wants to do.

Yeah, that's a really good point.

 

Tho that time limit can be removed with a decent Paramedics roll. In this case, the character had been stabilized, and so was no longer actually dying, just running around at Negative BODY for several subsequent encounters with no penalties. So it became less Heroic Last Stand and more That Which Does Not Kill Me I Can Completely Ignore.

 

Or...waitaminute...maybe continuing to act/fight/etc means they're more likely to reopen the wound and resume bleeding?! Damn, wish I'd thought of that last week! (Although in this specific instance, the lethal damage was an AVAD RKA defined as soul damage, so there wasn't bleeding in the traditional sense. I'm not sure what the sfx of "tearing out your stitches" would've looked like here.)

 

I have seen, up close and personal a person with mortal gunshot injuries (who literally died right in front of me) and he did not appear in any way physically impaired - well, apart from the whole bleeding-to-death part. Other people with personal experience make similar claims

That matches with many (reliable, confirmed) stories I've heard too. Tho it definitely seems to vary from individual to individual; some folks will lay down to die after getting scratched, but we generally assume PCs are made of sterner stuff. Which leads us to...

 

An alternative to a physical penalty would be an Ego check to continue fighting if a wounded character recognizes that they will die without immediate medical attention (if only holding a bandage on their own wound).  This would depend greatly on the situation and any applicable Pysch Complications the character might have.

[nod] I typically only require NPCs to make those sorts of EGO checks, but it might be appropriate for PCs in this circumstance.

[Markdoc]

Or...waitaminute...maybe continuing to act/fight/etc means they're more likely to reopen the wound and resume bleeding?! Damn, wish I'd thought of that last week! (Although in this specific instance, the lethal damage was an AVAD RKA defined as soul damage, so there wasn't bleeding in the traditional sense. I'm not sure what the sfx of "tearing out your stitches" would've looked like here.)

 

There are optional bleeding rules (6E2, page 113) but I only apply them when players decide their PC needs to be active, whilst at negative body (hobbling along slowly and whining, does not count as "active"). In this case with a "soul damage" special effect, I might actually be inclined to let it slide, however, for exactly the reason you describe.

 

cheers, Mark

[bigdamnhero]

In this case with a "soul damage" special effect, I might actually be inclined to let it slide, however, for exactly the reason you describe.

Yeah, that's basically what I did. But the result was a character with Negative Body continuing to run around for multiple Turns with no penaltes and no danger of actually dying (barring additional damage obviously). It was one of those combination of rulings, each of which kinda made sense at the time, but when taken altogether didn't make any kind of dramatic sense. If it happened again, I think I'd go with the "bleeding: reopening wounds" rule and handwave around exactly what the sfx really looked like.

[bigdamnhero]

Related question for my fellow "old timers" - still being able to function at Negative Body is stated explicitly in 5ed, but I wasn't able to find it in 4ed or earlier books. (Tho it doesn't say you *can't* function at Negative Body either.) Was that a rule change per se, or more of explicitly stating what a lot of people were already allowing? I'm sure it must've come up in some of my 3ed/4ed games, but I honestly don't remember how we handled it.

[Scott Baker]

It was more of an explicit call out in 5E. The RAW (at least in BBB which I had at hand to look at) seem clear in the effects of damage (stunning, knock out, death) and make no mention of not being able to function at negative BODY. That's how I've always played it clear back to 1E.

[pinecone]

Related question for my fellow "old timers" - still being able to function at Negative Body is stated explicitly in 5ed, but I wasn't able to find it in 4ed or earlier books. (Tho it doesn't say you *can't* function at Negative Body either.) Was that a rule change per se, or more of explicitly stating what a lot of people were already allowing? I'm sure it must've come up in some of my 3ed/4ed games, but I honestly don't remember how we handled it.

As far as I know it has "always" been that way, sort of like multipower attack always was...though many seem not to have known it...

[Markdoc]

Likewise, even when we were running the game in Champions! days, it was assumed you could function at negative body. We've had plenty of cases of "dying, but still on his feet" over the years.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Scott Baker]

Likewise, even when we were running the game in Champions! days, it was assumed you could function at negative body. We've had plenty of cases of "dying, but still on his feet" over the years.

 

Cheers, Mark

I agree. That's really the reason to separate out the 2 types of damage.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I've used the Rolemaster "lifekeeping" system for a while in my Fantasy Hero game.  It has only come up once, but its a pretty good system.  basically for a limited time after dying, the body retains the soul and can be brought back with the right techniques, then after that, its just dead and cannot be "resurrected."  Certain items and herbs can keep the soul in the body longer, which is in a sort of stasis, never rotting or aging.

 

As for negative Body, I've always run it so you can function, you'll just bleed if you do so.  As long as you have stun and aren't dead, you can act.