Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Failed Parachuting Test (hitting the ground)
Posted by: Glayvin34 Jan 6 2008, 06:48 PM
I'm going to be taking over as GM for my group for a little while and I wanted to do something eXtreme for an opening run, so I'm going to force the team to skydive to their objective.
A parachuting test is Body + Parachuting, and I assume one hit is enough to land safely without taking damage. If one were to fail a parachuting test and hit the ground what happens?
In RL, if your parachute deploys but you are incapacitated and unable to affect the landing in any way, you wouldn't die, but you will probably suffer some broken bones, depending on what you land on.
I was thinking that a failed parachute test should result in some damage that can be resisted with Body + Impact Armor. And I suppose the GM might want to add a few boxes depending on what the character lands on. Does that sound right?
I'd like to hear any ideas anyone has about getting stuck in trees, hitting powerlines, smacking the sides of buildings, and other nasty events that might result from a failed parachuting test.
Posted by: Karaden Jan 6 2008, 06:57 PM
Lets see. I would think that unless you get a critical glitch (which may well happen if the people have no skill in it) the parachute is going to deploy, and even then it is going to happen, as it has little to do with the skill of the person pulling it.
I'd say a single hit is enough to land without damage, though maybe not exactly where you want. More hits mean percision landing. Maybe a glitch means your off target, get tangled up a few feet from the ground in a tree. A total miss means you land hard for 2P (unresisted) damage. A critical glitch means you got caught in the tree, it tore off your shute, you fell, hit the ground, the tree slingshoted you back up, and now your hopelessly entangled in the tree several meters up, having suffered 4P (unresisted) damage.
Feel free to increase the damage some and make it resisted, but I think that is fairly sutable. And if anyone decided they would get free points by making themselves incompetent in it, well, get ready for falling brick season.
Posted by: kzt Jan 6 2008, 07:14 PM
What looks like a nice empty space without trees via NVG? Large meadows, and lakes. Can you swim with 80 pounds of extra gear? While covered with a giant piece of wet cloth? Can you do the mission or escape once you dump your weapons, body armor and ammo so you don't drown?
Powerlines are bad. High Tension lines really suck. Once your parachute catches fire things get exciting as you hang 70 feet off the ground....
Posted by: Gelare Jan 6 2008, 07:26 PM
Whether or not the parachute deploys at all doesn't really depend on the person doing the skydiving, it depends on the person who packed the parachute. So its pretty much a given that the parachute deploys, unless the PCs are diving with Akbar's Totally Legit "Not A Deathtrap" Skydiving Service. One hit probably means you land with no damage, but a bit off target, by (and here I'm just pulling numbers out of my ass) a couple hundred meters or so. More hits reduce the scatter, and if you got no hits you tripped all over yourself on landing and took, say, 4S, resisted with body+impact. A glitch means you broke your leg / got caught in a tree / landed in a nearby lake, etc. A critical glitch means the GM gets to hunt you for sport.
Posted by: Whipstitch Jan 6 2008, 07:27 PM
Even if they avoid taking damage the Disorientation penalty is also terribly appropriate for an inexperienced skydiver after a rough trip down and an even rougher landing. If you have any luddites in your group who are stubborn about carrying things like GPSes and commlinks with them then landing off-target and disoriented could quickly become a bit of an adventure in itself if they screw up a navigation test and merrily start marching off in the wrong direction in unfamiliar territory, although that obviously depends a lot on where this particular run is taking place. For obvious reasons, navigation is one of those tests whose results are best left secret, although they should probably know you're rolling the test on their behalf so they can opt to use edge if they like. It shouldn't derail the entire run or anything, I would hope, but depending on the time table involved it could add that extra unplanned degree of difficulty to add to the good ol' paranoia.
Posted by: kzt Jan 6 2008, 07:47 PM
Advanced sport parachutes (other then those run by idiots) have a backup deployment system such that the chute opens at altitude x unless deployed earlier.
military and basic sport parachutes use a static line such that the chute opens once the person is clear from the plane.
So in these cases the chute should deploy.
advanced military chutes used by experts are different. I don't think there is any automatic deployment system on a chute used for HALO. But anyone who doesn't know exactly what he is doing tries this they are going to die.
None of this does you any good if the parachute rigger sabotages the chute or just has a really bad day. Then you get to try your emergency chute or die.
IIRC, the impact of landing with a military round chute is like jumping from 20 feet up. That's why the whole PLF stuff is taught.
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jan 6 2008, 10:10 PM
...ok slight [Derail] but this is pretty noteworthy.
On August 16th of 1960 Captain Joseph W. Kittinger, Jr, attempted what is the greatest feat of freefall jumping. Wearing a space suit and riding a helium balloon to an altitude of 102,800 ft (nearly 20 mi which also a record ascent altitude for an unpowered aircraft as well) he leapt from the gondola to begin a four and one half minute freefall which reached supersonic speeds.
At that altitude, the sky is dark enough to see stars and he remarked afterwards of the awesome sight of seeing the balloon receding from him against a backdrop of a nearly black sky.
Kittinger's exit from Excelsior III: http://stratocat.com.ar/globos/fotos/excelsior-III-d.jpg
In Freeefall (Cover of Life Magazine 8/29/60): http://www.originallifemagazines.com/image.php?image=http://www.originallifemagazines.com/content/116-008-2900.jpg
At about 18,000 feet (more than a mile above where experienced recreational jumpers begin their freefalls) his main chute opened and it took another eight minutes for him to land.
Capt Kittinger was no stranger to making such jumps having earlier performed freefalls from altitudes in excess of 70,000. These seemingly insane feats were all part of an era where X-Pilots dared challenge the extremes for it was the only way we could advance our knowledge of the "unknown" as computers were nothing more than over-sized calculators back then.
...side note: Not to be content even in retirement, a 57 year old Kittinger became the first person to complete a successful solo balloon flight across the Atlantic in 1985.
[/derail]
Posted by: Spike Jan 7 2008, 12:04 AM
Actually, a totally incapacitated person (unconcious) who is unable to affect their landing in any way is probably in BETTER shape than an unskilled jumper. Going limp means LESS broken bones. That's why drunk drivers walk away from so many accidents.
The greatest portion of Jump Training in the Army (fer ex) is learning to fall down for a reason. Amazingly, unconcious people are really really good at... well... falling down.
Other than that: falling from great height is just one of those wierd things. Sometimes everyone dies, sometimes the guy gets up, dusts himself off and wanders home with no idea what just happened... Not sure a body test is really the answer... I do imagine trolls will land much harder than elves, say...
Posted by: Jack Kain Jan 7 2008, 10:11 AM
Heard this story of a troll character who ended into parachuting into a lake. When he realized he was going to hit the water he tore the straps that held the parachute back to him then walked to shore along the bottom thanks to his internal air tank.
He was not happy.
Posted by: Cthulhudreams Jan 7 2008, 11:29 AM
Lots of profession soldiers have broken things in botched drops, so you could say safely you are going to take a hard hit.
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 7 2008, 02:20 PM
First, determine actual landing velocity.
Second, find the minimum height from which landing velocity equals the landing velocity of the parachute test.
Third, determine damage using the falling rules based on this equivalent height.
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jan 7 2008, 03:58 PM
| QUOTE (Spike) |
| Other than that: falling from great height is just one of those wierd things. Sometimes everyone dies, sometimes the guy gets up, dusts himself off and wanders home with no idea what just happened... Not sure a body test is really the answer... I do imagine trolls will land much harder than elves, say... |
...well considering the rate of falling from a great height is Terminal V for any object/person, if they both fell from the same building, they would hit with the same velocity at the same time. The difference would be that the troll will make a bigger dent in the pavement and probably survive.
Posted by: Carver Jan 7 2008, 04:20 PM
Terminal velocity might actually be slower for a troll than an elf, since it's based on the falling object's drag vs weight ratio (if anyone really feels like doing the math go for it 
.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jan 7 2008, 04:23 PM
Steps for determining damage code:
1.) Create egg parachute, one for each PC
2.) Deploy raw egg in egg parachute, one for each PC
3.) Drop egg parachute from third floor of building
4.) The eggs that make it safely are okay. The ones that don't take damage as appropriate based on egg condition.
Posted by: Apathy Jan 7 2008, 05:06 PM
I would guess that damage would vary significantly based on equipment.
- In Airborne school we used old technology T10B parachutes (the round ones without much steering). Even in the best of circumstances, landing with a T10B you hit the ground with the equivalent of a 20 foot drop, and had to know how to roll into your fall to prevent injury. Trying to remain standing while landing was a good way to break a leg, or at least severely sprain something. But severe damage would likely only happen on a critical glitch, where you tangled your chute and therefore reduced it's ability to slow your descent. Or if you fail to steer out of the way of landing hazards (trees, power lines, etc).
- From what I've heard, the more modern parachutes are like a modified wing, are much more manuverable, and an experienced parachuter can land on a dime with very little impact. But they're also capable of a LOT of forward speed, so an inexperienced jumper might steer the chute with the wind instead of against the wind, and ram into a tree at 30mph.
Posted by: Glayvin34 Jan 7 2008, 05:48 PM
What was that old addage about there only being as many opinions as there are Dumpshockians?
After thinking about it for a little while, I'm acutally going to have two tests, one Agility + Parachuting test to land in the right spot, then a Body + Parachuting or Gymnastics to land properly.
This is for specifically landing in the Redmond Barrens, who knows what the deal would be in different geography.
Flying in test- Agility + Parachuting
0 successes- You hit a building, Resist 4P, land outside of area (1d6 x 10m)
1 success- You scrape the side of a building, Resist 2P, land outside of area (1d6 x 10m)
2 successes- Parachute hits the side of a building, land outside of area (1d6 x 10m)
3 successes- Land inside area
Glitch- stuck 2d6 meters above the ground on a utility pole
Critical Glitch- stuck 2d6 x 4 meters above the ground on the side of a building
Landing test- Body + Parachuting or Gymnastics
0 sucesses- 6P resisted with Body + Impact
1 success- 4P resisted with Body + Impact
2 successes- 2P resisted with Body + Impact
3 successes- Perfect Landing
Glitch- Body + only half impact to resist
Critical Glitch- No resistance
Posted by: Whipstitch Jan 7 2008, 05:52 PM
| QUOTE (Carver @ Jan 7 2008, 11:20 AM) |
| Terminal velocity might actually be slower for a troll than an elf, since it's based on the falling object's drag vs weight ratio (if anyone really feels like doing the math go for it . |
I doubt that; under the swimming rules it says that elves are actually rather buoyant while orks and trolls tend to sink like stones; apparently they're quite dense in more ways then one.
Posted by: Carver Jan 7 2008, 08:17 PM
| QUOTE (Whipstitch) | ||
I doubt that; under the swimming rules it says that elves are actually rather buoyant while orks and trolls tend to sink like stones; apparently they're quite dense in more ways then one. |
Yes, but a troll is going to have a LOT more surface area to create drag than an elf.
Posted by: Karaden Jan 7 2008, 08:24 PM
| QUOTE (Carver @ Jan 7 2008, 03:17 PM) | ||||
Yes, but a troll is going to have a LOT more surface area to create drag than an elf. |
Yes, it has more surface area, but it is also more dense, that means it has more poundage per unit surface area. This means that it will fall at a slightly higher terminal velocity, though it isn't an amount likely to affect it too much. It also means that parachutes won't work as well for trolls (Gee, what a suprise, something that isn't as effective with trolls).
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| ...well considering the rate of falling from a great height is Terminal V for any object/person, if they both fell from the same building, they would hit with the same velocity at the same time. The difference would be that the troll will make a bigger dent in the pavement and probably survive. |
*edit* Of course one thing you have to note is that a human can adjust their terminal velocity by a huge amount just based on how they position their bodies. I believe if you spread eagle you can drop it to something like... 55m/s (120 MPH), but if you go into a dive it can reach 89m/s (200mph) or higher.
Yeah, they are going to have roughly similar terminal velocity, and the troll is also going to make a bigger dent in the pavement because he has more mass, but this also means the troll himself is going to suffer a bigger dent (though it would be mitigated by the troll being tuffer). So in the end, while the troll might have to resist more damage, thanks to his naturally higher body stat, he is likely to end up taking the same amount of damage as anyone else.
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 7 2008, 08:38 PM
Drag also depends on atmospheric density and thus terminal velocity can be increased by starting so high that you need to wear a space suit.
And lets not forget the fun of the Movement power, which may or may not prevent falling damage.
Posted by: Karaden Jan 7 2008, 09:50 PM
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| Drag also depends on atmospheric density and thus terminal velocity can be increased by starting so high that you need to wear a space suit. |
Not really. As they fall lower they'll hit the higher density air and thus begin slowing down. Now, if your going a few thousand miles an hour you'll still go fast, but if your talking about a plain high altitude jump your going to slow down.
Posted by: Exodus Jan 7 2008, 09:58 PM
Keep in mind that Terminal Velocity for a human is around 115 to 130 Mph.
A car Kills at 35 mph.
If the person fell onto 20 feet of unpacked snow, I can see him taking 10p dmg. Other than that he's dead.
Posted by: Nightwalker450 Jan 7 2008, 09:58 PM
Just for grins... Use standard rules as for getting hit by a vehicle... Using the Body of the earth and their speed... 
That'll teach them to jump out of a perfectly good airplane
Posted by: Exodus Jan 7 2008, 09:59 PM
| QUOTE (Nightwalker450) |
| Just for grins... Use standard rules as for getting hit by a vehicle... Using the Body of the earth and their speed... That'll teach them to jump out of a perfectly good airplane |
I would go with this approach to dealing falling damage.
Consider yourself the car, and the wall the ground.
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 7 2008, 10:16 PM
| QUOTE (Karaden) | ||
Not really. As they fall lower they'll hit the higher density air and thus begin slowing down. Now, if your going a few thousand miles an hour you'll still go fast, but if your talking about a plain high altitude jump your going to slow down. |
Colonel Joe Kittinger, in 1960, set three world records. The longest freefall, the highest parachute jump, and being the first person to break the sound barrier without a vehicle.
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jan 7 2008, 10:59 PM
...actually four, the highest altitude achieved by a manned non-powered aircraft (Excelsior III).
Posted by: Apathy Jan 7 2008, 11:59 PM
I remember reading as a kid that WWII Soviets used to toss their jumpers out of low-flying aircraft into snow drifts once they ran out of parachutes. They had like a 50% fatality rate, but the one thing they had plenty of was more bodies to pull from.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jan 8 2008, 05:58 AM
| QUOTE (Apathy) |
| I remember reading as a kid that WWII Soviets used to toss their jumpers out of low-flying aircraft into snow drifts once they ran out of parachutes. They had like a 50% fatality rate, but the one thing they had plenty of was more bodies to pull from. |
Did they also only arm every other guy and expect the survivors to redistribute the weaponry?
Posted by: cx2 Jan 8 2008, 06:24 AM
As it happens I heard in one of the wars the Russians only had enough rifles for 1 in 3 soldiers, but I forget whether it was the first or second.
Posted by: MaxHunter Jan 8 2008, 01:22 PM
It was in the first WW If I remember correctly....
Back into the thread, I know I have posted a topic about an Halo jump some months ago... If only I could get it back. I had my players perform an Halo jump for that run. A couple of them even learned the skill instead of trusting on Edge longshot rolls!!! LoL. They survived, but ended the fall quite scattered and lost some precious time getting back together.
Posted by: MaxHunter Jan 8 2008, 01:56 PM
Bingo! This is the thread: http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=17252&hl=
It was about Halo jumps, but I believe the whole thread is informative.
The rules I used were the following -complicated but worked out fine- :
Cheers,
Max
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jan 8 2008, 03:44 PM
...the HALO jump into the blizzard was the part I liked about the King of the Mountain run in the old Missions book. Made even the toughest Sammy on the team wet himself. And after that, they hated getting on cargo jets, particularly ones had had drop pallets. 
Posted by: Karaden Jan 8 2008, 04:02 PM
| QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Jan 7 2008, 05:16 PM) | ||||
Colonel Joe Kittinger, in 1960, set three world records. The longest freefall, the highest parachute jump, and being the first person to break the sound barrier without a vehicle. |
Yes, I know that, but he did them all by jumping from an extream altitude of roughly 20 miles up (which is difficult enough to get to in its own right.) But the point is that he wasn't still going super sonic speeds when he hit the ground, or even when he got close to the ground. My point is that yes, in high altitudes (several miles up) you will fall significantly faster, but when you land, you will be in low altitudes, and where you started your fall from is irrelevent. (A dead fall from 20 miles up is in fact no more dangerous then a fall of roughly 200 feet (not counting lack of air and such)).
Since you are -landing- in low altitudes, and the only part of a fall that hurts you is in fact the -landing- then it is the atmosphere at a hight around which you -land- that matters. So, jump from 20 miles up or 1 mile up or 200 feet up, if your parachute does't work you'll still hit the ground at the same speed.
Of course, the parachute not working isn't really what we're looking at, those go off basicly regardless of how inept the person jumping is, what we are looking at is an inept landing, which could well result in minor injury. However your not going to hit the ground -that- hard if you've got a parachute to cause serious injury (unless you land on your head or something). Now, if you land in a tree or on a barbed wire fence or hit a building side a few times, there could be cause for real injury.
*edit*
@maxhunter: That scatter seems -really- massive. I mean, I think you would be hard pressed to ask a skilled person to land 12km off target. Most of the time when parachuting you can expect to land within about 100m of your target, maybe a bit more if you arn't particularly skilled or something.
Also, the -2 for being 'out of practice' seems a bit harsh, I mean you don't give a sammie a -2 to shoot something because he hasn't used his pistol skill in a while. Other then those two things I really like those rules.
Oh, and could something like lowlight vision/thermoptic vision cancel out the night conditions?
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jan 8 2008, 04:49 PM
...you are correct about air density and speed. After passing through 50,000 feet Col. Kittinger's descent speed dropped by 250 mph.
Posted by: TheOneRonin Jan 8 2008, 07:19 PM
| QUOTE (cx2) |
| As it happens I heard in one of the wars the Russians only had enough rifles for 1 in 3 soldiers, but I forget whether it was the first or second. |
WWII, the Battle of Stalingrad. The reinforcements crossing the Volga from the Russian side had about a single rifle per two soldiers.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)