Platelet Factories, Do they reduce Stun damage? Options

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

No. Just no.

Physical damage is physical. Stun damage is stun. I don't know what you're trying to do, but you're actually mixing things up.

Not trying to do anything... Just wanted to point out that the discussions above hinge on the Descriptor, in the first sentence, of the word Physical...

Now... Damage, whether it is tracked on the Physical Track or the Stun Track is indeed Physical in nature... physical Stun Damage (for lack of better term) is tracked on the Stun Damage Track while physical Physical Damage (awkward, I know) is tracked on the Physical Damage Track...

Regardless of how you wish to break these two types of damage apart, the result of the "Damage" is always physical in nature... if you take a hit with a barstool in a barfight (Stun Damage by definition of the improvised weapon), you are still taking massive bruising and blunt trauma, which has a PHYSICAL effect (you suffer physical penalties due to the wound if it is sufficient in nature, even though it is on the Stun Track)... as such, the platelet factories could do that thing that they do, and rush those platelets to the sight of the wound to assist in healing the ruptured blood vessels causing the bruising... Thus is provided a rational explanation of Stun damage effected by the Platelet factories...

You may not agree, but it is valid point of view nonetheless...

Just my 2 Cents

[Professeur]

Yeah, I understand what you mean. Semantically speaking you're right, but that's clearly not what the rules are intented to mean. Also, not all stun damage is physical. For example, when you take drain damage from casting a spell (if you don't overcast of course), there is absolutely no physical effect to your body.

You have to understand that with your explanation, everywhere in the book where it states "physical damage", you'd have to read "physical AND stun damage", and there would be no purely physical damage anymore. It just doesn't make sense from a rule perspective.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Yeah, I understand what you mean. Semantically speaking you're right, but that's clearly not what the rules are intented to mean. Also, not all stun damage is physical. For example, when you take drain damage from casting a spell (if you don't overcast of course), there is absolutely no physical effect to your body.

You have to understand that with your explanation, everywhere in the book where it states "physical damage", you'd have to read "physical AND stun damage", and there would be no purely physical damage anymore. It just doesn't make sense from a rule perspective.

No, I get it... I was just offering up another point of view... that is all...
As for the text... I would say that the "fluff" of the discussion was what was at stake, not the mechanics... according to the mechanical aspect of the entry, it does only state "damage"... with the option that I offerred, it would then make complete sense for those who choose to interpret that the Platelet Factories work against all damage, not just the Physical Track...

As for the Stun damage of Drain, you could explain that in any number of ways ... yet it still has a direct physical effect on the body... burst blood vessels in the brain are just as deadly at the "Stun Level" as they would be at the "Lethal Physical Level"

Semantics, Yes... But I Could not resist...

Sorry...

[Ayeohx]

Wow. This is the longest "Beat of Muspellsheimr" post I've seen yet. And we're up to 50+ post on this issue? Really?

A capital letter tends to notate a proper noun, right? And being that we have something in the game named "Physical damage" we could assume this its speaking of the Physical damage track. It they were referring to physical damage in general they would have used a lowercase letter.

And as someone else mentioned, the word "Physical" was added in SR4A. Almost as if they were trying to reinforce that it applies to the Physical damage track.

Oh, and someone may want to ask a dev. Evidently this is one of those really tough to understand rules. Or we can shoot for 50 more post. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Chibu]

100 pointless posts ftw! Let's do it! =D

[deek]

I'm good for keeping it going to 100:)

Honestly, we know that devs peruse this board as well as other "official" types. This has all been kept quite civil and based on the first 50 posts, we are not going to resolve anything. This seems like a perfect opportunity for a dev to either answer the question or ask around the "office" and get an official answer and post it here.

Unless of course, this thread is a topic of humor in dev-land:) I know if I was on the other side, I'd be laughing at it...

[Chibu]

Well, obviously. I'm laughing at, and I'm not even a dev (I should be though. Hey, CGL, if you ever want to make more SR2 books, give me a call, eh?) ^-^

[Zurai]

Wow. This is the longest "Beat of Muspellsheimr" post I've seen yet. And we're up to 50+ post on this issue? Really?

A capital letter tends to notate a proper noun, right? And being that we have something in the game named "Physical damage" we could assume this its speaking of the Physical damage track. It they were referring to physical damage in general they would have used a lowercase letter.

And as someone else mentioned, the word "Physical" was added in SR4A. Almost as if they were trying to reinforce that it applies to the Physical damage track.

Oh, and someone may want to ask a dev. Evidently this is one of those really tough to understand rules. Or we can shoot for 50 more post. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

No one is misunderstanding the Rules As Intended. What Musspellheimr and I are pointing out is that the Rules As Written do not support the Rules As Intended, and the SR4A "fix" was done incredibly poorly.

[deek]

No one is misunderstanding the Rules As Intended. What Musspellheimr and I are pointing out is that the Rules As Written do not support the Rules As Intended, and the SR4A "fix" was done incredibly poorly.

I wouldn't speak for Muss on that. I don't recall him giving into what the rules intended...

I see both of you subjectively shading parts of text as fluff or rules, and then after personally defining a few words as fluff, dictating that it "can't be so" because fluff is ignored. Your whole debate is based of classifying specific text as fluff. Not to mention focusing on one sentence without the context of the preceding one. Its a very Socratic move...

Granted, this has nothing to do with the actual outcome of the rules. Individual GMs are going to pick one way or another. Nothing preventing that. And if the devs chime in one way or another, we'll still have GMs that chose how to play it.

I'm just here for the academic debate, at this point.

[Zurai]

I see both of you subjectively shading parts of text as fluff or rules, and then after personally defining a few words as fluff, dictating that it "can't be so" because fluff is ignored. Your whole debate is based of classifying specific text as fluff.

Really? Please show an example of me doing that, because to be quite blunt, you're making that up.

[Rusted Scrap Met...]

I got bored and wandered over to the military thread...

[deek]

Really? Please show an example of me doing that, because to be quite blunt, you're making that up.

We are talking about two sentences this entire thread. Muss makes it quite clear (see post # eight) that he believes the first sentence is fluff. So, ignores any information in it and focuses entirely on the second as the basis of his argument.

You recently mentioned that Muss and you were not misunderstanding the RAI. I took that to mean you agreed with him, but going back, you're stance in post #32, admits that the first sentence is a hybrid. Its mostly fluff with a rule term embedded. So, I'll remove you from the lump I put you in with Muss.

Even so, you are subjectively choosing what is fluff and what is crunch. While each use common sense to determine what passages are fluff and what are crunch, we're still being subjective. And for that first sentence, in particular, there's pretty solid evidence that it is both fluff and crunch. Those that want to ignore that fact focus solely on the second sentence and say because the first is fluff, it should be ignored and have no bearing on the second...

[Zurai]

Actually, all I've been saying this whole time is that the Rules As Written are NOT clear-cut, and that the SR4A fix was a really silly solution to the problem. It's even sillier because it's about 2/3 of the way to the correct (or at least a correct) solution -- they just put the word in the wrong damn place. Placing the rule term Physical damage in the first sentence without providing any game mechanics around it leaves the interpretation of the rest of the game mechanics open. If, instead, they had added Physical to the explicit game mechanics, we wouldn't be having this debate. Same word, same intention, two entirely different actual effects. That's a boo-boo in instructional writing.

[deek]

Actually, all I've been saying this whole time is that the Rules As Written are NOT clear-cut, and that the SR4A fix was a really silly solution to the problem. It's even sillier because it's about 2/3 of the way to the correct (or at least a correct) solution -- they just put the word in the wrong damn place. Placing the rule term Physical damage in the first sentence without providing any game mechanics around it leaves the interpretation of the rest of the game mechanics open. If, instead, they had added Physical to the explicit game mechanics, we wouldn't be having this debate. Same word, same intention, two entirely different actual effects. That's a boo-boo in instructional writing.

Okay, well, that's not what Muss has been saying the whole time. He said they are clear-cut and that because of the second sentence, it reduces all damage. The first sentence, which in his opinion is all fluff, mentioning Physical damage, is ignored.

I agree with what you are saying. But I still think there would be a debate going if the second sentence had Physical added. Muss said he wouldn't argue that. You say it would be clear, but I am sure some player out there would look at the first sentence and use it to put in some doubt on just what damage was reduced...

[Muspellsheimr]

I wouldn't speak for Muss on that. I don't recall him giving into what the rules intended...

Actually, I have brought that up. Honestly, I do not give a damn what the rules as intended are - either they match the rules as written, or they do not, and in this case, they do not (assuming it is to have it not apply to Stun damage, which seems to be the case).

[TKDNinjaInBlack]

Geez, I don't want to get involved in a rules debate, but if anyone has a basic understanding of the English language, they should know that when reading a paragraph, all sentences following the previous ones should take those into context. It's basic writing and reading comprehension. When a writer wants a reader to ignore or remove what was previously written from context, they start a new paragraph. "Physical Damage" is a proper game term that refers to damage that is recorded on the Physical condition monitor, and sets the context for the following sentence.

The guys at Catalyst don't want to insult our intelligence. They know we know better than to ignore context (That's something we learn in elementary school). This seriously doesn't need a debate. It just sounds like some wishful thinking and ignoring context to abuse the rules in a players favor. That's All.

[Chibu]

Geez, I don't want to get involved in a rules debate, but if anyone has a basic understanding of the English language, they should know that when reading a paragraph, all sentences following the previous ones should take those into context. It's basic writing and reading comprehension. When a writer wants a reader to ignore or remove what was previously written from context, they start a new paragraph. "Physical Damage" is a proper game term that refers to damage that is recorded on the Physical condition monitor, and sets the context for the following sentence.

The guys at Catalyst don't want to insult our intelligence. They know we know better than to ignore context (That's something we learn in elementary school). This seriously doesn't need a debate. It just sounds like some wishful thinking and ignoring context to abuse the rules in a players favor. That's All.

Sure, but the first paragraph of your post was obviously only fluff, so it doesn't really mean anything XD

[toturi]

Based on SR4 with only the quote from OP as a reference to SR4A:

While Physical damage is a proper game term, so is damage in and of itself. When damage is used without qualifiers, it too is a defined game term.

Therefore even when we do read the paragraph in context, the lack of the Physical damage qualifier in the second sentence is conspicuous in its absence. When the paragraph is read in the wider context of the game rules, the first sentence does not contradict the RAW definition of damage in the second either.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Therefore even when we do read the paragraph in context, the lack of the Physical damage qualifier in the second sentence is conspicuous in its absence.

Not necessarily.

[darthmord]

I choose to apply Occam's Razor to most things like this. The simplest solution is typically the right one.

Platelet Factories reduce Physical damage, not Stun. If it were to reduce Stun Damage, it would have said such clearly (by using all Damage or including the words 'Stun Damage').

Couple that with previous editions clearly stating it was for reducing physical damage only. It's not hard to determine the intent.

That said, the passage could have been written a bit more clearly... Platelet factories reduce Physical Damage by removing 1 point of the damage taken when you take 2 or more boxes of Physical Damage.

[Zormal]

At the risk of resurrecting a heated argument that's already cooling down, I have a question...

Why does a 'fluff' paragraph have no bearing on the game? Shouldn't everything work according to fluff, in general?

And where does this hard cut between what you should and shouldn't ignore come from, and how do you decide which is which? I have a hard time making any separation. I thought that the whole text explained how Platelet Factories work.

For example...

[ Spoiler ]

This spell allows the subject to analyze the purpose and operation of a
device or piece of equipment within range of the sense. The caster must
gain enough hits on the Spellcasting Test to beat the item’s Object
Resistance (p. 183). Each net hit gives the subject a bonus die while
operating the device, and allows the subject to ignore any skill defaulting
modifiers for using the device while the spell is sustained.

Would you read this spell description in the same way (first fluff, then mechanics) and say that the caster won't get any information on the purpose of a device, he'll just get bonus dice in the operation? As in... he'll have no idea what the thing is or what is its purpose, he'll just know how to work it better.

If the example confuses you, or doesn't fit... just ignore it. It was just the first thing that caught my eye. I'm guessing there would be numerous examples.

[Zurai]

At the risk of resurrecting a heated argument that's already cooling down, I have a question...

Why does a 'fluff' paragraph have no bearing on the game? Shouldn't everything work according to fluff, in general?

Go look in the SIN thread for details of why this is a question that can never be answered "Yes".

In short, there is absolutely no way to make the fluff match up perfectly with the rules, and many ways in which the fluff is wildly divergent from the rules. Using the fluff to govern the rules, or vice versa, just leads you into a confused muddle of a game that no one will enjoy. You have to divorce the two then use the fluff to flavor the rules in order to get everything to work right, and even then you often have to house rule or reimagine the fluff.

[Cthulhudreams]

What beats me about this entire discussion is why they didn't move the physical from the first sentence to the second one. Then it even makes the sentence read more nicely. Note: I think platelet factories only limit physical damage.

[Chibu]

I think the main issue with all of this is that they decided to take all of the description and mechanics from a 2 paragraph text in the original and tried to fit it into two sentences. It's entirely possible that (i mean, i'm not them or anything, so i don't know for sure) they assumed that everyone would already know what platelets does, since it's been around forever, so to save space all they did was add the updated rules (about taking 2 boxes instead of "M" damage). Obviously, this is not the case, since alot of people started playing when 4th came out. Apparently this was confusing though, even after they added an errata for it. (But seriously, no one makes an errata to add a word that has no meaning to the rules...)