I find myself not wanting to worry about wound cards and severly injured characters from one adventure to another so I've been letting them heal up and then pick up the game "a few weeks" later in game time.

During a adventure however I do make them keep their wounds.

Anyone else doing this? Any possible problems?

Sinister said:

My players keep their wounds. Especially that severity 5 wound can be tricky to get over. If they fail getting over a critical wound several times I make it permanent and they effectively lose a wound point and return the critical wound to the deck.

Sinister said:

I've certainly considered it. I haven't had players badly injured, but I have a group with a very cautious leader. I suspect if I left them with tons of wounds, they'd spend a big chunk of the next session trying to figure out how to get them healed before doing anything. It hasn't come to that, yet, but if it happens more than once, I'll probably go with your solution.

I would think it would depend on the pace of the game. If from one session to the next it is reasonable to say that the party had time to rest and heal then sure, the next session could start weeks or whatever later. This would actually be realistic since no group is likely to go charging off on another adventure while they still have busted arms etc.

But if the next session takes off right where the previous one left off then of course they should keep their wounds/conditions etc.

Grashnak said:

That's of course assuming the world is willing to wait for you to heal from your wounds. In the games I play in (WFRP and others) the game world keeps on ticking during and after an adventure is completed. So the main antagonist will not be waiting for the PC's to heal up, and events will change as time flows by.

My players react better when under pressure, so I like to keep the world moving despite their injuries. I also like putting in their hands the decision of whether or not something becomes an adventure.

Maybe they refuse to answer the cries for help against an encroaching beastman menace because they're still hurt from their last adventure. Their inaction will lead the rampaging beastmen to a village that is crucial to some plot point. So maybe they step in at that point, or maybe they keep on resting. In the end, I like it when they bury their own graves or through their inactions cause the world to change irrevocably.

Sometimes, they just won't be able to help, even if they wish they could. Which I think adds to the grim & gritty setting: you can't always help everyone.

And none of that would be possible if wounds didn't linger, they'd always be fresh and ready to go!

Just remember that part of the WFRP grittiness and danger is the fact that Wounds and Criticals *do* accumulate over time of hard adventuring. Starting with fewer wounds and a few criticals makes combat that much more potentially deadly. Take a Trollslayer (T4, W 15). Normally, it would take 15 wounds and 5 criticals to kill him. Almost impossible to be killed in a single blow, and very rare for 2 hits to kill him. Now, start him with 4 Wounds and 2 are criticals. Now all it takes is 11 Wounds and 3 criticals to kill him. Remember, going unconscious adds +1 critical... so the attack actually needs to only inflict 2 criticals. 16 Wounds with 2 criticals is not particularly rare for some opponents to dish out in a single blow, and much more dangerous given two or more attacks.

Lexicanum said:

This rings especially true for me and how I view the proper atmosphere of Warhammer. Sometimes the PCs have to make tough decisions and sometimes those decisions are regrettable but life, as they say, goes on. That can make for some really incredible roleplaying opportunities. Imagine a group of street thugs harrassing a young peasant girl and a good-hearted soldier steps up, clutching the side of his blood-stained tunic to say, "Look here you filth! Which of you wants to be the first to wet my blade? Or can I trust you to leave the lady in peace?"

One of the things that most bothered me about D&D4E was the "overnight insta-heal" rules. The effects of wounds (especially criticals) should be felt long after the battle is done. It adds another layer of character and your players will tend to really remember those battles that left them with a limp for the next 3 weeks. IMHO.

Bloody Sun Boy said:

Ideally I think most GMs would agree, however, if you forces that on DnD it's system mechanics don't take wounds into consideration so it would be a pc slaughter, something I wish to avoid, even in warhammer, despite the death count being typically higher than DnD.

Sinister said:

I agree. D&D is thematically different than Warhammer and those thematics influence the game design. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just one of the issues I have with the D&D rules and why I play other game systems that better match my preferences.

I don't set out to kill PCs (I like to watch PCs develop and adapt to the world around them) but I do like to use long-term consequences (both positive and negative) in my games and make the players feel like there is real danger every time they draw their swords.