Everyone knows from both DH and RT our arc of fun can be flipping to the Critical Chart, thumbing our way to exact damage done and body part. Then finally as a GM or player reading out what happens to said player as he is hit into negative wounds. Somehow, by my own fault I had always assumed Blood Loss was extremely bad. It was a instant death will a moment of lingering pain. However its not at all.

Since I have been running my game I thought that each round the player passed their 10% death roll for blood loss but someone did not staunch the bleeding that on your next roll it got bumped up by 10%. Therefore, first roll would be 10%, second 20%, third 30%, so on and so on. That seemed 40k to me and I never questioned it. I mean if you look at how grim everything is that seemed logical to me. Instead its just a 10% period. So a player could bleed out for dozens of rounds as long as they had Die Hard (lets you re-roll when rolling on Blood Loss) or if they have a good amount of fortune points.

This might not sounds like a problem but let me give you an example of what happened in my game last night. So group of Assassins attacked my RT last game and were able to critically injure her to a point where she was forced into the Churgeon Wing for a few weeks so she could get a new augmented leg attached and get over the loss of the real leg. Well anyways, the rest of my players with order of the ships captain went into the Rogue Traders room in search for a connection to a system they were heading to (They believed that the RT knew something they didn't. And a connection between the Assassins, Pirates, a unknown space system, and a unknown great treasure). Anyways again! One of my players picked up a ancient box with gold etchings on it made from nalwood. Being the thief/lawbreaker of the party he tried to open it even though it was obviously the RT's. Well it had a thumb print reader that also read the users DNA. If the DNA was not of the RT's family then this same thumb print reader introduced a neurotoxin into the user. Using some of the crazed toxins from ether the DH or RT notebooks that came with the GM Screen the players arm skin boiled and after a few moments of pain expanded and finally his arm exploded (He went into negative 8 wounds on the energy Crit Chart on the arm). So he started to bleed out (Blood Loss). Well by using fortune and Die Hard he was able to last 10 rounds before a medical crew got to him and 2 more rounds before they were able to Stanch his bleeding. Now I'm not sure if 36 seconds is long to bleed out in real life but in this game it seems really long to me. He even had, I want to say 1 more fortune left. So I'm almost sure he could have lasted another 5 rounds.

Anyone else have this problem? Is anyone also like the rule of adding +10% each time? Any one disagree with me on how weak it is?

10 rounds is more like 50 seconds. I don't really know much about the typical rate of blood loss for different injuries, but wikipedia informs me that you die if you loose more than 40% of your blood. 40% is like two or three litres, that an awful lot of bleeding in a short time.

I also belive i've heard that in case of traumatic injury (say you axe yourself in the leg or something) blood vessels constrict to let out less blood, this wears off after a while so some kind of increased danger with time might not be wrong. But 10% cumulative chance of death every five seconds seems waaaay to harsh if it's realism you're after.

How about starting at +-0 every round and start adding -10 every round or every other round after TB rounds of blood loss? It'd give a smaller chance of dying instantly due to bleeding (after all, who's going to loose 40% of their blood in five seconds?) but get really difficult to survive more than a minute.

Or limit die hard in some way, perhaps TB uses per wound or something. Or both.

*edit*

Found a source on the constricting blood vessels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_vasoconstriction

The problem I see is that your player spent XP on Die Hard and now you want to punish them because they didn't die.

Bloodloss, as it is in RT, is a RPG rule. It's designed not to actualy kill the player unless the rest of the party is really stupid. Like the main characters of Black Library novels, the PCs have ego-shields capable of warding off most desaster. Calling the bloodloss realistic or not really depends on the amount of blood being lost per second, which would need different blood loss rules for each type of cut - far to much detail. Game wise, all [blood Loss] means is 'your to injured to survive with out help' not 'your gonna die, just a round later'. Personaly, I'm not a huge fan of killing my player's characters, so it works great for me.

ItsUncertainWho

You might want to reread what I posted. Obviously you didn't get the point.

Quicksilver

I did not say at any point that I wished my players to die the next round due to Blood Loss. What I asked is if it is actually deadly or not. 10 plus rounds on a crit one off from instant death should still be deadly. Therefore they put in Blood Loss. However Blood Loss will not unless the Dice Gods do not shine on your player at all, kill anyone. To your note of not killing your players. I can't agree. If your players don't fear death then why even have combat or danger? I personally see that taking out the most important part of 40k. Life is cheap.

DM Variyn said:

Yes it's quite deadly, once a round toughness tests at -10 or instant death is about as deadly as it gets without being actual instant death. Any additional damage would be lethal and he's already lost an arm.

But he had fate points left, luck, medics nearby and a talent specifically geared towards making that exact situation more survivable. Any three bad rolls in a row would have been a fate burning event no matter the amount of fate points left. It's deadly allright, just not certain doom.

It's not like it's that uncommon to get two bad rolls in a row, so even with die hard he'll be toast unless he gets help within a reasonable timeframe. Like you would expect severe bleeding to work, if there's someone nearby with medical training who can get away from combat you have a decent chance, otherwise you're gonna die.

But like I said, I like the idea of adding difficulty after a while. It's not reasonable to be able to withstand an infinite amount of bleeding with luck, there ought to be some limit.

Limit rerolls to only once per initial test, no matter the source of the reroll. This is kind of an intuitive rule for my group, but it might be something we have brought along from other games and system.

If you do, the blood loss is very deadly, and Die Hard just makes sure you can reroll once each round. You avoid players ending up with insane amounts of rerolls. And even though playing characters aren't likely to miss their rolls in certain situatione, with this rule, there is always a chance of something going wrong.

I appolagize for exagerating to make a point. I realise you didn't say one round, but my point stands that I perfer bloodloss taking longer rather then shorter, and your proposed method makes death extramly likely within 5 rounds. As for a standing 10%, As Grasper pointed out, eventualy you will fail that check. Indeed there's only a 1/3 chance someone would make it to 10 rounds while bleeding.

(Digression:)
I never said I wouldn't kill my players, I said I don't like to. If they take 9+ crit damage to the chest, they'll die, if they voidwalk without a suit, they'll die. But my experance has been, if you make games to deadly, players don't do anything. They play it safe, send minions, or use overwhelming force. As with any experance, your milage may vary, but I'm stating my opinion. I also, personaly, think your missing an important part of 40k, it's a time of heroes. Bastone, Creed, Gaunt - all of these people survive while the masses die around them, because yes life is cheap but there are still great men.

Graspar said:

Grasper

So you know Grasper it is not a -10 Toughness test. That is actually deadlier and after reading it I might change that to it . But what Blood Loss is, is a 10% chance to die a round. Explanation: On a d100 roll the player has to roll ether over 89 or under 11. Depending if they pick highs or lows. That is what Blood Loss is.

Quicksilver

If you would please explain your "1/3" example. Because out of 100 the chance of rolling 10 of the numbers would be 1/10 of a chance to die. That again is not adding re-rolls due to fortune or Die Hard. So for a person with Die Hard and a Fortune they would have to roll a 1 out of 10 roll. Then use Die Hard, again roll 1 out of 10. Then Fortune and roll 1 out of 10. Now they are dead. Well obviously not due to a Fate. However, this is the rough numbers of a death due to Blood Loss.

On the idea of Heroes, I think the fact that they start with Fortune and Fate is what makes them Heroes. The fact that they can re-roll rolls, gain wounds, react at the start of initiative, etc. Not to forget their stats, weapons, armour, and equipment are all better than even the average person. Most importantly the fact that a foe dies at 0 wounds and a player can go to -8 or -9 before dieing.

The number was calculated as the probibility of not rolling within that 10% 10 sequential times. Did not include any 'heroic' effects like fate or Die Hard. Foes also don't nessisaraly die at 0 wounds, that's listed as an optional rule to help speed up play.

Grasper

So you know Grasper it is not a -10 Toughness test. That is actually deadlier and after reading it I might change that to it . But what Blood Loss is, is a 10% chance to die a round. Explanation: On a d100 roll the player has to roll ether over 89 or under 11. Depending if they pick highs or lows. That is what Blood Loss is.

Funnily enough that's what i though blood loss was before re-reading the rule just to make sure i got it right. I must have gotten mixed up by the -10 medicae test to stop it.

So yeah, not quite as deadly as in my example.

It's Grasp a r by the way, lots of people get that wrong.

Quicksilver

If you would please explain your "1/3" example. Because out of 100 the chance of rolling 10 of the numbers would be 1/10 of a chance to die. That again is not adding re-rolls due to fortune or Die Hard. So for a person with Die Hard and a Fortune they would have to roll a 1 out of 10 roll. Then use Die Hard, again roll 1 out of 10. Then Fortune and roll 1 out of 10. Now they are dead. Well obviously not due to a Fate. However, this is the rough numbers of a death due to Blood Loss.

You need two failed tests in a row to die from blood loss if you have fate points but not die hard or vice versa. That's 0.1^2, 1% chance of death every round.

For three failed tests, if you have both die hard and fate points left thats 0.1^3 or 0.1% chance of death each round.

Now, for the chance of living after X rounds, first percentage is with neither die hard or fate points, second is with die hard alone and third is with both die hard and fate points (assuming you have plenty of them), all percentages are rounded to nearest whole percent.

10 rounds 34% 90% 99%

20 rounds 12% 82% 98%

30 rounds 4% 74% 97%

Ok, so there might be a problem with the combination of both die hard and fate points, especially since there's only a 1% chance per round to use fate, so a few points could go a long way.

But just for fun, let's take a look at the odds for 100 rounds of blood loss, which is 8 minutes 20 seconds of severe bleeding.

100 rounds 2.65x10^-5% 0.3% and finally 90%

Yeah, I'm doing a 180 on my stance, blood loss is not lethal, it does nothing if you have both fate points and die hard. If you can survive 100 rounds of it nine times out of ten with three re-rolls it's clearly broken. Yes, it's not realistic to survive for 100 rounds because no-one will have that amount of fate points. But consider that after 30 rounds you'll still have a 74% chance to still have ALL your fate points, living with the help of only die hard. So three fate points and slightly lucky rolls would get you there no problem.

... why is there no "Remove post" button on this forum?

Thanks Grasper for doing the math. I am happy with our "only one re-roll" per test rule.

Yeah, I'm doing a 180 on my stance, blood loss is not lethal, it does nothing if you have both fate points and die hard. If you can survive 100 rounds of it nine times out of ten with three re-rolls it's clearly broken. Yes, it's not realistic to survive for 100 rounds because no-one will have that amount of fate points. But consider that after 30 rounds you'll still have a 74% chance to still have ALL your fate points, living with the help of only die hard. So three fate points and slightly lucky rolls would get you there no problem.

The important condition here being having both Fate Points and Die Hard. I don't know about you, but when my character's wounds hit -8, that's generally a pretty clear sign of having had too few fate points, so I'd consider one or two the most you can hope for in that situation.

As for the OP, I consider blood loss to be deadly enough. In your example, help was there within one minute . Imagine ambulances in our world - "Yeah, we can stop hurrying to the crash site, guys. It's been over two minutes, everyone who was in mortal danger has already croaked."

Cifer said:

Cifer

I'm sorry but its not at all a clear sign of too few fate points. It actually just means that the player was hit with an attack that went past -10 and they used a fortune to make it above -10, meaning they wouldn't die (You can only use one fortune in response of an attack. Basically you can only heal d5 wounds from any given attack. Note: After any attack you can use more. However, gaining back wounds does not stop Blood Loss.)

To the idea of people dieing in two minutes. It happens and is very common for medical assistance to get to a bled out victim of a gun shot or car crash. The main reason they live is due to someone staunching the bleeding or a object forcing the wound closed in the case of car crashes. That's why when you find someone wounded your not suppose to move them. So you don't re-open the wound. This is what stabbing weapons do in real life is open a wound that can't easily be stopped and you bleed internally. That's why you leave such items in arrows, knives, pipes, etc in. Ever seen a cowboy movie where they snap the shaft but not pull out the arrow .

Though as I've seen in your other posts you probably won't agree due to some internet d**k measuring contest.

Everyone Else

I personally kept Blood Loss to how it is except you add +1 to that 10% each round. So a character will die around a max of some 4-5 minutes. This makes it no matter what a player will die sooner or later without medical care, even if they have great rolling skills.

The important condition here being having both Fate Points and Die Hard. I don't know about you, but when my character's wounds hit -8, that's generally a pretty clear sign of having had too few fate points, so I'd consider one or two the most you can hope for in that situation.

Possibly true more often than not. But sometimes it's just bad luck with the dice that caused your bleeding. Anyway, it doesn't really matter if you have one or two, You'll still have a better than even chance to survive 60 rounds with just die hard, at 70 rounds your chance of survival is still 49% with NO fate points.

Sure, 60 rounds is five minutes. But what group is going to have the stamina for checking blood loss once, twice or thrice each round for 60 rounds?

As for the OP, I consider blood loss to be deadly enough. In your example, help was there within one minute. Imagine ambulances in our world - "Yeah, we can stop hurrying to the crash site, guys. It's been over two minutes, everyone who was in mortal danger has already croaked."

Like I said above, who's going to check for blood loss for that long? I'd rather scrap the character than roll that many dice that do nothing but postpone death for five more seconds, in tabletop RPGs there is indeed a fate worse than the death of a character. The boredom of a player!

@Graspar

Like I said above, who's going to check for blood loss for that long? I'd rather scrap the character than roll that many dice that do nothing but postpone death for five more seconds, in tabletop RPGs there is indeed a fate worse than the death of a character. The boredom of a player!

Happily enough, that's not a problem. If you know that helpers will be there in 3 minutes, grab ten dice and roll them three times. If some of them show a 1, reroll them. If they still show a 1 (on second thought, make that a 9 - everything random happens on a 9), either croak or spend a fate point, assuming you allow double rerolling. I don't know about you, but I don't think that's too much of a boredom factor as it can be done in a minute, tops.

@DM Variyn

I'm sorry but its not at all a clear sign of too few fate points. It actually just means that the player was hit with an attack that went past -10 and they used a fortune to make it above -10, meaning they wouldn't die (You can only use one fortune in response of an attack. Basically you can only heal d5 wounds from any given attack. Note: After any attack you can use more. However, gaining back wounds does not stop Blood Loss.)

How many attacks in your game inflict enough damage to put someone from full wounds to crit -10? In mine, very few do. Generally, player characters are whittled down more slowly - which gives them time for spending fate. Someone who doesn't spend fate until he's in lethal crits will likely suck up more of them than others, until he gets the one where the 1d5 wounds aren't enough for returning to non-lethal levels.

To the idea of people dieing in two minutes. It happens and is very common for medical assistance to get to a bled out victim of a gun shot or car crash. The main reason they live is due to someone staunching the bleeding or a object forcing the wound closed in the case of car crashes. That's why when you find someone wounded your not suppose to move them. So you don't re-open the wound. This is what stabbing weapons do in real life is open a wound that can't easily be stopped and you bleed internally. That's why you leave such items in arrows, knives, pipes, etc in. Ever seen a cowboy movie where they snap the shaft but not pull out the arrow .

Of course people dieing within two minutes happens. But should it happen always , especially considering how few modern car crash victims likely have Die Hard?

Though as I've seen in your other posts you probably won't agree due to some internet d**k measuring contest.

Thanks for the ad Hominem. Would you perhaps follow up with a Godwin, arguing that only Nazis would persist with this line of reasoning? True Scotsman wasn't brought yet either. However, I'd be happier in general if we could stick to the point of the argument.

Lol. Someone enjoys using Wikipedia.