Why there will never be a truely realistic RPG....
Jeremy Reaban
The Associated Press
Friday, February 22, 2002; 4:31 PM
SEAFORD, N.Y. -- A man apparently bled to death after falling on the
shards of a coffee mug he was carrying, police said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
I don't think any system could ever model damage truely. Some people
get shot several times and live. Others die like this...
Wayne Shaw
A game could do that perfectly well. It'd just have to pay attention
to very low probability events to a degree that isn't normally
justified, given that you can go through an entire campaign without
much of any of them coming up, even if the game is set up to
acknowledge them.
David Johnston
Hero.
The shards can be considered a 1/2 die killing attack (Reduced Penetration,
but that doesn't matter since normal humans have no resistant defense).
Roll randomly for location and hit the vitals for x2 Body. Roll maximum
damage (a one in three chance) and you have lost 6 Body out of your average
of 10. Consulting the Bleeding rolls, he takes 2d6 stun per turn and takes
one body every time one of those dice is a six. Each turn, therefore he has
a 1 in 3 chance of losing another point of body. Assuming that he doesn't
roll at 5 or less on two dice over the course of the next 12 turns (two minutes),
the odds are he'll hit 0 Body then or before then. He could hit 0 body in only
24 seconds if his rolls are spectacularly bad. Once he hits 0 Body, in 10
turns he'll be beyond all hope.
That's for a PC of course. Since doubtless he's a minor NPC, the GM could
rule that he was dead from the moment he took more than half his Body in damage
to the vitals.
Frank J. Perricone
wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53567-2002Feb22.html
> SEAFORD, N.Y. -- A man apparently bled to death after falling on the
> shards of a coffee mug he was carrying, police said.
>
> I don't think any system could ever model damage truely. Some people
> get shot several times and live. Others die like this...
Sounds like a Rolemaster "tiny crit" to me.
--
"It is more uplifting to find the beauty, wonder, spirituality, and
reverence in what we can see, than to imagine they only exist in what we
can't see." - hawt...@starband.net http://hawthorn.mystarband.net/
** Prism: http://www.rpglibrary.org/systems/prism/ **
Sea Wasp
>
> Jeremy Reaban wrote:
> >
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53567-2002Feb22.html
> >
> > The Associated Press
> > Friday, February 22, 2002; 4:31 PM
> >
> > SEAFORD, N.Y. -- A man apparently bled to death after falling on the
> > shards of a coffee mug he was carrying, police said.
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> >
> > I don't think any system could ever model damage truely. Some people
> > get shot several times and live. Others die like this...
>
> Hero.
>
> The shards can be considered a 1/2 die killing attack (Reduced Penetration,
> but that doesn't matter since normal humans have no resistant defense).
(snip rest of long explanation)
>
> That's for a PC of course. Since doubtless he's a minor NPC, the GM could
> rule that he was dead from the moment he took more than half his Body in damage
> to the vitals.
The sad thing is I hate the Hero system, yet I understood all of
that.
As someone else also mentioned, Rolemaster can do that one too.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Bill Seurer
> Hero.
>
> The shards can be considered a 1/2 die killing attack (Reduced Penetration,
If this were true then people would be dying from broken coffee mugs
right and left.
Hero is especially POOR at modeling such things actually because of its
extreme coarseness.
Philippe.tromeur
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston wrote:
> > Hero.
> >
> > The shards can be considered a 1/2 die killing attack (Reduced Penetration,
>
> If this were true then people would be dying from broken coffee mugs
> right and left.
No, they wouldn't. They'd have to have the bad luck to fall on the shards,
the bad luck to roll a hit on a damage location table that increased the body
damage of the accident, the bad luck to roll maximum damage on the attack,
the bad luck to roll 6 or more on 2 dice repeatedly, and the bad luck to not
have anyone who could make a first aid roll handy within about four minutes.
Bearing all those criteria in mine, yes people do die from accidents with cutting
weapons that small "all the time".
>
> Hero is especially POOR at modeling such things actually because of its
> extreme coarseness.
Since I just used it to model that thing, apparently not.
Robert Scott Clark
>Bill Seurer wrote:
>>
>> David Johnston wrote:
>> > Hero.
>> >
>> > The shards can be considered a 1/2 die killing attack (Reduced Penetration,
>>
>> If this were true then people would be dying from broken coffee mugs
>> right and left.
>
>No, they wouldn't. They'd have to have the bad luck to fall on the shards,
And this is represented *how* in a game system?
>the bad luck to roll a hit on a damage location table that increased the body
>damage of the accident,
How rare is that? Crit hits have to be pretty common for a system to
bother with them. If it happened ever 1/2 of a percent of the time,
coffee mugs would be pulled from the shelves.
> the bad luck to roll maximum damage on the attack,
So, on a 1/2 d6, that's what 33% of the time
>the bad luck to roll 6 or more on 2 dice repeatedly,
Again, not that rare.
>and the bad luck to not
>have anyone who could make a first aid roll handy within about four minutes.
Does the game system have this requirement on the death roll?
Brent & Dianne
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 22:58:04 -0600, "Jeremy Reaban" <j...@Xconnectria.com>
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53567-2002Feb22.html
>> SEAFORD, N.Y. -- A man apparently bled to death after falling on the
>> shards of a coffee mug he was carrying, police said.
>>
>> I don't think any system could ever model damage truely. Some people
>> get shot several times and live. Others die like this...
>
> Sounds like a Rolemaster "tiny crit" to me.
That is what I was thinking. The tables themselves are pretty interesting
reading. Sounds like a mega-botch from the Ars Magica rules as well... :)
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> >Bill Seurer wrote:
> >>
> >> David Johnston wrote:
> >> > Hero.
> >> >
> >> > The shards can be considered a 1/2 die killing attack (Reduced Penetration,
> >>
> >> If this were true then people would be dying from broken coffee mugs
> >> right and left.
> >
> >No, they wouldn't. They'd have to have the bad luck to fall on the shards,
>
> And this is represented *how* in a game system?
Well, for one thing, by getting "Bad Luck" in Champions. Few people have Bad Luck,
but that's the kind of mishap that can happen to those who do.
>
> >the bad luck to roll a hit on a damage location table that increased the body
> >damage of the accident,
>
> How rare is that?
It's the chance of rolling a 3,4,5 or 13 on 3 dice.
Crit hits have to be pretty common for a system to
> bother with them. If it happened ever 1/2 of a percent of the time,
> coffee mugs would be pulled from the shelves.
Remember all of these things have to have happened in order for the
character to die. That adds up to a really low chance, particularly
when you consider the chances that you'll fall on a shattered coffee
cup.
>
> > the bad luck to roll maximum damage on the attack,
>
> So, on a 1/2 d6, that's what 33% of the time
>
> >the bad luck to roll 6 or more on 2 dice repeatedly,
>
> Again, not that rare.
Each of these successive probability issues multiplies the previous one.
>
> >and the bad luck to not
> >have anyone who could make a first aid roll handy within about four minutes.
>
> Does the game system have this requirement on the death roll?
There is no death roll. If you get successful first aid, you stop bleeding.
Even if you don't get successful first aid, the bleeding can stop on it's own.
But you don't stop bleeding, you die.
Frank J. Perricone
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 23:03:25 +0100, "Philippe.tromeur"
<philippe...@free.fr> wrote:
> > > I don't think any system could ever model damage truely. Some people
> > > get shot several times and live. Others die like this...
> >
> > Sounds like a Rolemaster "tiny crit" to me.
> in Rolemaster, a wombat could kill a balrog in less than 1 round
Yep, provided that someone rolled high-open-ended about ten times in a row
on the first try.
(Well, not actually. No tiny crit can do killing damage to something that
isn't actually vulnerable to physical attacks, and while I haven't seen the
stats on balrogs, I know if I were to write them in Rolemaster terms they'd
be immune to virtually all such attacks, but that's a different story.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Comment: Public key at http://hawthorn.mystarband.net/f-pgp.txt
iQA/AwUBPHhcNKbqL6lCLyfTEQLZgwCfQeaiPZDf3yrV1B+ZiyW5kY/5CPwAn27F
UwJdvVqlnTnI810g7hrmJf7e
=EvWl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Robert Scott Clark
>Robert Scott Clark wrote:
>>
>> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Bill Seurer wrote:
>> >>
>> >> David Johnston wrote:
>> >> > Hero.
>> >> >
>> >> > The shards can be considered a 1/2 die killing attack (Reduced Penetration,
>> >>
>> >> If this were true then people would be dying from broken coffee mugs
>> >> right and left.
>> >
>> >No, they wouldn't. They'd have to have the bad luck to fall on the shards,
>>
>> And this is represented *how* in a game system?
>
>Well, for one thing, by getting "Bad Luck" in Champions. Few people have Bad Luck,
>but that's the kind of mishap that can happen to those who do.
So, how would this occur within the rules? My guess is "GM fiat".
>
>>
>> >the bad luck to roll a hit on a damage location table that increased the body
>> >damage of the accident,
>>
>> How rare is that?
>
>It's the chance of rolling a 3,4,5 or 13 on 3 dice.
So, your answer is "pretty darned often" (it's several percent).
That seems like it goes back to exactly what he said before "people
would be dying from broken coffee mugs right and left."
>
>Crit hits have to be pretty common for a system to
>> bother with them. If it happened ever 1/2 of a percent of the time,
>> coffee mugs would be pulled from the shelves.
>
>Remember all of these things have to have happened in order for the
>character to die. That adds up to a really low chance,
Not really, it doesn't. Do the math.
>particularly
>when you consider the chances that you'll fall on a shattered coffee
>cup.
Hmmm... those seem to be the chances you cannot specify. It's pretty
easy for a game system to emulate anything if you have someone leading
it by the hand.
>
>>
>> > the bad luck to roll maximum damage on the attack,
>>
>> So, on a 1/2 d6, that's what 33% of the time
>>
>> >the bad luck to roll 6 or more on 2 dice repeatedly,
>>
>> Again, not that rare.
>
>Each of these successive probability issues multiplies the previous one.
Yes, yes they do. Now, do the math and see how freakin' common it
would be.
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> >Robert Scott Clark wrote:
> >>
> >> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Bill Seurer wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> David Johnston wrote:
> >> >> > Hero.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The shards can be considered a 1/2 die killing attack (Reduced Penetration,
> >> >>
> >> >> If this were true then people would be dying from broken coffee mugs
> >> >> right and left.
> >> >
> >> >No, they wouldn't. They'd have to have the bad luck to fall on the shards,
> >>
> >> And this is represented *how* in a game system?
> >
> >Well, for one thing, by getting "Bad Luck" in Champions. Few people have Bad Luck,
> >but that's the kind of mishap that can happen to those who do.
>
> So, how would this occur within the rules? My guess is "GM fiat".
When things are going well for a person with Bad Luck the GM calls for
a Bad Luck roll. If he rolls a 6 on any of the dice of Bad Luck he has,
the person with Bad Luck has an accident happen to him.
And what's wrong with GM fiat, anyway? GM fiat is what decides that some
mugger decides to pick on you as you walk home, or the the roof of the
building is unstable or whatever. Expecting the system to do all the work
without GM input is stupid.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >the bad luck to roll a hit on a damage location table that increased the body
> >> >damage of the accident,
> >>
> >> How rare is that?
> >
> >It's the chance of rolling a 3,4,5 or 13 on 3 dice.
>
> So, your answer is "pretty darned often" (it's several percent).
> That seems like it goes back to exactly what he said before "people
> would be dying from broken coffee mugs right and left."
As long as you ignored the other variables. Remember, that alone is not
enough to kill the person. It just gives someone a nasty gash that requires
an emergency room.
>
> >
> >Crit hits have to be pretty common for a system to
> >> bother with them. If it happened ever 1/2 of a percent of the time,
> >> coffee mugs would be pulled from the shelves.
> >
> >Remember all of these things have to have happened in order for the
> >character to die. That adds up to a really low chance,
>
> Not really, it doesn't. Do the math.
No. If you are that concerned about the question, you do it.
The point is, Hero System makes it mechanically possible for the shards
of a coffee cup to kill a man, but very unlikely that it will actually
happen, which is exactly what we'd expect.
Rick Pikul
cla...@mindspring.com says...
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> >Robert Scott Clark wrote:
> >>
> >> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Bill Seurer wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> David Johnston wrote:
> >> >> > Hero.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The shards can be considered a 1/2 die killing attack (Reduced Penetration,
> >> >>
> >> >> If this were true then people would be dying from broken coffee mugs
> >> >> right and left.
> >> >
> >> >No, they wouldn't. They'd have to have the bad luck to fall on the shards,
> >>
> >> And this is represented *how* in a game system?
> >
> >Well, for one thing, by getting "Bad Luck" in Champions. Few people have Bad Luck,
> >but that's the kind of mishap that can happen to those who do.
>
> So, how would this occur within the rules? My guess is "GM fiat".
It certainly fits with a roll of two or three levels of unluck.
Unluck is a disadvantage that Hero characters can have, strangely
enough it causes characters to have random bad things happen to them.
> >> >the bad luck to roll a hit on a damage location table that increased the body
> >> >damage of the accident,
> >>
> >> How rare is that?
> >
> >It's the chance of rolling a 3,4,5 or 13 on 3 dice.
>
> So, your answer is "pretty darned often" (it's several percent).
> That seems like it goes back to exactly what he said before "people
> would be dying from broken coffee mugs right and left."
>
> >
> >Crit hits have to be pretty common for a system to
> >> bother with them. If it happened ever 1/2 of a percent of the time,
> >> coffee mugs would be pulled from the shelves.
> >
> >Remember all of these things have to have happened in order for the
> >character to die. That adds up to a really low chance,
>
> Not really, it doesn't. Do the math.
The expected time to bleed to 0 body is 13 turns, assuming it
takes that long, and given that the hit has already occurred,
0.00000028%, or one in 350 million such falls.
If we assume that bleeding will occur at the maximum rate with the
singular exception of a 'bleeding stops' result, it will take four turns,
in this case the odds increase to 0.028%, or one in 3500. The odds of
rolling four BODY loss bleeds, (for 2d6 bleeding), in a row is 0.87%.
> >particularly
> >when you consider the chances that you'll fall on a shattered coffee
> >cup.
>
> Hmmm... those seem to be the chances you cannot specify. It's pretty
> easy for a game system to emulate anything if you have someone leading
> it by the hand.
At most a 0 OCV attacker, standard 3 DCV defense would be about
1/4, beyond the unluck to drop the cup and fall after it.
A broken coffee cup would likely be built with -1 OCV, reducing
that to about 1/6.
The unluck would depend on both the character, and how often the
GM makes random luck/unluck rolls, (I generally do about once a session,
and also add in an additional combined die that reads as both a luck and
unluck die).
>
> >
> >>
> >> > the bad luck to roll maximum damage on the attack,
> >>
> >> So, on a 1/2 d6, that's what 33% of the time
> >>
> >> >the bad luck to roll 6 or more on 2 dice repeatedly,
> >>
> >> Again, not that rare.
> >
> >Each of these successive probability issues multiplies the previous one.
>
> Yes, yes they do. Now, do the math and see how freakin' common it
> would be.
Very rare, you forgot to do the math yourself.
--
Phoenix
Robert Scott Clark
>And what's wrong with GM fiat, anyway?
If you have to use GM fiat, then you cannot say that the game system
allows for something to happen. With GM fiat, every system allows for
everything to happen.
>GM fiat is what decides that some
>mugger decides to pick on you as you walk home, or the the roof of the
>building is unstable or whatever. Expecting the system to do all the work
>without GM input is stupid.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >the bad luck to roll a hit on a damage location table that increased the body
>> >> >damage of the accident,
>> >>
>> >> How rare is that?
>> >
>> >It's the chance of rolling a 3,4,5 or 13 on 3 dice.
>>
>> So, your answer is "pretty darned often" (it's several percent).
>> That seems like it goes back to exactly what he said before "people
>> would be dying from broken coffee mugs right and left."
>
>As long as you ignored the other variables. Remember, that alone is not
>enough to kill the person. It just gives someone a nasty gash that requires
>an emergency room.
The only other requirement was the 1/3 chance of rolling max damage.
As a quick estimate, I figured that if you said a broken mug shard did
1/2 d6, then falling on one would leave you unconscious on the floor
bleeding to death about 5% of the time - that's ludicrous.
And that's still forcing the issue by using an average person. A
slightly above average person would again fall to 0% chance of dying.
No system that doesn't do open ended rolling is going to even come
close to producing non-absurd numbers, and even then I find it
unlikely that I will ever see one that doesn't also produce bizarre
results like elderly people dying from papercuts.
>
>>
>> >
>> >Crit hits have to be pretty common for a system to
>> >> bother with them. If it happened ever 1/2 of a percent of the time,
>> >> coffee mugs would be pulled from the shelves.
>> >
>> >Remember all of these things have to have happened in order for the
>> >character to die. That adds up to a really low chance,
>>
>> Not really, it doesn't. Do the math.
>
>No. If you are that concerned about the question, you do it.
>The point is, Hero System makes it mechanically possible for the shards
>of a coffee cup to kill a man,
Maybe, depends on what you set the damage as.
>but very unlikely that it will actually
>happen,
Maybe, depends on what you set the damage as.
>which is exactly what we'd expect.
Only I've seen no reason to believe that the two above "maybe"s are
ever "true"s at the same time.
The example given (that appeared to set the damage as low as possible
and still possibly kill someone) made that mode of death possible, and
at the same time very likely - not what you claim at all.
>
Robert Scott Clark
> If we assume that bleeding will occur at the maximum rate with the
>singular exception of a 'bleeding stops' result, it will take four turns,
>in this case the odds increase to 0.028%, or one in 3500. The odds of
>rolling four BODY loss bleeds, (for 2d6 bleeding), in a row is 0.87%.
>
You've gone too far. Take it back a step. What was the probability
they got to this point - the bleeding on the floor stage?
>> Hmmm... those seem to be the chances you cannot specify. It's pretty
>> easy for a game system to emulate anything if you have someone leading
>> it by the hand.
<snippage>
>
> The unluck would depend on both the character, and how often the
>GM makes random luck/unluck rolls,
Translation: the system doesn't really handle that part, the GM just
decides.
When something depends on the GM either doing or not doing something
in a basically arbitrary manner, the system cannot be said to be
handling that situation. It might handle other situations perfectly
well, but in that instance, it doesn't.
>> Yes, yes they do. Now, do the math and see how freakin' common it
>> would be.
>
> Very rare, you forgot to do the math yourself.
Very rare to actually finish bleeding to death, but very common to
start the process.
Maybe I'm just confused, as I would rather castrate myself than play
hero, but what would be the exact effect of taking 3 points of killing
damage to the vitals (as described in the original example) - just
the immediate effects, not what happens after bleeding for a couple of
hours?
Brent & Dianne
at him! :)
Philippe.tromeur
> on the first try.
It's easier than that, I think.
> (Well, not actually. No tiny crit can do killing damage to something that
> isn't actually vulnerable to physical attacks, and while I haven't seen the
> stats on balrogs, I know if I were to write them in Rolemaster terms they'd
> be immune to virtually all such attacks, but that's a different story.)
Let's say the Balrog stumbled on his whip, and gored himself with his own
horns.
Brent & Dianne
>> And what's wrong with GM fiat, anyway?
>
> If you have to use GM fiat, then you cannot say that the game system
> allows for something to happen. With GM fiat, every system allows for
> everything to happen.
Sure you can - but you are relying upon human judgement to make a story more
realistic rather than pages of game mechanics. If you don't allow the GM to
be flexible, you will have a clunky version of a computer RPG (and even
those will break their own rules to keep the story moving along!! Case in
point - sometimes the computer will defeat the character no matter what even
though the hero would have had a chance if it weren't for the "computer
fiat")
A good GM will follow the rules, a great one will know when to ignore them
and do something arbitrary.
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> >And what's wrong with GM fiat, anyway?
>
> If you have to use GM fiat, then you cannot say that the game system
> allows for something to happen. With GM fiat, every system allows for
> everything to happen.
Untrue. Sometimes you actually have to bend the rules in order to allow
something to happen.
>
> >GM fiat is what decides that some
> >mugger decides to pick on you as you walk home, or the the roof of the
> >building is unstable or whatever. Expecting the system to do all the work
> >without GM input is stupid.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >the bad luck to roll a hit on a damage location table that increased the body
> >> >> >damage of the accident,
> >> >>
> >> >> How rare is that?
> >> >
> >> >It's the chance of rolling a 3,4,5 or 13 on 3 dice.
> >>
> >> So, your answer is "pretty darned often" (it's several percent).
> >> That seems like it goes back to exactly what he said before "people
> >> would be dying from broken coffee mugs right and left."
> >
> >As long as you ignored the other variables. Remember, that alone is not
> >enough to kill the person. It just gives someone a nasty gash that requires
> >an emergency room.
>
> The only other requirement was the 1/3 chance of rolling max damage.
Wrong. You forgot about about the requirement of rolling 6 or more about
twelve times in order for anything actually lifethreatening to occur, and
the requirement that nobody around be able to make a Paramedic roll in all
that time. Without those, all he has is a nasty gash that requires a trip
to the emergency room, and those happen all the time.
> As a quick estimate, I figured that if you said a broken mug shard did
> 1/2 d6, then falling on one would leave you unconscious on the floor
> bleeding to death about 5% of the time - that's ludicrous.
>
> And that's still forcing the issue by using an average person. A
> slightly above average person would again fall to 0% chance of dying.
There's a reason to think Mr Coffeecup was above average?
>
> The example given (that appeared to set the damage as low as possible
> and still possibly kill someone) made that mode of death possible, and
> at the same time very likely - not what you claim at all.
You aren't good at tracking all the variables, are you?
David Johnston
>
> Rick Pikul <rwp...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
> > If we assume that bleeding will occur at the maximum rate with the
> >singular exception of a 'bleeding stops' result, it will take four turns,
> >in this case the odds increase to 0.028%, or one in 3500. The odds of
> >rolling four BODY loss bleeds, (for 2d6 bleeding), in a row is 0.87%.
> >
>
> You've gone too far. Take it back a step. What was the probability
> they got to this point - the bleeding on the floor stage?
>
> >> Hmmm... those seem to be the chances you cannot specify. It's pretty
> >> easy for a game system to emulate anything if you have someone leading
> >> it by the hand.
>
> <snippage>
>
> >
> > The unluck would depend on both the character, and how often the
> >GM makes random luck/unluck rolls,
>
> Translation: the system doesn't really handle that part, the GM just
> decides.
>
> When something depends on the GM either doing or not doing something
> in a basically arbitrary manner, the system cannot be said to be
> handling that situation. It might handle other situations perfectly
> well, but in that instance, it doesn't.
I disagree. When a system doesn't handle that situation that doesn't
just mean that it doesn't automatically generate it by itself. It means that
the situation can't occur under the rules, or if it does occur it produces
bizarre results.
>
> Maybe I'm just confused, as I would rather castrate myself than play
> hero, but what would be the exact effect of taking 3 points of killing
> damage to the vitals (as described in the original example) - just
> the immediate effects, not what happens after bleeding for a couple of
> hours?
Nothing except bleeding and pain. You won't lose consciousness unless you
are extraordinarily feeble.
Geoff Watson
Rick Pikul <rwp...@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.16e27942b...@news-west.look.ca...
The victim wouldn't die unless he bled to -10 Body, so reduce the chance
further.
Geoff.
David Johnston
> The victim wouldn't die unless he bled to -10 Body, so reduce the chance
> further.
But of course at that the only thing that can save the character is the presence
of someone performing a successful Paramedic roll on him.
Deric Page
Clark) dramatically intoned:
>
>Yes, yes they do. Now, do the math and see how freakin' common it
>would be.
First: 3 6's on a 3d6 Unluck roll (the only level that really would yield this kind of
result) is 0.463%.
Next: 0 OCV (with a -1 weapon modifier) to hit a 3 DCV (falling on the shards) is 16.204%
(total is 0.075%).
Next: 3 on 1d3 damage is 33.333% (total is 0.025%)
Next: roll 3-5 or 13 on 3d6 Hit Location chart is 14.352% (total is 0.0036%) and you are
now actually bleeding with a chance to spontaneously stop.
Next: Not roll 2-5 on 2d6 four times (bleed to 0 Body) is 0.595% (total is 0.000021%)
Next: Not roll 3-9 on 3d6 once (bleed to -1 Body) is 62.5% (total is 0.000013% or 1.3 out
of 10,000,000). At this point you will continue to bleed without outside aid.
Of course using the Hero bleeding rules it is actually possible to bleed to death just
taking 1 point of Body damage (unless then damage was done by a blunt weapon, and then you
need at least 6), so to be fair, let's look at that.
First: 3 6's on a 3d6 Unluck roll is 0.436%).
Next: 0 OCV (with a -1 weapon modifier) to hit a 3 DCV (falling on the shards) is 16.204%
(total is 0.075%).
Next: 1 damage on a 1 damage attack is 100% (total is 0.075%).
Next: any roll on 3d6 Hit Location chart is 100% (total is 0.075%) and you are now
actually bleeding with a chance to spontaneously stop.
Next: not roll a 1 on 1d6 four times (to bleed down to 5 Body) is 48.225% (total is
0.036%).
Next: not roll 2-5 on 2d6 five times (to bleed down to 0 Body) is 0.1653% (total is
0.00006%).
Next: Not roll 3-9 on 3d6 once (bleed to -1 Body) is 62.5% (total is 0.000037% or 3.7 out
of 10,000,000). At this point you will continue to bleed without outside aid.
So with such a small attack, at best, the Hero System gives you a 0.075% chance to start
bleeding (and a 0.000037% chance to not stop without outside help) if you happen to be an
unusually unlucky person (have 3d6 Unluck).
Now, before you go on about the GM Fiat nature of Unluck, I ask you to provide me with any
situation that does not require some form of GM decision in 99.9% of RPGs out there (I
choose 99.9% only because I've heard of at least 1 rpg that doesn't require a GM).
Deric Page
deric(dot)page@usa(dot)net
Warren J. Dew
total is 0.000037% or 3.7 out of 10,000,000
Three deaths out of ten million broken coffee cups. Not too bad. Thanks for
actually doing the math, unlike everyone else in the thread.
Out of curiousity, how much further down does it go if the victim has to be
knocked out from the fall? I would assume that happened in the actual case,
since otherwise he would have called 911 or something. (Or did he?)
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Warren J. Dew
A good GM will follow the rules, a great one will know when
to ignore them and do something arbitrary.
Give me the good craftsman over the artiste with delusions of grandeur any day.
I'll take Bach over Stravinski, too.
Robert Scott Clark
>I disagree. When a system doesn't handle that situation that doesn't
>just mean that it doesn't automatically generate it by itself. It means that
>the situation can't occur under the rules, or if it does occur it produces
>bizarre results.
So, you believe a system covers a result if said result can never ever
happen in the system unless the GM forces it to?
Odd definitions you use there.
>
>Nothing except bleeding and pain. You won't lose consciousness unless you
>are extraordinarily feeble.
>
Therefore, it was a poor example, as it doesn't actually produce the
results of the coffee mug example.
Robert Scott Clark
>> And that's still forcing the issue by using an average person. A
>> slightly above average person would again fall to 0% chance of dying.
>
>There's a reason to think Mr Coffeecup was above average?
Are you claiming that there are people in the real world who could not
possibly die in exactly the same way as he did? If you are not making
that claim, then your statement is completely pointless.
Robert Scott Clark
Bingo. Someone finally gets one of the points.
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> >I disagree. When a system doesn't handle that situation that doesn't
> >just mean that it doesn't automatically generate it by itself. It means that
> >the situation can't occur under the rules, or if it does occur it produces
> >bizarre results.
>
> So, you believe a system covers a result if said result can never ever
> happen in the system unless the GM forces it to?
>
> Odd definitions you use there.
Not in the least. A mugger will not attack my character as he wanders through
the city unless the GM "forces" him to. The important question is, does the
system have the rules to cover what happens if said mugger does attack.
>
> >
> >Nothing except bleeding and pain. You won't lose consciousness unless you
> >are extraordinarily feeble.
> >
>
> Therefore, it was a poor example, as it doesn't actually produce the
> results of the coffee mug example.
What are you talking about?
David Johnston
>
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 04:23:47 GMT, thunder crashed as cla...@mindspring.com (Robert Scott
> Clark) dramatically intoned:
> >
> >Yes, yes they do. Now, do the math and see how freakin' common it
> >would be.
>
> First: 3 6's on a 3d6 Unluck roll (the only level that really would yield this kind of
> result) is 0.463%.
> Next: 0 OCV (with a -1 weapon modifier) to hit a 3 DCV (falling on the shards) is 16.204%
> (total is 0.075%).
Um...better delete that one. It isn't really fair. If you roll 3 sixes, the damage
won't need to "roll to hit". Still the odds are pretty long.
> Next: 3 on 1d3 damage is 33.333% (total is 0.025%)
> Next: roll 3-5 or 13 on 3d6 Hit Location chart is 14.352% (total is 0.0036%) and you are
> now actually bleeding with a chance to spontaneously stop.
> Next: Not roll 2-5 on 2d6 four times (bleed to 0 Body) is 0.595% (total is 0.000021%)
Of course that's balanced by the odds at this point, which are difficult to calculate,
since the number of turns it takes to bleed to 0 is determined by how many 6s you roll.
It could be a lot more than 4 turns. The odds that you'll roll two twelves in a row
to get to 0 Body are fairly low. And of course even after you bleed to 0 Body,
there are the paramedic rolls to consider.
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> And that's still forcing the issue by using an average person. A
> >> slightly above average person would again fall to 0% chance of dying.
> >
> >There's a reason to think Mr Coffeecup was above average?
>
> Are you claiming that there are people in the real world who could not
> possibly die in exactly the same way as he did?
No. Nor is such a claim relevant. An above average person could also
die in exactly the same way. They'd just have an even lower chance of
doing it and take longer if they did do it.
David Johnston
Can't get a point you never made. And yes, someone can be knocked out
by a blow to the head in Hero system.
Blackberry
>
>>> And this is represented *how* in a game system?
>>
>>Well, for one thing, by getting "Bad Luck" in Champions. Few people have Bad
>>Luck,
>>but that's the kind of mishap that can happen to those who do.
>
>So, how would this occur within the rules? My guess is "GM fiat".
Or by making your Unluck roll and rolling really poorly. Why are you trying to
vilify Hero unnecessarily? At least it has the function. How would you
represent bad luck in your favorite system?
>>>>the bad luck to roll a hit on a damage location table that increased the body
>>> >damage of the accident,
>>>
>>> How rare is that?
>>
>>It's the chance of rolling a 3,4,5 or 13 on 3 dice.
>
>So, your answer is "pretty darned often" (it's several percent).
>That seems like it goes back to exactly what he said before "people
>would be dying from broken coffee mugs right and left."
Even if the object of the falling hits those parts of the body, it isn't always
a broken coffee mug. Even if it is a broken coffee mug, it isn't always going
to do maximum damage. Even if it does maximum damage, it isn't always going to
cause fatal bleeding.
How is this done in your favorite system?
>>Crit hits have to be pretty common for a system to
>>> bother with them. If it happened ever 1/2 of a percent of the time,
>>> coffee mugs would be pulled from the shelves.
>>
>>Remember all of these things have to have happened in order for the
>>character to die. That adds up to a really low chance,
>
>Not really, it doesn't. Do the math.
Check again. You don't add percentages, you multiply them, and remember that
they are fractions. Fractions less than 1 get smaller when you multiply them
together. What final percentage chance did you come up with? What's the
percentage chance in your favorite system?
>>particularly
>>when you consider the chances that you'll fall on a shattered coffee
>>cup.
>
>Hmmm... those seem to be the chances you cannot specify. It's pretty
>easy for a game system to emulate anything if you have someone leading
>it by the hand.
So, you're disparaging Hero because it doesn't have a random encounter table
entry, "Fall on a broken coffee cup, impale through the temple, do maximum
damage"? Your favorite system does, right?
>>> > the bad luck to roll maximum damage on the attack,
>>>
>>> So, on a 1/2 d6, that's what 33% of the time
>>>
>>> >the bad luck to roll 6 or more on 2 dice repeatedly,
>>>
>>> Again, not that rare.
>>
>>Each of these successive probability issues multiplies the previous one.
>
>Yes, yes they do. Now, do the math and see how freakin' common it
>would be.
So far, about a 3% chance that every person who falls on a broken coffee cup
*and* takes the full impact of the shards to the head or vitals. Now, figure
out how many people fall on broken coffee cups and factor that in.
How does your favorite system handle it?
--------------------
"Everything has to be taken on trust; truth is only that which is taken to be
true. It's the currency of living. There may be nothing behind it, but it
doesn't make any difference so long as it is honoured. One acts on
assumptions." -- Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>> The unluck would depend on both the character, and how often the
>>GM makes random luck/unluck rolls,
>
>Translation: the system doesn't really handle that part, the GM just
>decides.
>
>When something depends on the GM either doing or not doing something
>in a basically arbitrary manner, the system cannot be said to be
>handling that situation. It might handle other situations perfectly
>well, but in that instance, it doesn't.
Normally, as someone else pointed out, the GM would roll everyone's Luck/Unluck
at the beginning of the session and apply the results sometime during the
adventure.
How are luck and unluck handled in your favorite system?
>>> Yes, yes they do. Now, do the math and see how freakin' common it
>>> would be.
>>
>> Very rare, you forgot to do the math yourself.
>
>Very rare to actually finish bleeding to death, but very common to
>start the process.
By definition, the start of any bleeding is the potential start of bleeding to
death. Now you're disparaging Hero for having bleeding rules? Your favorite
system assumes that all Terran life forms don't bleed?
>Maybe I'm just confused, as I would rather castrate myself than play
>hero, but what would be the exact effect of taking 3 points of killing
>damage to the vitals (as described in the original example) - just
>the immediate effects, not what happens after bleeding for a couple of
>hours?
If a GM were using the hit location rules, then you would take 6 points of BODY
damage, out of a normal 10. You would roll 1d6-1 (min 1) and multiply that by 6
to determine how much STUN was taken, out of a normal 20, which could mean you
could be Dazed (taking 30 STUN and being at -10 STUN) from the injury.
If a GM weren't using the hit location rules, then you would take 3 points of
BODY damage, out of a normal 10. You would roll 1d6-1 (min 1) and multiply that
by 3 to determine how much STUN was taken, out of a normal 20. It would hurt
but wouldn't do much more than that.
JDJarvis
> rule that he was dead from the moment he took more than half his Body in damage
> to the vitals.
Jeepers, he was a real person. I'm sure he was more then a minor NPC
to his family and friends.
JDJarvis
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53567-2002Feb22.html
>
> The Associated Press
> Friday, February 22, 2002; 4:31 PM
>
> SEAFORD, N.Y. -- A man apparently bled to death after falling on the
> shards of a coffee mug he was carrying, police said.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
> I don't think any system could ever model damage truely. Some people
> get shot several times and live. Others die like this...
Sure you could, but no one except for a dozen or less pyshcos would
want to play it since so much of the rules would be arbitrary and
brutal.
I sure as hell haven't been a part-time cat-burgular/part-time
mercenary for most of my adult life, while lots of RPG characters are
just that.
unterhund
news:a5dnt...@drn.newsguy.com...
> How would you
> represent bad luck in your favorite system?
It's mostly system-independent. Assuming the system uses dice, I just
roll badly. Repeatedly. At critical story junctures. Who needs a bad
luck mechanic :-) ?
--
Patrick Clark
unte...@lycos.com
http://unterhund.8m.com
Deric Page
<rgo...@telusplanet.net> dramatically intoned:
>Deric Page wrote:
>
>> Next: Not roll 2-5 on 2d6 four times (bleed to 0 Body) is 0.595% (total is 0.000021%)
>
>Of course that's balanced by the odds at this point, which are difficult to calculate,
>since the number of turns it takes to bleed to 0 is determined by how many 6s you roll.
>It could be a lot more than 4 turns. The odds that you'll roll two twelves in a row
>to get to 0 Body are fairly low. And of course even after you bleed to 0 Body,
>there are the paramedic rolls to consider.
>
Actually, you cannot bleed by more than 1 Body per turn (HSR p165 top of 2nd column), so
it would take a minimum of 4 turns to hit 0 Body, and you are right that it could take
longer. If you figure the average amount of time for bleeding, the odds come to:
1d3 version
-----------
1: 3 6's on a 3d6 Unluck roll (the only level that really would yield this kind of
result) is 0.463%.
2: 0 OCV (with a -1 weapon modifier) to hit a 3 DCV (falling on the shards) is 16.204%
(total is 0.075%). You've now been hit. I kept this as I'm not worried about being
unfair to the coffee cup.
3: 3 on 1d3 damage is 33.333% (total is 0.025%).
4: roll 3-5 or 13 on 3d6 Hit Location chart is 14.352% (total is 0.0036%) and you are
now actually bleeding with a chance to spontaneously stop. You've now taken 6 Body
damage.
5: Not roll 2-5 on 2d6 12 times (1/3 Body per turn to 0 Body) is 0.0864% (total is
0.0000031%). At this point you will continue to bleed without outside aid.
1 Pip version
-------------
1: 3 6's on a 3d6 Unluck roll is 0.436%).
2: 0 OCV (with a -1 weapon modifier) to hit a 3 DCV (falling on the shards) is 16.204%
(total is 0.075%).
3: 1 damage on a 1 damage attack is 100% (total is 0.075%).
4: any roll on 3d6 Hit Location chart is 100% (total is 0.075%) and you are now
actually bleeding with a chance to spontaneously stop. You've now taken 1 Body
damage.
5: Not roll a 1 on 1d6 30 times (to bleed 1/6 Body per turn down to 4) is 0.421% (total
is 0.000316%). You have now taken 6 Body
6: not roll 2-5 on 2d6 12 times (to bleed down to 0 Body) is 0.0864% (total is
0.00000027%). At this point you will continue to bleed without outside aid.
So, with average bleeding times, you have at best a 3.1 in 100-million chance of getting
to the point where you have to have outside aid and it would take approximately 2 min, 24
seconds (d3 wound in a vital area). With the smaller shard and cut in a non-vital area (1
point shard), it's a 2.7 in 1-billion chance and would take about 8 minutes 24 seconds.
At that point it's another 2 minutes till death.
Deric
Deric Page
dramatically intoned:
>
>Out of curiousity, how much further down does it go if the victim has to be
>knocked out from the fall? I would assume that happened in the actual case,
>since otherwise he would have called 911 or something. (Or did he?)
>
out nor stun the average person. The 1/2d6 version could do 15 Stun, which won't knock
out the average person, but will leave them stunned for 1 phase (6 seconds for Mr.
Average), and if he rolls at least a 5 on his bleeding roll, he'll have taken 20 Stun and
be out.
An important thing to consider though, is how long does it take him to get to the phone
(not to mention for the ambulance to arrive)? In Hero, you'll bleed 1d6 Stun (plus 1 Body
if a 6 is rolled) every turn (12 seconds) until you've taken 5 total Body. From 6 to 10
total Body it's 2d6 Stun (1 Body if a 6 is rolled on either die, with a 1 Body max) per 12
seconds, and it continues in that pattern until you're dead. The average person has 10
Body, 20 Stun and 4 Recovery.
So with the 1 Pip version, he'll start out having already taken at least 1 Stun & 1 Body,
and bleed an average of 3.5 Stun and about 1/6 Body per turn. He'll recover 4 Stun per
turn. The average person won't bleed into unconsciousness unless extraordinarily unlucky
off the 1 damage version.
With the d3 Damage version, if he's taken the 6 point hit (already extremely unlikely)
he'll have taken a minimum of 12 Stun and be stunned (but not out) for 6 seconds. He'll
bleed an average of 7 Stun & about 1/3 Body, and recover 4 Stun per turn, for a total of 3
Stun lost per turn. It will take Mr. Average about 3 Turns (36 seconds) to bleed to
unconsciousness.
Deric Page
Blackberry
>
>"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message
>news:a5dnt...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> How would you
>> represent bad luck in your favorite system?
>
>It's mostly system-independent. Assuming the system uses dice, I just
>roll badly. Repeatedly. At critical story junctures. Who needs a bad
>luck mechanic :-) ?
Well... =:)
In case you were being serious, that's the luck of the *player*. You still have
to represent the luck of the *character*.
Terry Austin
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:47:34 -0700, "unterhund" wrote:
> >
> >"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message
> >news:a5dnt...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >> How would you
> >> represent bad luck in your favorite system?
> >
> >It's mostly system-independent. Assuming the system uses dice, I just
> >roll badly. Repeatedly. At critical story junctures. Who needs a bad
> >luck mechanic :-) ?
>
> Well... =:)
>
> In case you were being serious, that's the luck of the *player*. You
still have
> to represent the luck of the *character*.
There's a difference?
Terry Austin
David Alex Lamb
David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>Not in the least. A mugger will not attack my character as he wanders through
>the city unless the GM "forces" him to. The important question is, does the
>system have the rules to cover what happens if said mugger does attack.
From postings a year or more ago, I'd expect Warren Dew's campaign to have
exact rules for how often mugger attacks happen when walking thru various
sections of the city; some people really do have very detailed rules about how
the world works.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/
David Johnston
That's an interesting and allowable variation, but the more standard approach is
to say that they take 12 stun. Of course less than 12 seconds later they'll lose
consciousness from the bleeding.
Robert Scott Clark
>Or by making your Unluck roll and rolling really poorly.
So there's a chart with "falls on coffee cup and dies" on it somewhere
in the "unluck" section.
> Why are you trying to
>vilify Hero unnecessarily?
So, it's "vilifying" something to say it doesn't do something better
than others?
>At least it has the function. How would you
>represent bad luck in your favorite system?
GM fiat. I just wouldn't claim that the system was helping me.
>How is this done in your favorite system?
The same as in all of them. ( ie not at all.) I think that's my
point.
>
>>Hmmm... those seem to be the chances you cannot specify. It's pretty
>>easy for a game system to emulate anything if you have someone leading
>>it by the hand.
>
>So, you're disparaging Hero because it doesn't have a random encounter table
>entry, "Fall on a broken coffee cup, impale through the temple, do maximum
>damage"? Your favorite system does, right?
Nope, none of them do. That's my point. Did you fail to read the
title of this thread? I'm just agreeing with it.
Why do you assume that every statement about what a system can do is a
"my system is better than your system" post?
>
>How does your favorite system handle it?
Seems you have a 1 track mind.
Blackberry
>
>> In case you were being serious, that's the luck of the *player*. You
>still have
>> to represent the luck of the *character*.
>
>There's a difference?
I'm going to pretend that you were actually asking me. :)
Of course there is. Let's presume that I am a lucky person. I wish to play an
unlucky character. If my luck affects my dice rolling, then my character will
always result in being lucky, unless there is a game system way to represent
good/bad luck.
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>>If a GM were using the hit location rules, then you would take 6 points of BODY
>>damage, out of a normal 10. You would roll 1d6-1 (min 1) and multiply that by 6
>>to determine how much STUN was taken, out of a normal 20, which could mean you
>> could be Dazed (taking 30 STUN and being at -10 STUN) from the injury.
>
>That's an interesting and allowable variation, but the more standard approach is
>to say that they take 12 stun. Of course less than 12 seconds later they'll
>lose
>consciousness from the bleeding.
Thanks; I've played Hero for 20 years and have never used the hit location
rules. As you point out, it's fairly moot.
Terry Austin
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:22:49 -0800, "Terry wrote:
> >
> >> In case you were being serious, that's the luck of the *player*. You
> >still have
> >> to represent the luck of the *character*.
> >
> >There's a difference?
>
> I'm going to pretend that you were actually asking me. :)
>
> Of course there is. Let's presume that I am a lucky person. I wish to
play an
> unlucky character. If my luck affects my dice rolling, then my character
will
> always result in being lucky, unless there is a game system way to
represent
> good/bad luck.
>
real world, on a consistent basis, I'll pay for the hotel in Vegas until
we're
both rich.
In the meantime, there's a difference?
Terry Austin
Blackberry
Good and bad luck exist in lots of the source material for many genres; I go by
that. I don't play that many RPGs set in the real world.
>In the meantime, there's a difference?
I believe so, just as I believe that I should be able to play a character with
more knowledge of particle physics or vehicle-mounted artillery than I have.
Terry Austin
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message
Now you've switched the subject. What part of "in the real world" isn't
clear? You've offered an example that can only be based on real world
players not getting random results from dice. There are two ways that
can happen:
1) The dice not being random. This isn't player luck, this is player
cheating (intentional or otherwise).
2) The player has fair dice but does not get random results from them.
If you have any evidence of this happening on a statistically significant
basis, you can claim the Randi prize, or simply get rich in Vegas. That
you are not, in fact, rich, is evidence that you have no such evidence.
This is not about *character* luck. *You* made the dinstinction.
Support that it exists.
>
> >In the meantime, there's a difference?
>
> I believe so, just as I believe that I should be able to play a character
with
> more knowledge of particle physics or vehicle-mounted artillery than I
have.
>
Has nothing to do with players having magic dice.
Terry Austin
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>> >If you can demonstrate that luck is something that actually exists in the
>> >real world, on a consistent basis, I'll pay for the hotel in Vegas until
>> >we're
>> >both rich.
>>
>> Good and bad luck exist in lots of the source material for many genres; I
>go by
>> that. I don't play that many RPGs set in the real world.
>
>Now you've switched the subject.
How so? The subject was how to represent good and bad luck on the part of an
RPG character. Someone jokingly commented that their dice rolls as a player
were good enough for that. I pointed out that player luck and character luck
may be completely different -- or at least they may need to be represented as
being completely different.
>What part of "in the real world" isn't
>clear? You've offered an example that can only be based on real world
>players not getting random results from dice. There are two ways that
>can happen:
>
>1) The dice not being random. This isn't player luck, this is player
>cheating (intentional or otherwise).
>
>2) The player has fair dice but does not get random results from them.
>If you have any evidence of this happening on a statistically significant
>basis, you can claim the Randi prize, or simply get rich in Vegas. That
>you are not, in fact, rich, is evidence that you have no such evidence.
I'm not playing a character in the real world. I *am* in the real world (and
I'm pretty sure of it, thanks, mysticism notwithstanding). My hypothetical RPG
characters are usually in swords & sorcery environments, space operas, or
four-color superheroic worlds -- all three of which definitely have good and bad
luck as part of the genre.
>This is not about *character* luck. *You* made the dinstinction.
>Support that it exists.
Okay. Let's presume that I have (null set) luck, since luck does not exist in
this world. I want to play a superhero character like Roulette of the Hellions
(Marvel Universe, nemeses to the New Mutants), who can influence a person's luck
either positively or negatively. Certainly luck exists in the source material
and genre. Therefore, it should be represented in that game.
As a counter-example, an Indiana Jones game would not need to represent luck --
Indy's luck *never* fails him, it's automatic. A hard SF game would also not
need a game-system representation of sheer blind luck.
>>
>> >In the meantime, there's a difference?
>>
>> I believe so, just as I believe that I should be able to play a character
>with
>> more knowledge of particle physics or vehicle-mounted artillery than I
>have.
>>
>Has nothing to do with players having magic dice.
It has to do with playing a character that might be different from the player.
If the character should have different luck than the player (and + or - anything
is markedly different from (null)), then there should be a representation of
that.
Blackberry
>
>Blackberry <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Or by making your Unluck roll and rolling really poorly.
>
>So there's a chart with "falls on coffee cup and dies" on it somewhere
>in the "unluck" section.
I don't have all of my RPGs with me at work, but the Unluck chart in the Hero
rulebook basically goes like this:
Number of sixes Effect
1 Something really minor happens
2 Something bad happens
3 Something really bad happens
4 or more Something really bad happens and it affects your friends
around you as well
>> Why are you trying to
>>vilify Hero unnecessarily?
>
>So, it's "vilifying" something to say it doesn't do something better
>than others?
No, but you keep trying to twist all of these things so that Hero looks like the
villain (ironically).
>>At least it has the function. How would you
>>represent bad luck in your favorite system?
>
>GM fiat. I just wouldn't claim that the system was helping me.
Then it seems that your favorite system has no function for good or bad luck or
for the sort of strange accidents that happen in everyday life all the time.
>>How is this done in your favorite system?
>
>The same as in all of them. ( ie not at all.) I think that's my
>point.
Really? Hero and Rolemaster both handle obscure and really unlucky convergences
of events and circumstances. I'd say two popular, well-known cases invalidates
your claim of "all".
>>>Hmmm... those seem to be the chances you cannot specify. It's pretty
>>>easy for a game system to emulate anything if you have someone leading
>>>it by the hand.
>>
>>So, you're disparaging Hero because it doesn't have a random encounter table
>>entry, "Fall on a broken coffee cup, impale through the temple, do maximum
>>damage"? Your favorite system does, right?
>
>Nope, none of them do. That's my point. Did you fail to read the
>title of this thread? I'm just agreeing with it.
Twisting factual statements about a game system is equivalent to saying "I
agree"?
>Why do you assume that every statement about what a system can do is a
>"my system is better than your system" post?
If you're twisting the pure facts of how it is emulated in the Hero system so
that Hero looks as bad as you can possibly make it look, then I figure you must
play some other system that you like better, that certainly would not look as
bad in handling this situation.
>>How does your favorite system handle it?
>
>Seems you have a 1 track mind.
See above, and heal thyself as well.
Robert Scott Clark
>
>I don't have all of my RPGs with me at work, but the Unluck chart in the Hero
>rulebook basically goes like this:
>
>Number of sixes Effect
>1 Something really minor happens
>2 Something bad happens
>3 Something really bad happens
>4 or more Something really bad happens and it affects your friends
> around you as well
Pretty good mechanic for saying "hey guy, make something up."
>
>No, but you keep trying to twist all of these things so that Hero looks like the
>villain (ironically).
No, I am just saying that it doesn't do something that it doesn't do.
How exactly a game system would be made to look like a villain is
beyond my imagination - you'll have to go talk to those "corrupting
the minds of our children" people if you want something like that.
You just have a chip on your shoulder and are begging for someone to
get close to it.
>
>>>How is this done in your favorite system?
>>
>>The same as in all of them. ( ie not at all.) I think that's my
>>point.
>
>Really? Hero and Rolemaster both handle obscure and really unlucky convergences
>of events and circumstances. I'd say two popular, well-known cases invalidates
>your claim of "all".
"Unlikely convergences" <> realism
Both systems seem capable of generating small possibility outcomes,
but that's it. Whether either can do so in a manner which produces
non-absurd results in more than a single instance remains to be seen.
>
>>>>Hmmm... those seem to be the chances you cannot specify. It's pretty
>>>>easy for a game system to emulate anything if you have someone leading
>>>>it by the hand.
>>>
>>>So, you're disparaging Hero because it doesn't have a random encounter table
>>>entry, "Fall on a broken coffee cup, impale through the temple, do maximum
>>>damage"? Your favorite system does, right?
>>
>>Nope, none of them do. That's my point. Did you fail to read the
>>title of this thread? I'm just agreeing with it.
>
>Twisting factual statements about a game system is equivalent to saying "I
>agree"?
What factual statement have I twisted?
>
>>Why do you assume that every statement about what a system can do is a
>>"my system is better than your system" post?
>
>If you're twisting the pure facts of how it is emulated in the Hero system so
Please specify what you are refering to by the word "it" above,
because I have no clue what you are talking about.
>that Hero looks as bad as you can possibly make it look,
How am I making it look bad. It doesn't produce realistic results.
Big fucking whup. If I'm trying to make anyone look bad, it's the
people who claim that game X's shit doesn't stink.
>then I figure you must
>play some other system that you like better,
Nope, I think people are making unreasonable demands of a game system,
and then saying that the system they like meets said demands, when in
fact, it does not.
Terry Austin
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:03:12 -0800, "Terry wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >> >If you can demonstrate that luck is something that actually exists in
the
> >> >real world, on a consistent basis, I'll pay for the hotel in Vegas
until
> >> >we're
> >> >both rich.
> >>
> >> Good and bad luck exist in lots of the source material for many genres;
I
> >go by
> >> that. I don't play that many RPGs set in the real world.
> >
> >Now you've switched the subject.
>
> How so?
I was talking about player luck. You respond with character luck. You
do know the difference between player and character, don't you?
> The subject was how to represent good and bad luck on the part of an
> RPG character. Someone jokingly commented that their dice rolls as a
player
> were good enough for that. I pointed out that player luck and character
luck
> may be completely different -- or at least they may need to be represented
as
> being completely different.
I think you need to start a score card, so you don't get lost.
>
> >What part of "in the real world" isn't
> >clear? You've offered an example that can only be based on real world
> >players not getting random results from dice. There are two ways that
> >can happen:
> >
> >1) The dice not being random. This isn't player luck, this is player
> >cheating (intentional or otherwise).
> >
> >2) The player has fair dice but does not get random results from them.
> >If you have any evidence of this happening on a statistically significant
> >basis, you can claim the Randi prize, or simply get rich in Vegas. That
> >you are not, in fact, rich, is evidence that you have no such evidence.
>
> I'm not playing a character in the real world. I *am* in the real world
(and
> I'm pretty sure of it, thanks, mysticism notwithstanding).
If, by "player luck," you mean something not in the real world, you need
to learn what the words mean.
> My hypothetical RPG
> characters are usually in swords & sorcery environments, space operas, or
> four-color superheroic worlds -- all three of which definitely have good
and bad
> luck as part of the genre.
>
> >This is not about *character* luck. *You* made the dinstinction.
> >Support that it exists.
>
> Okay. Let's presume that I have (null set) luck, since luck does not
exist in
> this world. I want to play a superhero character like Roulette of the
Hellions
> (Marvel Universe, nemeses to the New Mutants), who can influence a
person's luck
> either positively or negatively. Certainly luck exists in the source
material
> and genre. Therefore, it should be represented in that game.
Rather easily, too.
>
> As a counter-example, an Indiana Jones game would not need to represent
luck --
> Indy's luck *never* fails him, it's automatic. A hard SF game would also
not
> need a game-system representation of sheer blind luck.
>
> >>
> >> >In the meantime, there's a difference?
> >>
> >> I believe so, just as I believe that I should be able to play a
character
> >with
> >> more knowledge of particle physics or vehicle-mounted artillery than I
> >have.
> >>
> >Has nothing to do with players having magic dice.
>
> It has to do with playing a character that might be different from the
player.
> If the character should have different luck than the player (and + or -
anything
> is markedly different from (null)), then there should be a representation
of
> that.
Trivial.
Terry Austin
unterhund
> The subject was how to represent good and bad luck on the part of an
> RPG character. Someone jokingly commented that their dice rolls as
a player
> were good enough for that.
That'd be me with my tongue in my cheek.
> I pointed out that player luck and character luck
> may be completely different -- or at least they may need to be
represented as
> being completely different.
Ah, but if the system has a mechanic for luck that involved die
rolls -- like Hero does -- then die rolls will not help.
Rick Pikul
geoffre...@dingoblue.net.au says...
>
> The victim wouldn't die unless he bled to -10 Body, so reduce the chance
> further.
Once you hit 0 BODY, things get much worse, and much messier to
calculate, as bad luck boy has to roll an 8- Paramedic roll to stabilize
himself.
If he does not, he dies in a maximum of two minutes after reaching
0 BODY.
In the RL case in question, it is not known if the victim
attempted to bandage himself, if he was very unlucky he was impaired for
a long period of time, and kept rolling 8 or more STUN when he bled.
--
Phoenix
Rick Pikul
cla...@mindspring.com says...
> Rick Pikul <rwp...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
>
> > If we assume that bleeding will occur at the maximum rate with the
> >singular exception of a 'bleeding stops' result, it will take four turns,
> >in this case the odds increase to 0.028%, or one in 3500. The odds of
> >rolling four BODY loss bleeds, (for 2d6 bleeding), in a row is 0.87%.
> >
>
> You've gone too far. Take it back a step. What was the probability
> they got to this point - the bleeding on the floor stage?
I talked about that later, as it is harder to quantify.
Those numbers were, as I stated, assuming that the hit had already
occurred. Although I could have been a bit more clear that they included
the damage and hit location rolls.
> >> Hmmm... those seem to be the chances you cannot specify. It's pretty
> >> easy for a game system to emulate anything if you have someone leading
> >> it by the hand.
>
> <snippage>
>
> >
> > The unluck would depend on both the character, and how often the
> >GM makes random luck/unluck rolls,
>
> Translation: the system doesn't really handle that part, the GM just
> decides.
How often to make the rolls, this is something that has to involve
a GM call, if for no other reason than to match the campaign's current
pace, (the reason I use once/session).
This is no different than deciding that a group of thugs attacks
the players, and what are those thugs stats. Remember that the Midway
test includes both players acting as their historical counterparts did.
> When something depends on the GM either doing or not doing something
> in a basically arbitrary manner, the system cannot be said to be
> handling that situation. It might handle other situations perfectly
> well, but in that instance, it doesn't.
Then no RPG handles any situation, as the GM must arbitrarily
decide for the situation to exist.
> >> Yes, yes they do. Now, do the math and see how freakin' common it
> >> would be.
> >
> > Very rare, you forgot to do the math yourself.
>
> Very rare to actually finish bleeding to death, but very common to
> start the process.
Character with at least 1d6 unluck, character design issue,
distribution in the general population is a world design issue.
Rolls at least one level of unluck, the exact overall odds depend
on population distribution, but if we just look a a character with 1d6,
it is 1/6 per roll period.
At _best_, a 'fall on coffee cup' attack would be a 0 OCV attack
with a -1 OCV weapon, (and I feel that that is generous), which is a hit
~1/6 of the time.
That's at most a 1/36 chance for a person with 1d6 unluck to have
a 'drop and fall' or similar incident where the resulting attack hits.
Since most people are minor and faceless NPCs, call it a monthly roll so
it happens about once every three years. From what I have seen,
including things like knives and chisels, this seems to be about right,
(so perhaps my luck/unluck die is a good idea :}).
Most of these doing much less than the x2 BODY, roll of 3, hit
being considered, (a 4 BODY, (the next highest possibility), hit will
have a mean bleed to 0 BODY time of 36 turns). Remember that the odds
calculated used the easy to quantify portion, including the damage and
hit location rolls.
> Maybe I'm just confused, as I would rather castrate myself than play
> hero, but what would be the exact effect of taking 3 points of killing
> damage to the vitals (as described in the original example) - just
> the immediate effects, not what happens after bleeding for a couple of
> hours?
The 12 STUN will stun the character, meaning he will lose his next
action phase.
The 6 BODY will, if the impairment rules are being used, take away
the character's post-12 recovery phase for anywhere between a single turn
to a full day. This makes it more likely for the character to pass out
from blood loss, but it is still not likely, (two recoveries a phase
instead of three, meaning only 8 STUN a turn gained vs. 2d6 STUN lost),
and even if he does it will likely be intermittent.
One thing I did forget is than in any phase where he is not
stunned, and has positive STUN left, the person could attempt to staunch
the bleeding. But, since the RL person didn't, it isn't a big deal.
--
Phoenix
Rick Pikul
dericd...@usadot.net says...
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 04:23:47 GMT, thunder crashed as cla...@mindspring.com (Robert Scott
> Clark) dramatically intoned:
> >
> >Yes, yes they do. Now, do the math and see how freakin' common it
> >would be.
>
> result) is 0.463%.
> Next: 0 OCV (with a -1 weapon modifier) to hit a 3 DCV (falling on the shards) is 16.204%
> (total is 0.075%).
> Next: 3 on 1d3 damage is 33.333% (total is 0.025%)
> Next: roll 3-5 or 13 on 3d6 Hit Location chart is 14.352% (total is 0.0036%) and you are
You've made an error in implementing the bleeding rules.
You lose a point of BODY iff one or more of the dice is a 6, not
if you don't stop bleeding.
So you must both:
Not roll a 2-5 on any bleeding roll.
and
Roll one or more sixes, (11/36 per roll), four times.
> Next: Not roll 3-9 on 3d6 once (bleed to -1 Body) is 62.5% (total is 0.000013% or 1.3 out
> of 10,000,000). At this point you will continue to bleed without outside aid.
Two errors here:
Bleeding is per wound, no matter how much you bleed it was still a
6 BODY wound.
At 0 BODY or less you automatically lose one point of BODY per
turn.
--
Phoenix
Deric Page
Clark) dramatically intoned:
>So there's a chart with "falls on coffee cup and dies" on it somewhere
>in the "unluck" section.
>
[snip stuff about vilifying Hero]
>
>>How is this done in your favorite system?
>
>The same as in all of them. ( ie not at all.) I think that's my
>point.
>
[snip more stuff about vilifying Hero]
>
>>So, you're disparaging Hero because it doesn't have a random encounter table
>>entry, "Fall on a broken coffee cup, impale through the temple, do maximum
>>damage"? Your favorite system does, right?
>
>Nope, none of them do. That's my point. Did you fail to read the
>title of this thread? I'm just agreeing with it.
>
Actually, the original post said, "I don't think any system could ever model damage
truely. Some people get shot several times and live. Others die like this..."
The claim was about how systems model DAMAGE, not about how they model the random events
that cause the damage. On that basis, Hero seems to do pretty well. Perhaps there is a
system out there that does it better. I know that the majority of systems I've seen are
worse at this.
Deric
Rick Pikul
says...
> Blackberry wrote:
> > If a GM were using the hit location rules, then you would take 6 points of BODY
> > damage, out of a normal 10. You would roll 1d6-1 (min 1) and multiply that by 6
> > to determine how much STUN was taken, out of a normal 20, which could mean you
> > could be Dazed (taking 30 STUN and being at -10 STUN) from the injury.
>
> That's an interesting and allowable variation, but the more standard approach is
> to say that they take 12 stun. Of course less than 12 seconds later they'll lose
> consciousness from the bleeding.
Even assuming he falls on segment 12, and is impaired so that he
looses his post-12 recovery, (as well as his first recover of the next
turn from being stunned), and rolls high on his first bleed: He will
only likely be out for a couple of turns at most.
Basically, he would have to roll 11 or 12 twice in a row for bleed
damage to stay unconscious, (one of which needs to be a 12), or a long
string of 9 or more.
--
Phoenix
Deric Page
dramatically intoned:
>In article <92si7ucidlm4tuh0v...@4ax.com>,
>dericd...@usadot.net says...
>>
>> Next: roll 3-5 or 13 on 3d6 Hit Location chart is 14.352% (total is 0.0036%) and you are
>> now actually bleeding with a chance to spontaneously stop.
>> Next: Not roll 2-5 on 2d6 four times (bleed to 0 Body) is 0.595% (total is 0.000021%)
>
> You've made an error in implementing the bleeding rules.
>
> You lose a point of BODY iff one or more of the dice is a 6, not
>if you don't stop bleeding.
>
> So you must both:
>
> Not roll a 2-5 on any bleeding roll.
>and
> Roll one or more sixes, (11/36 per roll), four times.
>
Actually, I was just simplifying the math by taking the shortest amount of time. I did
the average length of time in another post since someone asked.
>> Next: Not roll 3-9 on 3d6 once (bleed to -1 Body) is 62.5% (total is 0.000013% or 1.3 out
>> of 10,000,000). At this point you will continue to bleed without outside aid.
>
> Two errors here:
>
> Bleeding is per wound, no matter how much you bleed it was still a
>6 BODY wound.
> At 0 BODY or less you automatically lose one point of BODY per
>turn.
Yeah, that one I just goofed on.
Deric Page
Deric Page
Clark) dramatically intoned:
>Blackberry <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I don't have all of my RPGs with me at work, but the Unluck chart in the Hero
>>rulebook basically goes like this:
>>
[snip Unluck table]
>
>Pretty good mechanic for saying "hey guy, make something up."
>
Isn't that what role playing is all about?
>
>Both systems seem capable of generating small possibility outcomes,
>but that's it. Whether either can do so in a manner which produces
>non-absurd results in more than a single instance remains to be seen.
>
Well, 2 things: "Non-absurd results" is a rather subjective concept and anything that
happens once could conceivably happen again. It would be illogical to think that because
one man died from falling on a broken cup, it couldn't possibly happen to anyone else ever
again. Now, I haven't looked up the statistics of people dying by falling on broken
coffee cups, but less than 2.7 in 1 billion (see a previous post of mine) doesn't sound
too bad to me.
>
>What factual statement have I twisted?
>
Even though this wasn't directed at me, I'd like to state that I don't think you've truly
twisted any statements (much less deliberately). Rather, I think a few people have been
arguing about different issues.
I believe you're arguing that no system (including Hero) will have someone die by falling
on a coffee cup unless the GM deliberately sets up the possibility. On that I agree.
What I and a few others (near as I can tell) are arguing is that 1) Hero (but not only
Hero) is capable of handling a range of damage between dying by coffee cup and living
through multiple gunshot wounds (the original poster's criteria), and 2) Hero (but not
only Hero) does have a way of suggesting how often truly bizarre events (like dying from a
coffee cup wound) happen, even though it doesn't define what the specific event is.
Like I said: different issues.
>How am I making it look bad. It doesn't produce realistic results.
>Big fucking whup. If I'm trying to make anyone look bad, it's the
>people who claim that game X's shit doesn't stink.
>
Well, this does prompt me to ask you to define what you consider to be realistic. If
you're going to hold it up as a criteria, we do need to be clear on what exactly that
criteria entails.
BTW, by my own definition of "realistic", I agree that no system is completely
"realistic". Besides which, I don't think I'd want to play a game that perfectly emulated
reality. I get enough reality as it is.
But all that aside, the only criteria in the original post was being able to emulate
damage effects from dying from a broken coffee cup wound to living through multiple
gunshot wounds.
Deric
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>> I'm not playing a character in the real world. I *am* in the real world
>(and
>> I'm pretty sure of it, thanks, mysticism notwithstanding).
>
>If, by "player luck," you mean something not in the real world, you need
>to learn what the words mean.
Let's clarify.
Hypothetical Player A has X luck -- X could be null, 0, positive, or negative.
Hypothetical Character B has Y luck -- null, 0, +, -
Hypothetical Game System C can either represent the difference in luck or not
represent it. If it is not represented, then one could argue that the
coffee-cup-death scenario could only be modeled by GM fiat alone -- the GM just
says that it happened, regardless of what the game system actually says. If the
game system does model it, that can be a good starting point for such an unlucky
accident.
Hero models character luck values. Thus, using Hero's luck system to resolve
this exercise seems reasonable. That's my point, which you weren't arguing, but
which I was clarifying for someone else at the time this whole side discussion
started.
Blackberry
>
>Blackberry <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I don't have all of my RPGs with me at work, but the Unluck chart in the Hero
>>rulebook basically goes like this:
>>
>>Number of sixes Effect
>>1 Something really minor happens
>>2 Something bad happens
>>3 Something really bad happens
>>4 or more Something really bad happens and it affects your friends
>> around you as well
>
>Pretty good mechanic for saying "hey guy, make something up."
>
>>
>>No, but you keep trying to twist all of these things so that Hero looks like the
>>villain (ironically).
>
>No, I am just saying that it doesn't do something that it doesn't do.
How doesn't it do it? 4th edition, pages 49-50 and 127. It does it perfectly.
Prove that it doesn't handle luck at all.
>How exactly a game system would be made to look like a villain is
>beyond my imagination - you'll have to go talk to those "corrupting
>the minds of our children" people if you want something like that.
>
>You just have a chip on your shoulder and are begging for someone to
>get close to it.
How so? You're trying to twist every sentence to say "Hero doesn't do this"
when we're posting that it clearly does, succinctly and efficiently, with GM
guidelines and demonstrable game system effects. Now you tell us how you can
say that Hero doesn't handle it.
>>>>How is this done in your favorite system?
>>>
>>>The same as in all of them. ( ie not at all.) I think that's my
>>>point.
>>
>>Really? Hero and Rolemaster both handle obscure and really unlucky convergences
>>of events and circumstances. I'd say two popular, well-known cases invalidates
>>your claim of "all".
>
>"Unlikely convergences" <> realism
We were discussing the possibility of a game system modeling someone having a
freak accident and bleeding to death by falling on a broken coffee cup. Both
Hero and Rolemaster can do it (Hero through a Killing Attack and some
unfortunate rolls for hit locations and bleeding, with Unluck helping a lot;
Rolemaster through a nasty tiny critical, or one of those attacks on the Tiny
chart that escalates to a serious critical).
>Both systems seem capable of generating small possibility outcomes,
>but that's it. Whether either can do so in a manner which produces
>non-absurd results in more than a single instance remains to be seen.
I thought that the whole point was that the coffee-cup incident was absurd and
yet does happen in real life. If it's non-absurd, then people in real life
should be collapsing by the droves, what with all the coffee consumed here in
the Pacific Northwest.
>>that Hero looks as bad as you can possibly make it look,
>
>How am I making it look bad. It doesn't produce realistic results.
>Big fucking whup. If I'm trying to make anyone look bad, it's the
>people who claim that game X's shit doesn't stink.
The point was whether it can produce silly results like someone falling on a
broken coffee cup shard and bleeding to death before help can arrive. Yes, it
can. If you maintain that it still can't, then you'll have to say why.
Blackberry
Er, well, hmmm... perhaps the GM needs a set of Luck cards then? What if the
player is lucky with dice but unlucky with cards? :)
David Johnston
>
> In article <3c79601d$0$22549$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> geoffre...@dingoblue.net.au says...
> >
> > The victim wouldn't die unless he bled to -10 Body, so reduce the chance
> > further.
>
> Once you hit 0 BODY, things get much worse, and much messier to
> calculate, as bad luck boy has to roll an 8- Paramedic roll to stabilize
> himself.
He's unconscious long before then, so that issue doesn't arise.
David Johnston
> Even assuming he falls on segment 12, and is impaired so that he
> looses his post-12 recovery, (as well as his first recover of the next
> turn from being stunned), and rolls high on his first bleed: He will
> only likely be out for a couple of turns at most.
Ah. Good point. I was thinking in terms of impaired people bleeding to death
not getting recoveries but that's wrong.
Robert Scott Clark
>On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:57:06 GMT, thunder crashed as cla...@mindspring.com (Robert Scott
>Clark) dramatically intoned:
>
>>Blackberry <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I don't have all of my RPGs with me at work, but the Unluck chart in the Hero
>>>rulebook basically goes like this:
>>>
>[snip Unluck table]
>>
>>Pretty good mechanic for saying "hey guy, make something up."
>>
>Isn't that what role playing is all about?
If you have a severly limited and myopic view, sure.
Any use of rules I've seen, seems to be for the purpose of placing
limitations on this "making things up" part.
>Well, 2 things: "Non-absurd results" is a rather subjective concept and anything that
>happens once could conceivably happen again. It would be illogical to think that because
>one man died from falling on a broken cup, it couldn't possibly happen to anyone else ever
>again. Now, I haven't looked up the statistics of people dying by falling on broken
>coffee cups, but less than 2.7 in 1 billion (see a previous post of mine) doesn't sound
>too bad to me.
Showing numbers for a single instance doesn't constitute complete
testing of a rule. How does the rule fare against a character who is
much tougher? how about one who is really frail?
Also, all you handled was "ultimate" mortality. What about each step
along the way? A system in which it was extremely easy to be badly
injured by the cup, but also extremely easy to recover and live would
be "non-absurd" on the grand scale of things (live or die), but would
still be really silly from a realism point of view.
Lastly, there is the question of whether or not it is possible that
the initial injury can be sever enough to render the person incapable
of helping themselves/seeking help without also making it much to
fatal.
There is a lot more to the question than a simplistic "how often will
people die."
>
>I believe you're arguing that no system (including Hero) will have someone die by falling
>on a coffee cup unless the GM deliberately sets up the possibility. On that I agree.
Someone else started on that angle (which is tangential to the
original idea) and I found that just as interesting, so I discussed it
also, but that is not the limit of my point.
>
>What I and a few others (near as I can tell) are arguing is that 1) Hero (but not only
>Hero) is capable of handling a range of damage between dying by coffee cup and living
>through multiple gunshot wounds (the original poster's criteria),
Something I have not argued with. I just don't think that if looked
at as a whole, that the results would necessarily be any more
believable, nor produce fewer bizarre results than any other system.
>and 2) Hero (but not
>only Hero) does have a way of suggesting how often truly bizarre events (like dying from a
>coffee cup wound) happen, even though it doesn't define what the specific event is.
"Roll a die, then make something up" as opposed to "make something
up".
Now, I know some people *really* like rolling dice, but I just don't
see that either would be necessarily better. Especially when the dice
don't give a result less vague than "something bad happens".
>But all that aside, the only criteria in the original post was being able to emulate
>damage effects from dying from a broken coffee cup wound to living through multiple
>gunshot wounds.
I saw the original question as whether or not a system would be
capable of modeling the damage as in the example - which is a bit more
complex than just living or dying.
Robert Scott Clark
>>No, I am just saying that it doesn't do something that it doesn't do.
>
>How doesn't it do it? 4th edition, pages 49-50 and 127. It does it perfectly.
>Prove that it doesn't handle luck at all.
Never said that, so that would be a silly thing for me to attempt to
prove. Take that strawman out for lunch, he's getting hungry.
>>"Unlikely convergences" <> realism
>
>We were discussing the possibility of a game system modeling someone having a
>freak accident and bleeding to death by falling on a broken coffee cup. Both
>Hero and Rolemaster can do it
#1 While both may handle the injury, neither handles the initial
accident without the GM leading it by the hand; therefore, the system
cannot be said to "handle" the situation.
#2 All anyone has been able to show is that the death is possible and
with a low probability of occurence. That in no way proves that the
way in which it would happen wouldn't be really silly. (looking at
what happens step by step, and not just at the potential final
results)
>
>>Both systems seem capable of generating small possibility outcomes,
>>but that's it. Whether either can do so in a manner which produces
>>non-absurd results in more than a single instance remains to be seen.
>
>I thought that the whole point was that the coffee-cup incident was absurd and
>yet does happen in real life.
I'm not sure how it happened, but just off the top of my head, I can
think of a couple of different ways it could have happened. The
incident doesn't seem at all absurd - tragic, but not absurd. Mapping
the proposed mechanics to game-world occurences seems a bit more
problematic.
>If it's non-absurd, then people in real life
>should be collapsing by the droves, what with all the coffee consumed here in
>the Pacific Northwest.
The above assumes a gross misunderstanding of the concept of low
probabilities, so I feel safe in ignoring it.
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>"Roll a die, then make something up" as opposed to "make something
>up".
Roll a die, and according to the result on the die, make something up. This is
what GMs do in every game. If they're not doing it, if the GM has no decision
to make, and the exact result is just read off of a table, then you're playing a
boardgame.
>Now, I know some people *really* like rolling dice, but I just don't
>see that either would be necessarily better. Especially when the dice
>don't give a result less vague than "something bad happens". [...]
For each 6 rolled, a level of severity is increased. Each entry has a paragraph
of illustrative examples and suggestions as to what sorts of bad things happen
at various severity levels of unluck. I just didn't want to write them all out.
Blackberry
>
>Blackberry <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>No, I am just saying that it doesn't do something that it doesn't do.
>>
>>How doesn't it do it? 4th edition, pages 49-50 and 127. It does it perfectly.
>>Prove that it doesn't handle luck at all.
>
>Never said that, so that would be a silly thing for me to attempt to
>prove. Take that strawman out for lunch, he's getting hungry.
>
>
>
>
>>>"Unlikely convergences" <> realism
>>
>>We were discussing the possibility of a game system modeling someone having a
>>freak accident and bleeding to death by falling on a broken coffee cup. Both
>>Hero and Rolemaster can do it
>
>#1 While both may handle the injury, neither handles the initial
>accident without the GM leading it by the hand; therefore, the system
>cannot be said to "handle" the situation.
As has been pointed out, a Hero GM can request an Unluck roll for the character;
some Unluck could be rolled; the GM could decide quite cleanly and strictly by
the rules that the character's bad luck causes the character to fall on a broken
coffee cup. This is perfectly 100% consistent with the rules and requires no
more leading-by-the-hand than anything else in RPGs does.
>#2 All anyone has been able to show is that the death is possible and
>with a low probability of occurence. That in no way proves that the
>way in which it would happen wouldn't be really silly. (looking at
>what happens step by step, and not just at the potential final
>results)
The original idea was to see if an RPG system could handle such an obscure
possibility but could recreate it faithfully. Hero has proven that it meets
both requirements and that the rules perfectly support both the accident
occurring and the damage being fatal.
>>>Both systems seem capable of generating small possibility outcomes,
>>>but that's it. Whether either can do so in a manner which produces
>>>non-absurd results in more than a single instance remains to be seen.
>>
>>I thought that the whole point was that the coffee-cup incident was absurd and
>>yet does happen in real life.
>
>I'm not sure how it happened, but just off the top of my head, I can
>think of a couple of different ways it could have happened. The
>incident doesn't seem at all absurd - tragic, but not absurd. Mapping
>the proposed mechanics to game-world occurences seems a bit more
>problematic.
>
>>If it's non-absurd, then people in real life
>>should be collapsing by the droves, what with all the coffee consumed here in
>>the Pacific Northwest.
>
>The above assumes a gross misunderstanding of the concept of low
>probabilities, so I feel safe in ignoring it.
So, you're arguing that it's a pretty ordinary event, yet an ordinary one of
such low probability that it's... what, non-ordinary?
Terry Austin
a naked mean to kick an automobile completely to death in
less than 2 minutes, and a newborn baby to throw a football
the entire length of a football field.
You're an idiot.
Terry Austin
Robert Scott Clark
>On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:52:50 GMT, cla...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>"Roll a die, then make something up" as opposed to "make something
>>up".
>
>Roll a die, and according to the result on the die, make something up. This is
>what GMs do in every game. If they're not doing it, if the GM has no decision
>to make, and the exact result is just read off of a table, then you're playing a
>boardgame.
That depends. In many RPGs, the GM makes up flavor. This is making
up content. Two really different situations.
>
>>Now, I know some people *really* like rolling dice, but I just don't
>>see that either would be necessarily better. Especially when the dice
>>don't give a result less vague than "something bad happens". [...]
>
>For each 6 rolled, a level of severity is increased. Each entry has a paragraph
>of illustrative examples and suggestions as to what sorts of bad things happen
>at various severity levels of unluck.
You know, I just looked at that amazing chart, and with such
wonderfully concrete terms as "mementarily" and "troubled by", I don't
know why I thought it was basically the same thing as "make something
up."
Robert Scott Clark
>>#1 While both may handle the injury, neither handles the initial
>>accident without the GM leading it by the hand; therefore, the system
>>cannot be said to "handle" the situation.
>
>As has been pointed out, a Hero GM can request an Unluck roll for the character;
>some Unluck could be rolled; the GM could decide quite cleanly and strictly by
>the rules that the character's bad luck causes the character to fall on a broken
>coffee cup.
No, the GM has just decided this. It may not contradict the rules in
any way, but the rules had very little to do with it.
>This is perfectly 100% consistent with the rules and requires no
>more leading-by-the-hand than anything else in RPGs does.
There is SIGNIFICANTLY more leading than is required for something
like "that wound leaves you at -6 on all skill rolls until you succeed
in making 4 recovery checks".
One is pretty unambiguous and can be mechanically followed, the other
requires that the GM make something up.
>
>>#2 All anyone has been able to show is that the death is possible and
>>with a low probability of occurence. That in no way proves that the
>>way in which it would happen wouldn't be really silly. (looking at
>>what happens step by step, and not just at the potential final
>>results)
>
>The original idea was to see if an RPG system could handle such an obscure
>possibility but could recreate it faithfully.
You are missing some word in this, as it makes no sense.
> Hero has proven that it meets
>both requirements and that the rules perfectly support both the accident
>occurring and the damage being fatal.
As I am not clear as to what you are refering to by the word "both"
here, I cannot respond.
>
>So, you're arguing that it's a pretty ordinary event, yet an ordinary one of
>such low probability that it's... what, non-ordinary?
What do you mean by "non-ordinary"? I see no reason something would
become special just because it doesn't happen often. Now, if we were
using the words "common" and "non-common", you might have a point.
Slicing open your jugular and bleeding to death seems a pretty
ordinary way to die. Having it happen by cutting yourself with a
broken cup is unlikely, but not outlandish in any way. Upon reading
the story, I had no reason to doubt it's truth. As I said, it's
tragic, not bizarre. My initial reaction would be, "wow that sucks",
not, "you're making that up".
Being crushed by a piece of Mir falling from the sky or being bitten
by a rare tropical snake while camping in the wild in vermont is
"non-ordinary". If someone told me it happened, I would doubt it
until given some substantial evidence.
(I'm not sure what this particular portion of the thread has to do
with anything. It seems more of a semantic argument than anything
else. Is there something meant to be gained by determining whether or
not the mug incident is "ordinary" or not?)
Blackberry
Oh, and I know that I shouldn't expect any level of reading comprehension from
you, but I was arguing the fact that Hero could not represent a person suffering
a terribly unlikely but realistic accident of falling on the shards of a broken
coffee cup and bleeding to death. If you can't read, you really would be better
off not participating in newsgroups. Prove that I'm an idiot when you can't
even follow a simple message thread.
Blackberry
>
That Murphy's Rule has been soundly disproven. I'll disprove it *once again*
when I get home, but go ahead and put forth why you think a baby can throw a
football the entire length of a football field, and use cites from the rules.
Murphy's Rules are notoriously anywhere from exaggerating to wildly wrong, such
as the one that says that in Runequest 3rd edition, on average, 3 people in an
typical city disappear every day as they get sucked to the God Plane. Nowhere
in Runequest does it say anything even remotely related to that.
Blackberry
>
>Blackberry <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:52:50 GMT, cla...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>"Roll a die, then make something up" as opposed to "make something
>>>up".
>>
>>Roll a die, and according to the result on the die, make something up. This is
>>what GMs do in every game. If they're not doing it, if the GM has no decision
>>to make, and the exact result is just read off of a table, then you're playing a
>>boardgame.
>
>That depends. In many RPGs, the GM makes up flavor. This is making
>up content. Two really different situations.
How is "Random encounter occurs" any less making up content than "Something
annoying but harmless happens that doesn't affect combat or anything else in the
individual's life"?
>>>Now, I know some people *really* like rolling dice, but I just don't
>>>see that either would be necessarily better. Especially when the dice
>>>don't give a result less vague than "something bad happens". [...]
>>
>>For each 6 rolled, a level of severity is increased. Each entry has a paragraph
>>of illustrative examples and suggestions as to what sorts of bad things happen
>>at various severity levels of unluck.
>
>You know, I just looked at that amazing chart, and with such
>wonderfully concrete terms as "mementarily" and "troubled by", I don't
>know why I thought it was basically the same thing as "make something
>up."
So, unluck rules in other systems say specifically things like this?
Die roll result
27 A female Galapagos turtle appears from the individual's left flank
side (from a 2 meter radius dimensional rift that collapses after 56/100 of a
second), advances to within 7 inches of the individual's left heel (or left
rearmost heel) and makes distracting clicking noises for 91.3 seconds, at which
point it implodes into a small pile of dust some 4 cubic centimeters in volume.
I thought only FATAL had tables like that.
Are the words deliberately kept vague enough to require GM input? Sure. Why
should I want the exact same thing to happen to every character who is unlucky?
That doesn't happen in real life or in comic books.
Blackberry
>
>Blackberry <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>#1 While both may handle the injury, neither handles the initial
>>>accident without the GM leading it by the hand; therefore, the system
>>>cannot be said to "handle" the situation.
>>
>>As has been pointed out, a Hero GM can request an Unluck roll for the character;
>>some Unluck could be rolled; the GM could decide quite cleanly and strictly by
>>the rules that the character's bad luck causes the character to fall on a broken
>>coffee cup.
>
>No, the GM has just decided this. It may not contradict the rules in
>any way, but the rules had very little to do with it.
The rules had everything to do with it. You can only inflict a minor injury to
a character via Unluck, according to the rules, when a certain number of sixes
are rolled. To do otherwise -- make it more or less harmful than the result
rolled -- would be bending or breaking the rules.
>>This is perfectly 100% consistent with the rules and requires no
>>more leading-by-the-hand than anything else in RPGs does.
>
>There is SIGNIFICANTLY more leading than is required for something
>like "that wound leaves you at -6 on all skill rolls until you succeed
>in making 4 recovery checks".
>
>One is pretty unambiguous and can be mechanically followed, the other
>requires that the GM make something up.
I would find an Unluck chart that had distinctly detailed results written out on
it to be rather flavorless and boring after 20 years of play and already knowing
that every character with one 6 worth of Unluck suddenly finds their shoe
untied. Letting the GM adjudicate the flavor of the unlucky event keeps it from
being stagnant.
>>>#2 All anyone has been able to show is that the death is possible and
>>>with a low probability of occurence. That in no way proves that the
>>>way in which it would happen wouldn't be really silly. (looking at
>>>what happens step by step, and not just at the potential final
>>>results)
>>
>>The original idea was to see if an RPG system could handle such an obscure
>>possibility but could recreate it faithfully.
>
>You are missing some word in this, as it makes no sense.
Man falls on broken coffee cup and bleeds to death -- Portray that in an RPG and
make it make sense according to the rules.
Is that better wording?
>> Hero has proven that it meets
>>both requirements and that the rules perfectly support both the accident
>>occurring and the damage being fatal.
>
>As I am not clear as to what you are refering to by the word "both"
>here, I cannot respond.
I'll expand it out.
Hero has proven that the rules perfectly support the accident occurring.
Hero has proven that the rules perfectly support the damage being fatal.
Thus, it met both parts of the test.
>>So, you're arguing that it's a pretty ordinary event, yet an ordinary one of
>>such low probability that it's... what, non-ordinary?
>
>What do you mean by "non-ordinary"? I see no reason something would
>become special just because it doesn't happen often. Now, if we were
>using the words "common" and "non-common", you might have a point.
>
>Slicing open your jugular and bleeding to death seems a pretty
>ordinary way to die. Having it happen by cutting yourself with a
>broken cup is unlikely, but not outlandish in any way. Upon reading
>the story, I had no reason to doubt it's truth. As I said, it's
>tragic, not bizarre. My initial reaction would be, "wow that sucks",
>not, "you're making that up".
>
>Being crushed by a piece of Mir falling from the sky or being bitten
>by a rare tropical snake while camping in the wild in vermont is
>"non-ordinary". If someone told me it happened, I would doubt it
>until given some substantial evidence.
>
>(I'm not sure what this particular portion of the thread has to do
>with anything. It seems more of a semantic argument than anything
>else. Is there something meant to be gained by determining whether or
>not the mug incident is "ordinary" or not?)
No; I was stating that Hero met the test. I was trying to figure out what you
meant by it being an ordinary event and it being really uncommon. I guess you
explained it.
David Johnston
>
> Deric Page <dp...@accessus.net> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:57:06 GMT, thunder crashed as cla...@mindspring.com (Robert Scott
> >Clark) dramatically intoned:
> >
> >>Blackberry <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>I don't have all of my RPGs with me at work, but the Unluck chart in the Hero
> >>>rulebook basically goes like this:
> >>>
> >[snip Unluck table]
> >>
> >>Pretty good mechanic for saying "hey guy, make something up."
> >>
> >Isn't that what role playing is all about?
>
> If you have a severly limited and myopic view, sure.
>
> Any use of rules I've seen, seems to be for the purpose of placing
> limitations on this "making things up" part.
>
> >Well, 2 things: "Non-absurd results" is a rather subjective concept and anything that
> >happens once could conceivably happen again. It would be illogical to think that because
> >one man died from falling on a broken cup, it couldn't possibly happen to anyone else ever
> >again. Now, I haven't looked up the statistics of people dying by falling on broken
> >coffee cups, but less than 2.7 in 1 billion (see a previous post of mine) doesn't sound
> >too bad to me.
>
> Showing numbers for a single instance doesn't constitute complete
> testing of a rule. How does the rule fare against a character who is
> much tougher? how about one who is really frail?
Pretty much the same except the odds of someone much tougher dieing are
even lower, and someone really frail even if they survived might never
entirely heal from the injury (or from any injury) and would more likely
pass out.
>
> Also, all you handled was "ultimate" mortality. What about each step
> along the way? A system in which it was extremely easy to be badly
> injured by the cup, but also extremely easy to recover and live would
> be "non-absurd" on the grand scale of things (live or die), but would
> still be really silly from a realism point of view.
In what way is a wound that one can easily recover from a bad injury?
>
> Lastly, there is the question of whether or not it is possible that
> the initial injury can be sever enough to render the person incapable
> of helping themselves/seeking help without also making it much to
> fatal.
In Hero that would probably require the damage to be the head unless the
person in question was unusually frail...or had a limit that caused him
to faint at the sight of blood. But it could happen.
>
> There is a lot more to the question than a simplistic "how often will
> people die."
But of course you didn't raise those points until now.
David Johnston
>
> Blackberry <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:52:50 GMT, cla...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >>
> >>[...]
> >>"Roll a die, then make something up" as opposed to "make something
> >>up".
> >
> >Roll a die, and according to the result on the die, make something up. This is
> >what GMs do in every game. If they're not doing it, if the GM has no decision
> >to make, and the exact result is just read off of a table, then you're playing a
> >boardgame.
>
> That depends. In many RPGs, the GM makes up flavor. This is making
> up content. Two really different situations.
>
I know of no game where the GM doesn't have some responsibility to make up content.
Ken St-Cyr
>
> So, unluck rules in other systems say specifically things like this?
>
> Die roll result
> 27 A female Galapagos turtle appears from the individual's left flank
> side (from a 2 meter radius dimensional rift that collapses after 56/100 of a
> second), advances to within 7 inches of the individual's left heel (or left
> rearmost heel) and makes distracting clicking noises for 91.3 seconds, at which
> point it implodes into a small pile of dust some 4 cubic centimeters in volume.
Excellent! I had overlooked that possibility. Thank you for your
contribution.
- Ken
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
kens...@cs.pdx.edu "That machine has got to be destroyed"
*bleat* (From Beyond)
Tales of the Carnelian Coast: http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~kenstcyr/coast.html
Brandon Blackmoor
>
> Murphy's Rules are notoriously anywhere from exaggerating to wildly wrong
I think you are exaggerating. Murphy's Rules simply demonstrate the
silliness of isolated cases of literal applications of a game's rules, often
applying thwem in ways the game's designers may not have foresaw or
intended. Sometimes there's another rule somewhere that supercedes or
midifies the first one, but sometimes a rule just is what it is.
For example, there was a Murphy's Rule that said in Legacy: War of Ages, a
normal person who falls out of an ordinary airplane and hits the ground at
terminal velocity *won't* (on an average roll) be immediately killed.
Now, I helped write Legacy, and I can tell you that this Murphy's Rule was
dead-on accurate, because we assigned falling damage in Legacy exactly so
that we could get this result. Quite simply, we wanted an Immortal to be
able to walk out of an airplane and have a good chance of getting up and
walking away. In the real world, this is a very silly, but that's what we
wanted for the game.
Many Murphy's Rules are so funny simply because they take the game's rules
out of context, and a great deal of what happens in a typical RPG is
ridiculous if you take it out of context.
--
bblackmoor en blackgate.net
http://www.rpglibrary.org - free games & gaming aids & no banner ads, ever
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>Many Murphy's Rules are so funny simply because they take the game's rules
>out of context, and a great deal of what happens in a typical RPG is
>ridiculous if you take it out of context.
All right, then I'll restate to say that they are anywhere from spot on
correctness to misreadings of individual rules to completely fabricated.
Terry Austin
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message
news:a5gjm...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >
> >You're arguing about the realism of a game system that allows
> >a naked mean to kick an automobile completely to death in
> >less than 2 minutes, and a newborn baby to throw a football
> >the entire length of a football field.
> >
> >You're an idiot.
>
> That Murphy's Rule has been soundly disproven. I'll disprove it *once
again*
> when I get home, but go ahead and put forth why you think a baby can throw
a
> football the entire length of a football field, and use cites from the
rules.
I won't quibble overly much over that one. But I notice you don't mention
the "kill a car by kicking it with one's bare feet" example, which I've
worked
out in the past. Why is that?
Take a good look at two average people in a fist fight, too. They'll likely
both collapse from exhaustion before they do enough body to seriously
injure each other. Then, of course, there's the running speeds. The average
person is not physically capable of running more than about 8 mph, where
real people can nearly *walk* that fast. And .45 handguns that *cannot*,
ever, under any circumstances, kill even an average person in a single shot,
even to the base of the skull at point-blank range. And will not, on an
average
shot _to the head_, knock an average person unconscious.
>
> Murphy's Rules are notoriously anywhere from exaggerating to wildly wrong,
such
> as the one that says that in Runequest 3rd edition, on average, 3 people
in an
> typical city disappear every day as they get sucked to the God Plane.
Nowhere
> in Runequest does it say anything even remotely related to that.
>
Nevertheless, if you think Hero is realistic, either you haven't read it, or
you're
droolingly stupid.
It's a great game. But it's not realistic.
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:13:26 -0800, "Terry wrote:
> >
> >You're arguing about the realism of a game system that allows
> >a naked mean to kick an automobile completely to death in
> >less than 2 minutes, and a newborn baby to throw a football
> >the entire length of a football field.
> >
> >You're an idiot.
>
> Oh, and I know that I shouldn't expect any level of reading comprehension
from
> you, but I was arguing the fact that Hero could not represent a person
suffering
> a terribly unlikely but realistic accident of falling on the shards of a
broken
> coffee cup and bleeding to death. If you can't read, you really would be
better
> off not participating in newsgroups. Prove that I'm an idiot when you
can't
> even follow a simple message thread.
Who gives a fuck if it can accurately model a billion-to-one freak accident
when it can't accurately model a _fist fight_?
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 17:57:46 GMT, cla...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> >Blackberry <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>#1 While both may handle the injury, neither handles the initial
> >>>accident without the GM leading it by the hand; therefore, the system
> >>>cannot be said to "handle" the situation.
> >>
> >>As has been pointed out, a Hero GM can request an Unluck roll for the
character;
> >>some Unluck could be rolled; the GM could decide quite cleanly and
strictly by
> >>the rules that the character's bad luck causes the character to fall on
a broken
> >>coffee cup.
> >
> >No, the GM has just decided this. It may not contradict the rules in
> >any way, but the rules had very little to do with it.
>
> The rules had everything to do with it. You can only inflict a minor
injury to
> a character via Unluck, according to the rules,
If "according to the rules" matters to you, you need to put the dice away
and get a life.
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3C7BD0...@telusplanet.net...
Terry Austin
David Johnston
>
> Take a good look at two average people in a fist fight, too. They'll likely
> both collapse from exhaustion before they do enough body to seriously
> injure each other.
Hunh. 10 strength, 2 speed, REC 4, They do an average of 1 point of Body per
punch with their haymakers and spend 2 points of END. Don't know how you
figure that. Did you perhaps forget that totally untrained fighters are
likely to use haymakers in a brawl?
Then, of course, there's the running speeds. The average
> person is not physically capable of running more than about 8 mph, where
> real people can nearly *walk* that fast. And .45 handguns that *cannot*,
> ever, under any circumstances, kill even an average person in a single shot,
> even to the base of the skull at point-blank range.
Huhn. 1d6+1 RKA. Max Damage 7. Doubled for a head shot is 14 Body. Average
person is 10 Body.
I'm really not sure how you figure that either. Although it might take the
victim a little while to finish dying he's in no need of a second shot to
do it and assuming that you include the penalties to paramedic skill for
below 0 Body (and you should if you want realism), it'll be difficult to
keep him alive even if someone starts applying Paramedic skill in the next
few seconds.
And will not, on an
> average
> shot _to the head_, knock an average person unconscious.
An average shot does 9 body. More than enough to impair even a very tough person
in the head, knocking them unconscious. It also does an average of 22.5 stun,
and the average person has 20 stun.
Perhaps you should check your math.
Blackberry
>
>> >You're an idiot.
>>
>> That Murphy's Rule has been soundly disproven. I'll disprove it *once
>again*
>> when I get home, but go ahead and put forth why you think a baby can throw
>a
>> football the entire length of a football field, and use cites from the
>rules.
>
>I won't quibble overly much over that one. But I notice you don't mention
>the "kill a car by kicking it with one's bare feet" example, which I've
>worked
>out in the past. Why is that?
I haven't worked it out (and I don't have stats on typical cars with me) but it
could be correct. Has Hero ever promoted itself as a realistic system in all
details? Not that I can remember.
As for the arguments below, I've always maintained that the Hero system was
designed very well for its first use -- four-color superheroics. It falls down
at very low and very high levels in my opinion.
>Take a good look at two average people in a fist fight, too. They'll likely
>both collapse from exhaustion before they do enough body to seriously
>injure each other.
Let's see... 8 out of 36 times, you'll do 3 BODY; 1 out of 36 times, you'll do 4
BODY. That's 1 out of 4 hits.
Chance to hit is 11 + 3 - 3 = 11 or less, which is what, 62.5%? I forget
exactly, but let's go with it.
Actually, no... two normals with completely average characteristics would have
10 STR, 20 END, 4 REC, 2 SPD.
Segment 6: First person swings, uses 2 END (heroic) or 1 END (superheroic).
Second person swings, uses 2 or 1 END.
Segment 12: First swings, uses 2 END; second swings, uses 2 END.
Post-Segment 12: Both recover 4 END. Both are down 0 END.
Segment 6: First person swings, uses 2 END (heroic) or 1 END (superheroic).
Second person swings, uses 2 or 1 END.
Segment 12: First swings, uses 2 END; second swings, uses 2 END.
Post-Segment 12: Both recover 4 END. Both are down 0 END.
They'll always have plenty of END.
Do boxers usually collapse because they have too many broken bones and internal
bleeding to continue or is it because they're too dazed or unconscious? I don't
follow boxing. If it's the latter, then that would be STUN damage.
>Then, of course, there's the running speeds. The average
>person is not physically capable of running more than about 8 mph, where
>real people can nearly *walk* that fast.
It works for normals in an environment in which supers are flying around at 100
mph though. Normals in a comic book *might* get to react in one frame per page,
if they're lucky.
>And .45 handguns that *cannot*,
>ever, under any circumstances, kill even an average person in a single shot,
>even to the base of the skull at point-blank range. And will not, on an
>average
>shot _to the head_, knock an average person unconscious.
A .45 is what, 2d6K? 12 BODY if you roll well would put them into immediate
jeopardy of death. I believe head shots increase the damage (I don't use the
hit location rules; it's a bit out of place for four-color superheroics).
>> Murphy's Rules are notoriously anywhere from exaggerating to wildly wrong,
>such
>> as the one that says that in Runequest 3rd edition, on average, 3 people
>in an
>> typical city disappear every day as they get sucked to the God Plane.
>Nowhere
>> in Runequest does it say anything even remotely related to that.
>>
>Nevertheless, if you think Hero is realistic, either you haven't read it, or
>you're
>droolingly stupid.
>
>It's a great game. But it's not realistic.
I didn't say it was realistic. I said that it could handle a really unlucky
person falling on a shard of a broken coffee cup and bleeding to death, which
was the initial posit.
Blackberry
>
>Who gives a fuck if it can accurately model a billion-to-one freak accident
>when it can't accurately model a _fist fight_?
Apparently lots of people in this newsgroup, since the former was the initial
case posited.
Blackberry
I believe you should tell that to Robert Scott Clark, who needed to be convinced
that the Hero rules support unluck of that type.
Terry Austin
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:24:20 -0800, "Terry wrote:
> >
> >> >You're an idiot.
> >>
> >> That Murphy's Rule has been soundly disproven. I'll disprove it *once
> >again*
> >> when I get home, but go ahead and put forth why you think a baby can
throw
> >a
> >> football the entire length of a football field, and use cites from the
> >rules.
> >
> >I won't quibble overly much over that one. But I notice you don't mention
> >the "kill a car by kicking it with one's bare feet" example, which I've
> >worked
> >out in the past. Why is that?
>
> I haven't worked it out (and I don't have stats on typical cars with me)
but it
> could be correct. Has Hero ever promoted itself as a realistic system in
all
> details?
Not that I've ever seen?
>Not that I can remember.
Then why do you?
>
> As for the arguments below, I've always maintained that the Hero system
was
> designed very well for its first use -- four-color superheroics. It falls
down
> at very low and very high levels in my opinion.
Not necessarily "falls down," but certainly not realistic.
>
> >Take a good look at two average people in a fist fight, too. They'll
likely
> >both collapse from exhaustion before they do enough body to seriously
> >injure each other.
>
> Let's see... 8 out of 36 times, you'll do 3 BODY; 1 out of 36 times,
you'll do 4
> BODY. That's 1 out of 4 hits.
>
> Chance to hit is 11 + 3 - 3 = 11 or less, which is what, 62.5%? I forget
> exactly, but let's go with it.
>
> Actually, no... two normals with completely average characteristics would
have
> 10 STR, 20 END, 4 REC, 2 SPD.
>
> Segment 6: First person swings, uses 2 END (heroic) or 1 END
(superheroic).
> Second person swings, uses 2 or 1 END.
> Segment 12: First swings, uses 2 END; second swings, uses 2 END.
> Post-Segment 12: Both recover 4 END. Both are down 0 END.
> Segment 6: First person swings, uses 2 END (heroic) or 1 END
(superheroic).
> Second person swings, uses 2 or 1 END.
> Segment 12: First swings, uses 2 END; second swings, uses 2 END.
> Post-Segment 12: Both recover 4 END. Both are down 0 END.
>
> They'll always have plenty of END.
Take a look at the long term rules for END. If you want "realism."
On the other hand, you're saying that two normal people could pound
on each other forever and never tire, which is just as "realistic".
>
> Do boxers usually collapse because they have too many broken bones and
internal
> bleeding to continue or is it because they're too dazed or unconscious? I
don't
> follow boxing. If it's the latter, then that would be STUN damage.
Boxers aren't normal people.
>
> >Then, of course, there's the running speeds. The average
> >person is not physically capable of running more than about 8 mph, where
> >real people can nearly *walk* that fast.
>
> It works for normals in an environment in which supers are flying around
at 100
> mph though. Normals in a comic book *might* get to react in one frame per
page,
> if they're lucky.
Indeed. Not realistic at all.
>
> >And .45 handguns that *cannot*,
> >ever, under any circumstances, kill even an average person in a single
shot,
> >even to the base of the skull at point-blank range. And will not, on an
> >average
> >shot _to the head_, knock an average person unconscious.
>
> A .45 is what, 2d6K?
1d6K. Last time I looked, anyway. It's conceivable that this is from
a supplement or a previous version. I haven't looked at such things
since, prefering to rely on simply making it up to get the distribution
of odds I want.
>12 BODY if you roll well would put them into immediate
> jeopardy of death. I believe head shots increase the damage (I don't use
the
> hit location rules; it's a bit out of place for four-color superheroics).
>
> >> Murphy's Rules are notoriously anywhere from exaggerating to wildly
wrong,
> >such
> >> as the one that says that in Runequest 3rd edition, on average, 3
people
> >in an
> >> typical city disappear every day as they get sucked to the God Plane.
> >Nowhere
> >> in Runequest does it say anything even remotely related to that.
> >>
> >Nevertheless, if you think Hero is realistic, either you haven't read it,
or
> >you're
> >droolingly stupid.
> >
> >It's a great game. But it's not realistic.
>
> I didn't say it was realistic.
You're ranting about how well it models billion-to-one freak accidents.
Apparently, you have no point at all.
>I said that it could handle a really unlucky
> person falling on a shard of a broken coffee cup and bleeding to death,
which
> was the initial posit.
Who cares how it handles something like that when it can't model a fist
fight?
Terry Austin
Robert Scott Clark
>>That depends. In many RPGs, the GM makes up flavor. This is making
>>up content. Two really different situations.
>
>How is "Random encounter occurs" any less making up content than "Something
>annoying but harmless happens that doesn't affect combat or anything else in the
>individual's life"?
They aren't. What makes you think I believe they are different?
>>You know, I just looked at that amazing chart, and with such
>>wonderfully concrete terms as "mementarily" and "troubled by", I don't
>>know why I thought it was basically the same thing as "make something
>>up."
>
>So, unluck rules in other systems say specifically things like this?
>
>Die roll result
>27 A female Galapagos turtle appears from the individual's left flank
>side (from a 2 meter radius dimensional rift that collapses after 56/100 of a
>second), advances to within 7 inches of the individual's left heel (or left
>rearmost heel) and makes distracting clicking noises for 91.3 seconds, at which
>point it implodes into a small pile of dust some 4 cubic centimeters in volume.
When have I ever said or implied that I am comparing hero to another
system and not just looking at it individually?
Some people are so sensitized to "my system is better than your
system" posts that they can't fucking see anything else.
>
>I thought only FATAL had tables like that.
>
>Are the words deliberately kept vague enough to require GM input? Sure. Why
>should I want the exact same thing to happen to every character who is unlucky?
>That doesn't happen in real life or in comic books.
Then the system requires that the GM handle situations like that.
I'm fine with that statement.
What I'm not fine with is the statement, "the system handles that
situation", as the system ISN'T handling/covering it, it is passing it
off to the GM to take care of.
I'm also not saying that this is a bad thing. In fact, I think that
is the only reasonable way to handle things. I just don't agree that
throwing a random roll into the equation either A. means that the
system is somehow handling the situation whereas a system without a
roll is not, or B means that a system with a random roll + GM fiat
instead of one with just pure GM fiat is in any way more
realistic/useful/fun/... whatever other qualifier you want to add. It
has an extra die roll, but that's about it.
Terry Austin
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:25:17 -0800, "Terry wrote:
> >
> >Who gives a fuck if it can accurately model a billion-to-one freak
accident
> >when it can't accurately model a _fist fight_?
>
> Apparently lots of people in this newsgroup, since the former was the
initial
> case posited.
Including you. Don't get the wrong idea. They're idiots, too.
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message
I have. You're an idiot. He's an interdimensional life form from a
universe where evolution doesn't work.
>who needed to be convinced
> that the Hero rules support unluck of that type.
>
Any game supports any feature or bug the players and GM want.
It's as simple as "I'm the GM, this is what happens." RSC doesn't
quite grok this, but then, he apparently forces his presence of
people who clearly don't want him around, so what do we expect?
Terry Austin
Robert Scott Clark
>> Showing numbers for a single instance doesn't constitute complete
>> testing of a rule. How does the rule fare against a character who is
>> much tougher? how about one who is really frail?
>
>Pretty much the same except the odds of someone much tougher dieing are
>even lower, and someone really frail even if they survived might never
>entirely heal from the injury (or from any injury) and would more likely
>pass out.
>
So, does that seem right to you? How much lower are the odds of a
tough person dying? One person's skin and jugular aren't that much
tougher than the next persons, so if there is a great difference
between what it takes to kill one person this way, and what it takes
to kill another, then the system seems flawed.
Ditto if someone is so fragile as to make broken coffee mugs into
dangerous weapons
>>
>> Also, all you handled was "ultimate" mortality. What about each step
>> along the way? A system in which it was extremely easy to be badly
>> injured by the cup, but also extremely easy to recover and live would
>> be "non-absurd" on the grand scale of things (live or die), but would
>> still be really silly from a realism point of view.
>
>In what way is a wound that one can easily recover from a bad injury?
In what way is a potentially fatal injury not a bad injury?
>
>>
>> Lastly, there is the question of whether or not it is possible that
>> the initial injury can be sever enough to render the person incapable
>> of helping themselves/seeking help without also making it much to
>> fatal.
>
>In Hero that would probably require the damage to be the head unless the
>person in question was unusually frail...or had a limit that caused him
>to faint at the sight of blood. But it could happen.
So, we are back to hero NOT handling the situation as described.
>
>>
>> There is a lot more to the question than a simplistic "how often will
>> people die."
>
>But of course you didn't raise those points until now.
>
I assume that people will occasionally use their own brains. But
then, we all know what assuming does.
Blackberry
>
>> I haven't worked it out (and I don't have stats on typical cars with me)
>but it
>> could be correct. Has Hero ever promoted itself as a realistic system in
>all
>> details?
>
>Not that I've ever seen?
>
>>Not that I can remember.
>
>Then why do you?
Cite where I said that or retract it.
>> As for the arguments below, I've always maintained that the Hero system
>was
>> designed very well for its first use -- four-color superheroics. It falls
>down
>> at very low and very high levels in my opinion.
>
>Not necessarily "falls down," but certainly not realistic.
I don't think I would say that it handles superheroics "realistically" either.
They'd be dazed from STUN before they'd tire (at which point they would lose all
their END and then be tired out). On the other hand, as David Johnston pointed
out, they should be doing Haymakers. They'd pass out from STUN much quicker
that way.
>> Do boxers usually collapse because they have too many broken bones and
>internal
>> bleeding to continue or is it because they're too dazed or unconscious? I
>don't
>> follow boxing. If it's the latter, then that would be STUN damage.
>
>Boxers aren't normal people.
Street fighters then (and I don't mean the ones in the video game).
>> I didn't say it was realistic.
>
>You're ranting about how well it models billion-to-one freak accidents.
Exactly, which was the point of this whole thread. The original poster posited
that no RPG could model such a circumstance. It was pointed out by multiple
people that Hero could model it and make it just as obscure a circumstance but
just as deadly as that one-in-a-billion (estimated and exagerrated) shot.
>Apparently, you have no point at all.
Summarized above, though you keep reading past it for some reason; most likely
because you can't make a trite comment about it.
>>I said that it could handle a really unlucky
>> person falling on a shard of a broken coffee cup and bleeding to death,
>which
>> was the initial posit.
>
>Who cares how it handles something like that when it can't model a fist
>fight?
The person posting the original message apparently cares. If you want to start
a "Hero system isn't realistic" thread, then do so.
Blackberry
>
>> >If "according to the rules" matters to you, you need to put the dice away
>> >and get a life.
>>
>> I believe you should tell that to Robert Scott Clark,
>
>I have. You're an idiot. He's an interdimensional life form from a
>universe where evolution doesn't work.
But I got you to respond to me, didn't I?
Terry Austin
> Terry Austin wrote:
>
> >
> > Take a good look at two average people in a fist fight, too. They'll
likely
> > both collapse from exhaustion before they do enough body to seriously
> > injure each other.
>
> Hunh. 10 strength, 2 speed, REC 4, They do an average of 1 point of Body
per
> punch with their haymakers and spend 2 points of END. Don't know how you
> figure that. Did you perhaps forget that totally untrained fighters are
> likely to use haymakers in a brawl?
The hand-to-hand rules are a mess. Unless you want superhero style
brawls, which is, of courrse, what it was written for.
Keep in mind, in real life, the average adult male can inflict fatal
injuries on the average adult in less than 10 seconds. That's one
phase in Hero.
>
> Then, of course, there's the running speeds. The average
> > person is not physically capable of running more than about 8 mph, where
> > real people can nearly *walk* that fast. And .45 handguns that *cannot*,
> > ever, under any circumstances, kill even an average person in a single
shot,
> > even to the base of the skull at point-blank range.
>
> Huhn. 1d6+1 RKA. Max Damage 7. Doubled for a head shot is 14 Body.
Average
> person is 10 Body.
Which is to say, dying, but not instantly dead. Instantly dead is
*impossible*
with a single shot, and unconscious is unlikely even on a head shot.
>
> I'm really not sure how you figure that either. Although it might take
the
> victim a little while to finish dying he's in no need of a second shot to
> do it and assuming that you include the penalties to paramedic skill for
> below 0 Body (and you should if you want realism), it'll be difficult to
> keep him alive even if someone starts applying Paramedic skill in the next
> few seconds.
Nevertheless, in real life, a .45 to the head has a fairly good chance
of instantly killing someone, and will almost certainly knock them
unconscious.
The numbers work out better _for a game_, since you don't normally
want a character that took an hour or more to create dying too easily,
but it's not *realistic*.
>
>
> And will not, on an
> > average
> > shot _to the head_, knock an average person unconscious.
>
> An average shot does 9 body. More than enough to impair even a very tough
person
> in the head, knocking them unconscious. It also does an average of 22.5
stun,
> and the average person has 20 stun.
>
> Perhaps you should check your math.
Perhaps I should check the book. I was remember a .45 being 1d6,
not 1d6+1. Perhaps you should not assume everyone is as stupid as you
are.
Terry Austin
>