Physical and stun damage, Somtimes stun seems to be worse... Options

[Midas]

There's really no call for that kind of ridiculous condescension, Jake. Especially from someone who admits to being an "asshole player".
Currently, there is no point to *not* using nonlethals. They're better in all ways; that's bad. This has been covered to death here on Dumpshock, so I'm neither expressing a fringe view, nor being unfair when I decline to rehash it.

--
Lanzter, that's still beside the point. The point is that there's KOd and there's not-KOd. It's not a question of how much they notice the wounds or not.

I'm *glad* that non-lethal takedown has its advantages; kudos to the pros who leave the security guards knocked out but alive, and ya boo sucks to the sociopaths who issue the coup de grace to prone opponents is what I say.

As to the wounded half-stunned security guard with his DP penalty, I reiterate what I said earlier about professional rating. Unless you play a game where the NPC mooks are cardboard cutouts just waiting to be mown down by the PCs, unless he is a SWAT-level pro or knows surrender means death, said NPC is going to be looking to surrender or drop a flash-pak and get the hell out of dodge, not shoot back. Problem solved?

[Yerameyahu]

It doesn't affect NPCs, they don't have 2 tracks to begin with. And again, it never was a gameplay issue anyway.

--
It's not pros who take the effort to KO their enemies, though, because it's no effort. It's actually easier and better. It's not a question of whether people *should* use nonlethal. It's the basic and illogical fact that nonlethal measures are superior, even if your goal *is* killing.

[Midas]

It doesn't affect NPCs, they don't have 2 tracks to begin with. And again, it never was a gameplay issue anyway.

I know that many GMs only use one track for NPCs for ease of bookkeeping, but is it an "official" (i.e. RAW) rule, or is it an optional rule?

And if it is the former, why have you been moaning for the last few pages of this thread about how unfair it is that a mook who takes a mixture of Physical and Stun damage is still standing?

[NiL_FisK_Urd]

It is an official rule for non-prime runner NPCs

[The Jake]

There's really no call for that kind of ridiculous condescension, Jake. Especially from someone who admits to being an "asshole player".
Currently, there is no point to *not* using nonlethals. They're better in all ways; that's bad. This has been covered to death here on Dumpshock, so I'm neither expressing a fringe view, nor being unfair when I decline to rehash it.

Firstly, you're the one who started with the condescending comments. If you can't handle the heat, then get out of the kitchen. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Secondly, let me put it another way - will changing the stats on Stick-n-Shock and increasing the drain of Stunbolt balance fix the differences between Stun and Physical damage?

- J.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I've been lurking on this debate for a bit, and something seemed off. I finally turned my thoughts in the direction of why this has never been a problem in my games.

If characters are suffering from wound penalties on both tracks and don't really notice, your game's dice pools may be too big (GASP?). Dice Pools outside the game's intended range will cause unintended effects. In a more reasonably scaled game, the bloke who stayed conscious due to the physical wound should still be mostly incapable due to the extra penalties, if he was already highly stunned.

I'm with Tymeaus Jalynfein here on the interpretation of the damage and the intended consequences of armor.

Thanks Lantzer... Maybe that was a better way to put it than my approach. I have to agree. At our table, the DP's are not monstrous, and so the penalties are pretty significant. Unfortunately, here on Dumpshock, you get 20 different answers to what the "Intended" Dice Pool Range should be. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

See, here's the thing about dice pools:

If you have 10 dice (I'm sure we can all agree that this is intended or below indended) and have 5 stun and 5 physical you have a mere -2 penalty. That leaves you with 8 dice.

On the other hand, if you have 10 dice and 10 stun damage, you have.....0 dice, because you're unconscious.

I don't know about you, but 8 dice is 8 dice more than no dice.

Even at 6P and 6S, you've got 6 dice (and that's still 6 dice more than none).

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

See, here's the thing about dice pools:

If you have 10 dice (I'm sure we can all agree that this is intended or below indended) and have 5 stun and 5 physical you have a mere -2 penalty. That leaves you with 8 dice.

On the other hand, if you have 10 dice and 10 stun damage, you have.....0 dice, because you're unconscious.

I don't know about you, but 8 dice is 8 dice more than no dice.

Even at 6P and 6S, you've got 6 dice (and that's still 6 dice more than none).

But if your DP is 20 Dice, the penalties mean absolutely nothing to you in the long run. 18 Dice trumps 8 Dice (as does 16 over 6).
The point is that to the Guy with 10 Dice Base, a -2 to -4 is significant; to the Guy with 20 Dice, it isn't.

The game assumes DP's from 8-14 for the most part. Determined by Looking at all of the Archetypes and all the Mooks that have been stated. High Threat Rating Mooks are around 15-17 Dice (Tir Ghosts). These should be a threat, and are, if your running the assumed DP's of 8-14 Base Dice in your pool.

And Yes, I know a Starting PC can start at much higher DP's (Often higher than 20 even) if they want to do so. *Shrug* I have never seen the need, personally. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

But if your DP is 20 Dice, the penalties mean absolutely nothing to you in the long run. 18 Dice trumps 8 Dice (as does 16 over 6).

Did....did you completely miss my point?

The guy with 20 dice and 6P, 6S will have 16 dice. The guy with 20 dice and 12S will still have 0.

It doesn't matter what the guy's base dice pool is, as long as his damage tracks are split between P and S, he'll be "better off" than if it was "all stun" or "all physical."

This isn't about "guy with 20 dice and 6P, 6S" versus "guy with 10 dice and 6P, 6S."

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Did....did you completely miss my point?

Apparently... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The guy with 20 dice and 6P, 6S will have 16 dice. The guy with 20 dice and 12S will still have 0.

It doesn't matter what the guy's base dice pool is, as long as his damage tracks are split between P and S, he'll be "better off" than if it was "all stun" or "all physical."

Which has ALWAYS been my point. Split damage is better than non-split damage, for the guy taking the damage. Not so much for the guy inflicting it. Which I fully believe is by design.

This isn't about "guy with 20 dice and 6P, 6S" versus "guy with 10 dice and 6P, 6S."

The point was that many tables see it as more of a problem (your Split damage) because the high dice pools make it not matter at all, compared to what the game assumes. It is all linked. Of course Unconsciousness is worse than having remaining dice, No arguments there. But when your table is sporting characters with massive dice pools, the penalties for the stun/physical damage taken are insignificant. Your abilities are not really all that impacted, which leads to the "I'm not hurt, I will shoot till I drop" menatlity. It is this mentality that seems to cause the problems... the "Hey, I shot at him, he did not go down, and now he is shooting back at me" complaints that have been going on. You know, those complaints that are still only theoretical, rather than actually happening in game. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

No worries Draco18s. It was just an observation of Lantzer's that I happen to agree with. Dice Pool size actually matters in this discussion because it has a direct correlation to the perception of the theoretical issue. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

Which has ALWAYS been my point. Split damage is better than non-split damage, for the guy taking the damage. Not so much for the guy inflicting it. Which I fully believe is by design.

Wait wait wait wait.

NO... Physical Damage HURTS me much more than Stun Damage Does. I can never see a time where I would be grateful to have Physical Damage over Stun Damage. But then, I do not care if I am captured or not.

Easy... I just say No. More successes does not equal a worse result. It equals a Better result. ie. From Stun Damage to Physical Damage. It sucks to be the guy taking the Physical Damage now instead of the Stun, but there you go. If He takes more Stun damage instead (The worse reslut I imagine you are talking about), then he goes unconscious. This is NOT BAD. It is exactly why characters wear armor. SO THEY DO NOT DIE.

Context Matters Max... Bleeding is always better than bruised, from the shooter's standpoint. If you are going to make the target bleed, then make him bleed. But you cannot argue that because the round impacted on the armor the first few times and the third time you actually penetrated and caused real wounds that the system sucks. It functions as it was intended to function. Armor keeps wounds from being lethal, boith in the real world and in Shadowrun. If you don't like it, then use a round that either causes Stun all the time, or use ammo that will reliably penetrate armor. That is Life, both in the Shadows and outside of them. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Am I the only one seeing this?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Wait wait wait wait.

Am I the only one seeing this?

Nope... I have always contended the Defender wants Split damage (He actually counts upon it, if he is using armor, since armor is never 100% effective, which would lead to always taking stun); while the Shooter wants a single track. Look back, you will see that is exactly what I have said in the past.

Now, as a Shooter, I am always looking to KILL the target, assuming I am actually using lethal rounds. That being the case, I prefer my target to Bleed, which is Physical Damage, which means that more successes IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE BETTER THAN LESS SUCCESSES for my intended purpose. Arguing otherwise falls back into that purely Theoretical BS area that is Metagaming.

AS a Defender, I would MUCH rather take STUN damage over PHYSICAL. Why? Because Physical sucks, and I do not care if the character gets captured. Leads to more runs, after all.

AGAIN... MORE SUCCESSES does not equal a WORSE Result. How many times do I need to say that? Physical IS an objectively Better Result than Stun ALWAYS.

BLEEDING IS ALWAYS A BETTER RESULT than NOT-BLEEDING form a Shooter Standpoint if his intent is to cause harm. Period.

I have NOT changed my position, Draco18s... Go back and actually read what I wrote, rather than cherry picking for a result.

[thorya]

Wait wait wait wait.





Am I the only one seeing this?

You're not. If you go back, first there was no problem. Then there is a problem but it's just metagaming and the mechanics are perfect. But TJ doesn't metagame so it's not a problem in his games and if his players try he just tells them no and doesn't allow it (which to me sounds like fixing a mechanical problem, but I could just misunderstand). Then there is no problem again. And at one point he mentions that he builds his characters to take advantage of the "sweet spot" at 8-10 where some of the attacks get through the armor but most don't, which regardless of how you justify it with in character reasoning about encumbrance is still metagaming since there are ways to get more armor than that which do not encumber you. It's why I gave up on this discussion. I swear it seems like the only position that TJ has actually held onto is that everyone else is wrong and that he likes arguing. But it's the internet, what are you going to do? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif) He's entitled to argue his incorrect position however he wants. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

You're not. If you go back, first there was no problem. Then there is a problem but it's just metagaming and the mechanics are perfect. But TJ doesn't metagame so it's not a problem in his games and if his players try he just tells them no and doesn't allow it (which to me sounds like fixing a mechanical problem, but I could just misunderstand). Then there is no problem again. And at one point he mentions that he builds his characters to take advantage of the "sweet spot" at 8-10 where some of the attacks get through the armor but most don't, which regardless of how you justify it with in character reasoning about encumbrance is still metagaming since there are ways to get more armor than that which do not encumber you. It's why I gave up on this discussion. I swear it seems like the only position that TJ has actually held onto is that everyone else is wrong and that he likes arguing. But it's the internet, what are you going to do? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif) He's entitled to argue his incorrect position however he wants. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

It is not an Issue Thorya. There is no problem. Never was. IT IS ALL THEORY. I never complained that it was a problem for the Case B guy to be up. Look back. Not Once. I always claimed it was the expected situation from normal armor useage. I build my characters to Armor 8-10 because that is what they can support, and I fully expect that the Armor WILL get penetrated, Leaving me in Case B Territory.

AS for Encumbrance, it is not metagaming, it is just a bad choice. You can opt to have enough armor to attempt to saok everything (and yes, even non-encumbering, assuming you have the resources for such things, not all do), and I have seen that in play. You likely take stun from that decision (not an issue, per se, you just go unconscious when your Stun Track is full) and will never take Physical (Bonus, who wants to take Physical Damage, after all). I have always contended that the Defender, assuming he is using non-encumbering armor, is generally under the assumption that his armor will not stop everything. Because that is the case, he will likely take SOME physical damage. Sucks, but expected. Therefore, he is likely to be in the "Case B" of the original discussions, with some damage on the stun track and some on the physical, which, from a gaming perspective is surviveable (not optimal, to be sure; optimal would be to be unwounded), as that gives him a chance to get away, rather than being unconscious (Captured or killed outright afterwards) or dead. Of the 3 cases, conscious and somewhat mobile is preferrable to unconscious and dead. OTHERS, Including yourself apparently, HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS. I DO NOT.

Again, to be Clear. I AM OKAY WITH SPLIT DAMAGE ON 2 TRACKS. Not once have I said any different. The metagtaming BS that eventually comes into the discussion is the OP position about WANTING to take damage on the Physical. NO, NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE PHYSICAL DAMAGE. Saying that a character prefers such is complete BS (The PLAYER wants that, not the Character; which is why it is Metagaming BS), as many have agreed. The Problem, as I remember it, is that there are a few that think the THEORETICAL ISSUE has teeth, and should be corrected. I say it does not need correction, because the Theroeticall issue is just that, theoretical; it is never actually seen in play.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled debate topic. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

I'll just put these two next to each other, then shake my head, and cease trying to have a rational argument.

Nope... I have always contended the Defender wants Split damage (He actually counts upon it, if he is using armor, since armor is never 100% effective, which would lead to always taking stun); while the Shooter wants a single track. Look back, you will see that is exactly what I have said in the past.

NO... Physical Damage HURTS me much more than Stun Damage Does. I can never see a time where I would be grateful to have Physical Damage over Stun Damage. But then, I do not care if I am captured or not.

Because over here in Rational World, we've always contended that the defender wants to split damage, and that it was a worse result for the shooter if the defender got that choice, to which you said NO NO NO, YOU ALWAYS LIKE SPLIT DAMAGE AS A SHOOTER. Can't have it both ways, Captain Irrational.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I'll just put these two next to each other, then shake my head, and cease trying to have a rational argument.

Because over here in Rational World, we've always contended that the defender wants to split damage, and that it was a worse result for the shooter if the defender got that choice, to which you said NO NO NO, YOU ALWAYS LIKE SPLIT DAMAGE AS A SHOOTER. Can't have it both ways, Captain Irrational.

Again, I (as a character) am not Grateful for the Physical Damage, But I DO expect it (and if you cannot recognize the differfence in those two statements, well...). I do not go out of my way to seek it out, nor do I prefer it. I prefer Stun. But in the World of Shadowrun, I expect to take a mix of Stun and Physical Damage when engaged in a firefight (Assuming I am wearing Armor).

And no, What I said was that the SHOOTER PREFERS PHYSICAL DAMAGE (assuming he is using lethal means), so in the case where he casues it (The Split Damage you keep referring to), it was not a WORSE EFFECT; it is, in fact, a BETTER EFFECT than stun, and what the shooter was intending in the first place. Please, if you are going to parphrase me, do it right. You are trying to use arguments from one point to support another, and that dog won't hunt.

If the Shooter preferred STUN he would be using Non-Lethal means to inflict it, and that is a different argument all together.

No need for the name calling Draco18s. Just remain civil and we will get along fine. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

And no, What I said was that the SHOOTER PREFERS PHYSICAL DAMAGE (assuming he is using lethal means)

Nice assumption that turned everyone into complete asses ("assume makes an ASS of yoU and ME")

Because you're the only person to have made that assumption, to the point of ignoring the contradicting, "that's not what we're assuming" statements.

Our STATED position: knock the guy out of the fight ASAP
Your assumption: must only kill people.

[thorya]

Therefore, he is likely to be in the "Case B" of the original discussions, with some damage on the stun track and some on the physical, which, from a gaming perspective is surviveable (not optimal, to be sure; optimal would be to be unwounded), as that gives him a chance to get away, rather than being unconscious (Captured or killed outright afterwards) or dead. Of the 3 cases, conscious and somewhat mobile is preferrable to unconscious and dead. OTHERS, Including yourself apparently, HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS. I DO NOT.

Again, to be Clear. I AM OKAY WITH SPLIT DAMAGE ON 2 TRACKS. Not once have I said any different. The metagtaming BS that eventually comes into the discussion is the OP position about WANTING to take damage on the Physical. NO, NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE PHYSICAL DAMAGE. Saying that a character prefers such is complete BS (The PLAYER wants that, not the Character; which is why it is Metagaming BS), as many have agreed. The Problem, as I remember it, is that there are a few that think the THEORETICAL ISSUE has teeth, and should be corrected. I say it does not need correction, because the Theroeticall issue is just that, theoretical; it is never actually seen in play.

If being conscious and somewhat mobile is preferrable to being unconscious, wouldn't it mean that you want that to happen? And if taking physical damage rather than stun damage makes that happen, than you want physical damage rather than stun. ??

I think everyone else just wants rules where the PLAYER and the CHARACTER want the same thing. Also, it doesn't have to be metagaming BS. (and I think this is the part that keeps dragging me back into this argument, that you seem to think that players assessing possible consequences is cheating somehow or that you think your game is better because you don't see any disconnects with the rules) I think if you were to ask many criminals if they would rather be seriously hurt and get away from the police or be caught and not hurt, they would choose the first option. (even without the threat of mage masks and cranium bombs)

I get that you think the rules model the real world, but I simply do not believe that in the real world a guy wearing a bullet proof vest that stops 4 bullets is more likely to fall unconscious than a guy where 2 of them get through. Or that giving yourself an aneurysm is less likely to knock you out than giving yourself a worse headache. We can disagree on that. The rules are abstract anyway. When those borderline cases come up they can be dealt with or I can apply some of the fixes discussed here (@everyone else, I have liked several of the ideas brought up. Might give the chemical track a go).

[Sponge]

Nice assumption that turned everyone into complete asses ("assume makes an ASS of yoU and ME")

Because you're the only person to have made that assumption, to the point of ignoring the contradicting, "that's not what we're assuming" statements.

Actually the whole thread assumes using lethal means, because otherwise you don't do Physical damage when you bypass armor (not counting overflowing stun).

[snowRaven]

I think if you were to ask many criminals if they would rather be seriously hurt and get away from the police or be caught and not hurt, they would choose the first option. (even without the threat of mage masks and cranium bombs)

Definately. Wounds heal; being arrested and found guilty of a number of takes away years of freedom (or even gets you killed, epending on the crime and the jurisdiction...).

For most criminals, even severe injuries will be preferrable to arrest, unless the crime was minor and you just need a few months of room and board.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Nice assumption that turned everyone into complete asses ("assume makes an ASS of yoU and ME")

Because you're the only person to have made that assumption, to the point of ignoring the contradicting, "that's not what we're assuming" statements.

Our STATED position: knock the guy out of the fight ASAP
Your assumption: must only kill people.

I have made the assumption of KILLING your opponent as the goal, the entire time (after all, you are using ammunition that KILLS). That is WHY you use Lethal Rounds after all, Not to Knock them out of the fight ASAP, but to kill them. In the real world, someone gets shot, they likely stop fighting. Regardless of the amount of damage inflicted, because, you know, they do not want to actually die. It is rare for someone to fight to the death.

If your stated goal is to Knock them out of the fight ASAP, lethal means is not the way to go... AND I STATED THAT AS WELL, Many posts ago.

I originally stopped repl;ying to random posts because the arguments were incompatible. My argument is that Taking Physical Damage is NEVER a Worse effect than taking Stun (The Damage is always going to be better than if it was stun, so how can it be worse). It is only an undesireable effect, from the shooters perspective, because the shooter wants the target to go down. The counter argument (Yours and many others, IIRC) is that applying Physical Damage to A target with Stun (or Vice Versa) due to the intgeraction of Shooter successes and Armor value creates a disconnect, because now, the Shooter receives an undesireable effect (Target is still up due to split damage), and was counter to his intended goal (To take the target down ASAP). Unfortunately for that Argument, Armor tends to extend such engangements out, BECAUSE they have the potential to split that damage. And Yes, it is generally because a Shooter gets more or less successes due to the vagaries of the system. I have always accepted this, because that is what armor's role is in the game. To mitigate damage. SOmetimes it succeeds well (And elimiknates it or converts it to stun) and sometimes it does not (Wearer takes Physical Damage).

My point has always been that that is OKAY. It is not a Worse Effect, it is just unbdesireable, form the SHooter's Perspective. IF he was serious about Rendering the target Incapable of action, he would be using Stun Effects, rather than Lethal (Physical) effects. So, you see, you are arguiong the wrong point here.

Instead of arguing that the tendency for Armor to potentially split the damage across two tracks is broken, or unintended (WHich I do not think is the case), you should be arguing that the shooter is not using his resources for his stated goals. Because that is exactly what is going on here. If the Goal is to Take Down Fastest, Lethal means are not the way to go. If your goal is to Kill your Target, Lethal is the way to go, unless you want to take them down first, and then execute them. Sorry, but I fall into the First category. If my intention is to kill the target, I use lethal means, EVEN IF I KNOW AS A PLAYER that STUN effects might work better. There is a big difference between killing (or not) based upon the vagaries of combat, and an Execution. I am sure you understand that.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Actually the whole thread assumes using lethal means, because otherwise you don't do Physical damage when you bypass armor (not counting overflowing stun).

Of course, but then the argument falls apart, because the character/player is not using the best/fastest means to incapacitate the target. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Definately. Wounds heal; being arrested and found guilty of a number of takes away years of freedom (or even gets you killed, epending on the crime and the jurisdiction...).

For most criminals, even severe injuries will be preferrable to arrest, unless the crime was minor and you just need a few months of room and board.

Also True, which is why they often wear Body Armor (when they can get it). Why? Because it may allow them to escape instead of being captured. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I get that you think the rules model the real world, but I simply do not believe that in the real world a guy wearing a bullet proof vest that stops 4 bullets is more likely to fall unconscious than a guy where 2 of them get through. Or that giving yourself an aneurysm is less likely to knock you out than giving yourself a worse headache. We can disagree on that. The rules are abstract anyway. When those borderline cases come up they can be dealt with or I can apply some of the fixes discussed here (@everyone else, I have liked several of the ideas brought up. Might give the chemical track a go).

And yes, I agree... The cases being discussed are almost purely theoretical. They are EDGE cases at best. I have never seen it crop up in a game. And from most of the other participants here, niether have they. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[thorya]

My argument is that Taking Physical Damage is NEVER a Worse effect than taking Stun.

I think you mean the opposite of that. (giving you the benefit of the doubt)