What happens if physical damage also causes stun damage? Options

[Voran]

Proposed houserule: every point of physical damage taken also deals 1 point of stun damage. The stun condition monitor is now 8 + (Body + Willpower)/2. This does not apply for physical damage caused by stun damage overflowing the stun condition monitor. Optionally, dice penalties from damage can be no longer cumulative -- only the higher of the stun or physical tracks apply.

The goal is to avoid the situation where a punch would have knocked someone out (the target had taken lots of stun damage), but because the attacker had bone lacings, it doesn't in fact knock the person out. Alternatively, Tanky McTank took a bunch of stun damage and but no physical damage, so he takes off some of his armor so he'll take physical damage from the bullets. Not only is this annoying from a gaming perspective, it's also tough to wrap my head around from a realism perspective. If the trauma of a normal punch is enough to knock you out, the trauma from a harder punch should also be enough to knock you out, no?

Other effects of this change:

Stun damage is slightly worse since people will have more boxes on the stun track. Combat with only stun damage will last a bit longer.

Physical damage is a bit better. It becomes a lot better if dice penalties are cumulative across tracks.

Armor and armor penetration becomes much more important.

Body is slightly better now. Tanks wouldn't need a high Willpower for their condition monitor, but it's still useful for other things.

Split the damage called shot would need to be reworked somehow.

Anything else? Is there any reason why this would be an awful idea?

Brief question, why aren't you punching Tanky McTank in the head when they do this. The player I mean, not the character.

[xsansara]

Duh!

The reason for house rules is mainly, so I don't have to punch my players.

[quentra]

Why would you want to punch your players anyway? The whole thing is a bit absurd, sure, but thus is RAW.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Duh!

The reason for house rules is mainly, so I don't have to punch my players.

I will just leave this here...

Just Because you CAN do something, it does not mean you SHOULD do something.

Talk to your problem players, explain your position and, if the players are good players, they will listen and adjust to the game being run. The rules allow a wide margin of play styles, not all of them are appropriate for each group. *shrug*

[Shemhazai]

Some house rule craziness I thought of: Taking a large amount of damage in one strike can do a blend of damage. The ratio is determined by some number (x), which means that every xth point of damage is in the other column.

Some examples:

A punch from a very strong person against a frail person, let's say STR 8, it hits with three net hits, DV 11S. Against an armor jacket (12), it's stun damage, and the guy gets BOD 3 + 12 = 15 dice and rolls 5 hits for 6 total damage. This is a huge hit. If x = 3, then every third point of damage would go on the physical track, so it would look like SSPSSP for a total of four stun and two physical damage. Maybe something was broken.

A club. Final DV 9S. Wearing armor clothing (6), with BOD, 3 hits for 6 damage. If x = 2, then every second point would go on the stun track; PSPSPS for 3 physical and 3 stun.

A sword. Let's say same results as with the club, but x = 3, so it would be PPSPPS for 4 physical and 2 stun.

Monofilament whip. 10 damage, x = 4: PPPSPPPSPP: 8 physical 2 stun.

Higher values of x mean that the damage tends to remain on the track as per RAW. Lower values are more split between the two tracks. So boxing gloves and weapons that can let you watch yourself disintegrate would have high x values. Fists and blades would have medium values. Clubs, low values.

Originally, I thought of this as a way to make large amounts of magical drain spread across both tracks. I thought it was weird that you don't get any stun while cooking your insides.

[xsansara]

@Tymeus and quentra:

House rules are just a concise and neutral way to talk to players about certain kinds of unwanted behavior. Much more efficient than talking to everyone individually. Also more fair, since everyone is talked to.


Aside from that: I am guiltly of abusing this logic hole for 4 editions now (never played 1st). Overcasting on purpose with an almost full stun track. It is the only logical option and I have done it. Repeatedly. With PC and NPC alike. No GM ever punched me, though. It is just a game.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Aside from that: I am guiltly of abusing this logic hole for 4 editions now (never played 1st). Overcasting on purpose with an almost full stun track. It is the only logical option and I have done it. Repeatedly. With PC and NPC alike. No GM ever punched me, though. It is just a game.

And yet your actions are still not logical, from a Character's Perspective. *shrug*

[PriorityKarmaGen]

Only having one condition track is an interesting idea. If you favor only having one condition monitor, do you still add 1/2 Willpower to it? Two condition monitors allows for different sized condition monitors, and also affects healing.

Brief question, why aren't you punching Tanky McTank in the head when they do this. The player I mean, not the character.

This is not a good rule because it's not clearly defined. When is it OK to try to take physical damage over stun damage, and when is it not OK? The players have to read the GM's mind in order to figure this stuff out. It's like telling a team not to sandbag a game when doing so would improve their bracket. Sometimes it's obvious, but if it's not, how do you tell if they're intentionally sandbagging? Maybe they're just having a bad game, or they're holding back some strategies for a more meaningful game.

Quoting Sirlin on banning stuff:

The thing to be banned must be able to be “completely defined.” Imagine that in a fighting game, repeating a certain sequence of five moves over and over is the best tactic in the game. Further suppose that doing so is “taboo” and that players want to ban it. There is no concrete definition of exactly what must be banned. Can players do three repetitions of the five moves? What about two reps? What about one? What about repeating the first four moves and omitting the fifth? Is that okay? The game becomes a test of who is willing to play as closely as possible to the “taboo tactic” without breaking the (arbitrary) letter of the law defining the tactic.

Or in a first-person shooter game, consider the notion of banning “camping” (sitting in one place for too long). No friendly agreement between the players is necessary for the ban, which at least means it’s enforceable. The server can monitor the positions of players, and it knows exactly who breaks the rule and can hand out penalties accordingly. The ban is enforceable, but the problem is being able to completely define camping. If camping is defined as staying within one zone for 3 minutes, and if it really is the best tactic, then sitting in that zone for 2 minutes 59 seconds becomes the best tactic. It’s a slippery slope because there will always exist camping tactics arbitrarily close to the specific kind of camping that is banned.

Here’s an example of a completely defined game element. In the card game Magic: The Gathering, if a particular card is deemed to be too good, then it is possible to ban it. One can define completely that “that card cannot be used.” There is no fear of players still “sort of” using it, in the same way they could still “sort of” repeat the moves from the fighting game, or “sort of” camp for 2 minutes 59 seconds above. The card is a discrete entity that can feasibly be banned.

A houserule like this makes it very clear what is allowed and disallowed and removes the incentive for the questionable behavior.

And yet your actions are still not logical, from a Character's Perspective. *shrug*

Why not? Is it not logical to take some physical pain to remain conscious and avoid becoming defenseless? People in real life have taken "physical" damage to avoid going unconscious from "stun" damage.

[Draco18s]

Why not? Is it not logical to take some physical pain to remain conscious and avoid becoming defenseless? People in real life have taken "physical" damage to avoid going unconscious from "stun" damage.

And he still almost died from bloodloss before being rescued.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Why not? Is it not logical to take some physical pain to remain conscious and avoid becoming defenseless? People in real life have taken "physical" damage to avoid going unconscious from "stun" damage.

Because that is a metagame decision, which has no place in the game whatsoever. No character in their right mind takes off armor in a gun fight so that they can take physical instead of stun. As a GM, I would stamp down on that behavior, crush it, and then burn it, just to insure that it did not come back. And if a character would overcast for the express purposes of achieving the same result, well, I would treat it the same way. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[RHat]

Because that is a metagame decision, which has no place in the game whatsoever.

If and only if we assume that the out-of-game constructs do not represent anything in game that the character might be aware of.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

If and only if we assume that the out-of-game constructs do not represent anything in game that the character might be aware of.

I will grant you that. I am sure you know which side of the coin I fall on in that Comparison. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[RHat]

I will grant you that. I am sure you know which side of the coin I fall on in that Comparison. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Fair. But it's absolutely possible to interpret it that Stun Drain/Fading represents a very different from of injury than the Physical variety, which does have the advantage of being compatible to the existing rules. Of course, at that point the physical effects of Physical Drain/Fading are probably pretty visible, and pretty disturbing.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Fair. But it's absolutely possible to interpret it that Stun Drain/Fading represents a very different from of injury than the Physical variety, which does have the advantage of being compatible to the existing rules. Of course, at that point the physical effects of Physical Drain/Fading are probably pretty visible, and pretty disturbing.

Indeed, No Doubt. And yes, when my Mages/Technomancers take Physical Drain/Fading, I usually describe somewhat graphic effects, not just a nosebleed (Though I rarely take Physical Drain/Fading (does happen occasionally), as I don't actually like Casting/Threading at levels above Attribute... Might as well just put a gun to the head and pull the trigger), so I understand what you are saying here. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

I usually describe somewhat graphic effects, not just a nosebleed

I am reminded of Hunter x Hunter: Greed Island when Hisoka looks at his mangled hands with a somewhat detached expression. And then makes some comment, in a bored tone of voice, that all of his fingers are broken.

Found it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=playe...EzP5r4#t=12m56s
(And huh, the current series does a number of things better than that series; for one I like the new voice for Hisoka. He is still a raging homosexual pedophile, so at least that didn't change.)

[RHat]

Indeed, No Doubt. And yes, when my Mages/Technomancers take Physical Drain/Fading, I usually describe somewhat graphic effects, not just a nosebleed (Though I rarely take Physical Drain/Fading (does happen occasionally), as I don't actually like Casting/Threading at levels above Attribute... Might as well just put a gun to the head and pull the trigger), so I understand what you are saying here. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Yeah, I've used stuff like burst capillaries and bloody sclera for that before - pretty easy to describe well enough to get across how seriously screwed up the character looks.

[xsansara]

It is absolutely logical. Would you rather watch your team go under doing nothing or take a little pain to make a difference?

The answer is pain, if you are a mage doing shadowruns.

---

I once played in a group where the determinant for physical drain was the number of hits you scored (4th ed.). You have more hits than magic, it is physical, otherwise stun. You could voluntary diminish your hits, though. Also the drain was based on the hits, not the Force. The GM had somehow not understood the concept of Force for spells, he thought the rolled hits were the Force of the spell. This system worked surprisingly well and simple, even for spirits (e.g. you roll 4 hits, your spirit is F4, rolls 8 dice, subtract hits you got from Force and have services; I think there was some special rule to convert extra hits into extra services, like roll 8 hits, choose F6 and get two extra services. And a similar thing for diminishing drain, e.g. you score 7 hits on Fireball, but only use 5 you get some extra on drain (hits or dice, I can't remember)).

Somehow I never got around to use that houserule myself, although it leads to more middle-sized spirits and spells and scales better, which is kind of nice. And it feels more organic than the tactically chosen Force levels. Easier for new players, too, I would think.

Anyway, a houserule like that let you keep the RAW mechanic, but stops the abuse pretty much, because you will fall unconcious, if you roll shit. Also it has the upside of being psychologically friendlier to the players. You roll good, you get something, you don't, you are in the shit. Both can be kind of fun.

This is also the problem I have with limits. They mess with the first part of this equation, although the second part was the one that was broken in 4th IMHO (too easy to get huge pools and not many ways to scale the archievements, in other games you may want to have 10 hits and not getting them is hurtful, not so much in SR4, with its many fixed thresholds and many severely limited counter pools). In 5th therefore both parts of dice-rolling fun are inherently broken (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) Good thing they introduced so much other stuff to let you ignore limits for all practical purposes so in total it is still a good game. Just not of the cinematic kind I prefer.

[Shemhazai]

On in-character reason to overcast when you're almost unconscious is that you're getting desperate.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

On in-character reason to overcast when you're almost unconscious is that you're getting desperate.

Yes, and in game, Desperation works for me... However, what does not work for me are the comments that I often hear of "Damn, I am almost unconscious from stun, guess I will just start Overcasting (or remove my armor, etc) so that I can take Physical Damage instead". THAT does not fly with me. It pushes my buttons to hear something as stupid as that. Becuase no one in their right might mind would say such a thing; if they were at that point, they would be evading and escaping so they could fight another day, not discussing how to prolong their fight by taking Damage that could KILL them in the process.

[xsansara]

I agree with you on the armor thing. Never saw that in-game and I would rule that is takes a lot of time to take of your armor, making it inpractical.

But magic? Desperation and overcast fit much better thematically than desperation and taking off your armor. Why would you overcast in the first place, unless desparate?

Besides, in the movie Knight's Tale, there is a precident of a guy taking off his armor from desperation, so ...