That is "plot armour" in reference to the classes of NPCs, not the wound system.

Just as an aside: plot armour means I-as-the-GM-dont-care-what-the-dice-say-he-survives. That's why I said that I'd rather call it mechanics armour but never mind.

I already mentioned the fact that I don't like small wounds having the same additive effect as large ones, which gets at the problem of minimal damage making someone's head explode. That is a matter of taste, though, since I'm not sure what kind of experience you want out of GRIMDARKNESS THERE IS ONLY WAR WARHAMMER 40,000 if you don't think exploding someone's head with a punch is hilarious and keeping in the theme of the source material.

If the hand is within a power fist, it has my seal of approval. Otherwise, yeah, expect the system to be widely regarded as failure. If FFG's approach was "Hell, yeah, exploding heads through punching!!!", this isnt going to fly.

Again, I already said that it's reflecting the same thing as the universally acknowledged HP system and adding a mechanical effect to each individual hit. Previous wounds bring you closer to death (HP system) and the closer to death you are, the crazier the effects of your wounds get (mechanical effects for every hit). I'm not sure why you think this game is trying to hide its intent. The game is not trying to bamboozle you by extolling realistic combat.

What are these other systems, for comparison?

In a pure HP-based systems attacks do abstract damage, the greater the relative hit point loss (to full HP), the greater the narrative damage also (if there is much of a narration at all). However the final, lethal blow in HP-based system isn't necessarily specatacular in narration. It usually again depends on the damage inflicted relative to max hits. A 3 point hit against and 100 hits character will probably narrated as a light wound that makes the target collapse from fatigue. A 28 point attack would probably be described as beheading.

Of course such systems can hardly be called grimdark.

Systems? Phoenix Command! Muahahaha! Okay, let's take Shadowrun 2nd Ed. Wounds add up, 2 medium Wounds mean you are seriously wounded. However, when are receive a light wound and it takes you into mortally wounded territory, your head doesnt explode.

How is "making a hit in the head 5 or 10 or 15 damage points worse" NOT modeling the effect of multiple wounds bringing one closer to death? You may not like how it works, but that is exactly what it is doing. It's been mentioned that it seems weird to have different body parts to all add to the same overall wound count, but that's what is done in basically every system I have seen. It's not marketing speech to look at something that says "if you've been wounded before, your next wounds are more likely to kill you" and say it is trying to model the effects of multiple wounds bringing one closer to death. I get that you're saying it incorrectly models this, which is fine, and that is a result of the random way that body parts are targeted and hit. As I said before, though, the entire assumption that multiple wounds ALWAYS lead someone closer to death is on shaky ground anyway, given how many things affect that in reality.

Oh this is silly. "Bringing closer to death" works by modelling the overall stress on the body from multiple wounds. Not making the current wound go from grazing to brains-out. It's like if you'd inflict in Shadowrun a light wound but because the character has been moderately wounded, the current wound would be upgraded to serious status.

SR 2E: Existing wound(3 markers) + new wound (1) = 4 marks, still moderately wounded.

SR if it would work as DH 2.0 beta (slightly exaggerated): Existing wound(3) + new wound (1, bumped up to 6) = 9 markers, almost dead.

A wound effect modifier in the current system is not akin to "a person running out of luck". Your average person sees this and thinks "oh, they get hit more and are closer to dying". It's a simple and intuitive assumption that I feel like you are disingenuously rejecting. The only people who get in arguments over the meaning of hit points are people wanting to waggle their pedants at each other. The rest of pop culture and need culture are fine with the implicit cultural association we already have for hit points meaning "guy is hurt and closer to death".

Yeah and hit points work for one reason only: they are a sufficient abstraction so that it leaves every enough room for coming up with a plausible enough interpretation. It's up to everyone's own fantasy to fill in the blanks. Normal HP-based system do not state: you have received 3 medium wounds in the wound, your next wound is 1damage point to the head, your head explodes.

Not taking this into account is problematic.

So let me repeat: A wound effect modifier in the current system is (bold, fat and italics, if necessary I can also increase font size) akin to "a person running out of luck". Because there is no other cause-and-effect chain that links previous wounds in the knees to exploding heads. (Just using this example because it is the clearest.)

A hit point system's weakness is that the abstraction is such that it becomes too much of an effort to interpret every hit and thus a simple "he hit you for X damage" becomes the normal explanation. Hence why DH is trying to spice it up by giving an explanation for different hits.

You're using that example, and there is a simple cause-and-effect for any wound where you can just say "the previous wound made them slower/easier to take out/more distracted/etc.". That is the same logic used for abstract HP systems. The person who was shot in the knee three times is now hobbling along/worrying about his knee so much that when a shot goes for his head, he's an easier target. It's a pretty simple explanation. Is it perfect? No, but neither are the explanations that inevitably come up with HP systems.

Again, what are these systems that get around this problem?

If he gets slower from the knee, then that's what should get modeled. Your rationales are simply not convincing. It's okay if you like the system as-is. It's okay if FFG keeps the system as is, I dont have any stock in that.

I am saying that DH 2.0, the grazing shots and near-misses edition will not be to kindly received - if that's how it works out. And the edition has gone from "Yeah, it's unrealistic that crits up that way" to "My all these wounds add up that way,"

Which problem specifically? There's enough non-hit points based systems.

Given that you're already on record here as wanting more lethal weapons and a realistic damage system, that would mean that the person shooting first is going to win unless there is overwhelming disparity in weapons and armor. Tactics, cover, and special abilities are all getting at the idea of preventing the other guy from shooting you first. You usually get one chance in real life before you're taken out of a firefight and maybe one more chance before you're just dead. Please elaborate on these modern RPG systems and how they handle having high lethality weapons that model realistic damage.

Pseudo-realistic damage. Few system try to model reality. They are trying to model pseudo-reality.

Anyway, Cyberpunk 2020 allows for lots of armour, both external as well as in-body. Twilight 2000 2E doesnt. Same as Phoenix Command based systems.

In pseudo-realistic games there can be various defenses such as body armour, cover or fast movement. Or smoke. Or praying that the enemy doesnt hit. That's always an option. Lethal games force tactical thinking (or death follows). But that's not right for everyone or every playstyle.

How would you handle things escalating if each wound was individual and not effected by prior wounds, though? You'd get a situation where players are gradually getting crippled but not ever actually dying.

Except getting one-shotted, right. Well, how do things escalate in reality to the point of collapse? Try to model that with a simple enough mechanism. I believe there might be various options.

Alex

Tom Cruise said it fine above. Really just posting to add my "vote" to what he said. I'm not having a problem with the damage system - it is dangerous, contains a good level of realism for a role-playing game and has a tiny buffer level built in to prevent "he wins initiative wins the fight" issues.

Your statement contains the implication that other modern firearms RPG systems which dont have this buffer are "he wins initiative wins the fight". If that was your intentions, then I, indeed, would question your credentials. Other RPG system which contain lethal weaponry are not like that. Instead they are at least as much about what weapons? what armour? what skills? what cover? what tactics? (and yes, often enough: what special abilities?).

Alex

:D :D

You know I was nice about it earlier when you started demanding to know which games I'd played as an attempt to raise whether I was qualified to comment. But the above is just downright amusing. Seriously - I require credentials to have an opinion? I've been playing RPGs for around twenty years - everything from Palladium books to all editions of Shadowrun (the comparison example you've been using) to the original Dark Heresy, WHFRP 1st ed, DW:AiTAS and various GURPS, oWoD, nWoD and Traveller. I couldn't tell you what games I've played - I'd have to have a comprehensive list of RPGs and go down it saying "yes... yes... no... they made a game of that??!!?... no..."

Really, quite frankly, it doesn't matter. There are people who've got a fraction of my experience and they are better GMs and they are better at maths and they can give as informed or more informed opinions on all these discussions than I can. And there are people who have more gaming experience than I do who might still say stupid things on this subject just because they read the rules too casually or have personal hang-ups about previous editions or what not.

Seriously - drop the attempts to qualify what people say based on their "credentials". It smacks of elitism and ad hominim. No-one needs to be a grandmaster to say "I like this" and they most certainly don't need them to be making maths-based arguments as I have been doing in several places.

Instead of "questioning my credentials" and making elusive comparisons to other sub-categories of RPGs (which is risks invoking No True Scotsman fallacies), address the specifics. I said that reducing the small buffer window between first harm and death increases the factor of "he who wins initiative wins the fight". And I stand by that. It's a clear logical consequence. The more you can kill someone in one or two hits, the more you can win a fight in a single round and the more you can win a fight in a single round, the more winning that single initiative roll creates a dramatic outcome on the fight. That's obvious. The only two ways to reduce that buffer and not increase the power of winning initiative are (1) to change the definition of death, e.g. some kind of second wind mechanic like in 4th D&D or (2) to significantly reduce the chances of people actually hitting each other. I.e. Bring the Whiff.

Now if you have a third method that does what you're suggesting without making the first initiative roll a huge factor, then I'm interested to hear it because despite my twenty years of role-playing, I still have plenty to learn.

That is "plot armour" in reference to the classes of NPCs, not the wound system.

Just as an aside: plot armour means I-as-the-GM-dont-care-what-the-dice-say-he-survives. That's why I said that I'd rather call it mechanics armour but never mind.

I have always heard it used in the same way that Nimsim used it and I have used the same term elsewhere here in the same way. "Plot armour" means someone gets special treatment in a way that is slightly at odds with the internal consistency of the world, because they are important to some external plot. E.g. instead of dying from the gunshot wound, it misses the vital organ and they limp on. The Elite and Master traits you can add meet that definition. You're not adding the quality due to some internal factor to that world (Ogryns always have this mystical luck), but because of plot reasons (Oggy is an integral character to this story and I don't want her to die in one shot). Thus it is plot-armour.

How would you handle things escalating if each wound was individual and not effected by prior wounds, though? You'd get a situation where players are gradually getting crippled but not ever actually dying.

Most games handle this by adding up the effects of different wounds, not by making a wound to the arm more severe just because the character have previously been wounded in both legs.

How would you handle things escalating if each wound was individual and not effected by prior wounds, though? You'd get a situation where players are gradually getting crippled but not ever actually dying.

Most games handle this by adding up the effects of different wounds, not by making a wound to the arm more severe just because the character have previously been wounded in both legs.

That's what Tom Cruise said. You'd get a situation where characters are getting ever more impaired, but not actually dying.

I said that reducing the small buffer window between first harm and death increases the factor of "he who wins initiative wins the fight". And I stand by that. It's a clear logical consequence. The more you can kill someone in one or two hits, the more you can win a fight in a single round and the more you can win a fight in a single round, the more winning that single initiative roll creates a dramatic outcome on the fight. That's obvious. The only two ways to reduce that buffer and not increase the power of winning initiative are (1) to change the definition of death, e.g. some kind of second wind mechanic like in 4th D&D or (2) to significantly reduce the chances of people actually hitting each other. I.e. Bring the Whiff.

There is a big difference between "he who wins the initative wins the fight" and "he who first hits his opponent is most likely to wins the fight". Even though I find the first one (best iniative wins) quite suitable for a Western-RPG, I would not like it in most other genres. I like the second one (first hit likely wins) much better, and find it a lot more frequent in other RPGs. Winning initiative is usually only based on the speed of the character and sometimes the size of the weapon. Being the first one actually hitting another one is also based on iniative, but in most games things like accuracy, evading, cover, weapon-specifics (full-auto, aimed shot, and so on) are much more important.

Even in these high-lethality games there are ways of shrugging off a damaging hit, such as wearing armor, luck (low damage rolls, or fate-point-equivalents), or by being tough (by having a high level of a toughness-equivalent stat).

The important thing for me, is that these things are somewhat unpredictable and random. Even if we disregard the most extreme cases (meltagun, plasma guns, autocannons, and so on), a single shot from a gun could take an undamaged character (with average human level toughness) out of the fight in many games, but could also let them keep fighting. Likewise, a severely wounded character could be grazed and lightly wounded by a bullet in most games that I have played (that included guns).

Both of these situations cannot happen in DH2. An unwounded character will never be in immidiate danger, and a severely wounded character cannot be grazed by an attack. This, at least the second part, was also the case in DH1. And for all but the most dangerous weapons, the first part was true as well. This (in addition to slow and cumbersome combats and the large whiff-factor / chance of failure for PCs) was the primary reason for me not wanting to play DH1. I does not look like they have improved on any of these three major concerns to a degree that makes me want to use the system - which is sad, because I really like the setting, and I love the specific set-up with the PCs being agents of the Inquisition. I really want to like DH2, just as I really wanted to like DH1.

How would you handle things escalating if each wound was individual and not effected by prior wounds, though? You'd get a situation where players are gradually getting crippled but not ever actually dying.

Most games handle this by adding up the effects of different wounds, not by making a wound to the arm more severe just because the character have previously been wounded in both legs.

That's what Tom Cruise said. You'd get a situation where characters are getting ever more impaired, but not actually dying.

Quoting myself - I thought it was clearer than editing my post again.

Matias - I think what you're saying is that you simply don't want Wound effects to interact with each other. So essentially both a Hit Point system AND a wound system running parallel. You're accumulating damage which can eventually lead to your death. You're also accumulating wounds which lead to a growing list of impairment effects. But the fact that you're already damaged doesn't mean any new wound is going to be any worse than it would have been because of that.

Fair summary?

Eclipse Phase has the most elegant combined Wound + Hit Point system I've seen (though please keep in mind, I may not have the credentials to say this. ). In Eclipse Phase you have a damage rating which shows how much damage you've taken in total - and if you exceed your maximum you're dying. It also has a trauma threshold and if you take more than that amount of damage at once you get a wound. And then each wound you take has a mechanical effect. Thus in Eclipse Phase you die from all the accumulated blows, but you can also become impaired along the way.

It works very well due to the elegant way they have combined taking damage and taking wounds into one simple roll. I like it alot.

However, there's a significant difference in that wounds in Eclipse Phase are a fixed penalty to skill tests. They're not "your right hand is broken" and similar.

Whilst the Eclipse Phase system is excellent, if you try to combine it with the random locations and detailed effects of DH2, there is a problem. Chiefly it is that you cannot have the more serious wound effects - shattered legs, loss of an eye, etc. Well you could, but the effect would be to render the hit point track much less relevant. You see without lesser wounds making greater wounds more likely, you have to either give up the greater wounds, or else accept that they can happen at any time, right away. And I know that you want this kind of instant-death effect (or at least you have argued for rules that would have that effect), but most of us do not. There are other ways around it, like basing the wound bonus on the current damage track value, but as you make these more inter-dependent, it does get more complicated and because you get damage and wounds together, you're back to the situation you said you wanted to avoid which is a wound to the leg makes the wound to the arm more serious.

Both of these situations cannot happen in DH2. An unwounded character will never be in immidiate danger, and a severely wounded character cannot be grazed by an attack. This, at least the second part, was also the case in DH1. And for all but the most dangerous weapons, the first part was true as well. This (in addition to slow and cumbersome combats and the large whiff-factor / chance of failure for PCs) was the primary reason for me not wanting to play DH1. I does not look like they have improved on any of these three major concerns to a degree that makes me want to use the system - which is sad, because I really like the setting, and I love the specific set-up with the PCs being agents of the Inquisition. I really want to like DH2, just as I really wanted to like DH1.

All WH40K fans should have a game they enjoy! I'd hate to see you unable to play. I think the majority of what you want could be achieved by simply dropping the first ten results from the Wounds table. Or actually, I might have a better one!

Try this: abandon the accumulating +5 / +10 modifiers. Just look up damage on the critical table as is, but then double it. Then you have the following effects:

1. There is the possibility of insta-death.
2. Grazing shots are still possible
3. More powerful weapons are very unlikely to produce grazing shots and very likely to produce insta-kills or severe maiming
4. Weak weapons are unlikely to cause head exploding effects. etc.
5. Wounds are no longer interacting in a way you consider unrealistic.

So the person who gets hit by an autocannon shell in the first round? They'll probably get a very serious critical result or death. The person who gets punched? Their arm is unlikely to fly across the room. The person who gets hit by an autocannon shell and then punched? The shell does not make a fatal punch more likely.

I think this works.

It's not what I want, but it's what I think you want. It's simple, it's easy and it plays fast and makes minimal changes to the rule. The only problem is that with very low power weapons it can be hard to outright kill people, but that's a feature not a bug. It actually is hard to beat someone to death with your bare fists and you could always add a small bonus for criticals if you wanted.

How's that?

That's what Tom Cruise said. You'd get a situation where characters are getting ever more impaired, but not actually dying.

Not really. At least not in any game I know. The reason vary from game to game, but I have never played a game where this have happened.

Most games: 6 shots from a pistol -> 6 bleeding wounds of varying severity (depending on damage rolled). Each shot could kill you, but could also be a trivial scratch.

DH2: 6 shots from a pistol -> 3 scatches + 2 bleeding wounds + 1 exploded head (always in that order). Early wounds are always scratches, late wound always extremely serious.

I said that reducing the small buffer window between first harm and death increases the factor of "he who wins initiative wins the fight". And I stand by that. It's a clear logical consequence. The more you can kill someone in one or two hits, the more you can win a fight in a single round and the more you can win a fight in a single round, the more winning that single initiative roll creates a dramatic outcome on the fight. That's obvious. The only two ways to reduce that buffer and not increase the power of winning initiative are (1) to change the definition of death, e.g. some kind of second wind mechanic like in 4th D&D or (2) to significantly reduce the chances of people actually hitting each other. I.e. Bring the Whiff.

There is a big difference between "he who wins the initative wins the fight" and "he who first hits his opponent is most likely to wins the fight". Even though I find the first one (best iniative wins) quite suitable for a Western-RPG, I would not like it in most other genres. I like the second one (first hit likely wins) much better, and find it a lot more frequent in other RPGs. Winning initiative is usually only based on the speed of the character and sometimes the size of the weapon. Being the first one actually hitting another one is also based on iniative, but in most games things like accuracy, evading, cover, weapon-specifics (full-auto, aimed shot, and so on) are much m ore important.

Please note the highlighted part of the post you quoted. I specifically addressed the "difference between who goes first and who hits first".In any game where you have bunches of people on both sides, to make who goes first a "big difference" to who hits first, you have to make it hard to hit. And pretty much everyone hates high-whiff games because they make combats drag out, they're often unrealistic and they frustrate people to no end.

Matias - I think what you're saying is that you simply don't want Wound effects to interact with each other. So essentially both a Hit Point system AND a wound system running parallel. You're accumulating damage which can eventually lead to your death. You're also accumulating wounds which lead to a growing list of impairment effects. But the fact that you're already damaged doesn't mean any new wound is going to be any worse than it would have been because of that.

Fair summary?

Yes. Even though it's far from the only way to do a damage system I would like. It's probably the best compromise between my preferences and the system in DH2, however.

Eclipse Phase has the most elegant combined Wound + Hit Point system I've seen (though please keep in mind, I may not have the credentials to say this. ). In Eclipse Phase you have a damage rating which shows how much damage you've taken in total - and if you exceed your maximum you're dying. It also has a trauma threshold and if you take more than that amount of damage at once you get a wound. And then each wound you take has a mechanical effect. Thus in Eclipse Phase you die from all the accumulated blows, but you can also become impaired along the way.

It works very well due to the elegant way they have combined taking damage and taking wounds into one simple roll. I like it alot.

However, there's a significant difference in that wounds in Eclipse Phase are a fixed penalty to skill tests. They're not "your right hand is broken" and similar.

Whilst the Eclipse Phase system is excellent, if you try to combine it with the random locations and detailed effects of DH2, there is a problem. Chiefly it is that you cannot have the more serious wound effects - shattered legs, loss of an eye, etc. Well you could, but the effect would be to render the hit point track much less relevant. You see without lesser wounds making greater wounds more likely, you have to either give up the greater wounds, or else accept that they can happen at any time, right away. And I know that you want this kind of instant-death effect (or at least you have argued for rules that would have that effect), but most of us do not. There are other ways around it, like basing the wound bonus on the current damage track value, but as you make these more inter-dependent, it does get more complicated and because you get damage and wounds together, you're back to the situation you said you wanted to avoid which is a wound to the leg makes the wound to the arm more serious.

I like the damage system in Eclipse Phase. It is true that the specific effects of wounds are less detailed, but I think this is a good thing for the reasons Lynata points out in post #25. I would like that serious wound effects could happen at any time, and that the chance of causing a serious wounds depends on the attackers skill and weapon (and strength if muscle powered weapon) and the targets skill, toughness and armor. For me, games like GURPS and RuneQuest does this well.

You say that most other gamers don't want a chance that serious wounds could happen at any time, and you may be right, I wouldn't know. However, as I see it the most common complaint about DH2, by far, is about the damage/wound system. It may be an indication that if anything should be changed in the DH2-beta proces, this is the place to start.

Please note the highlighted part of the post you quoted. I specifically addressed the "difference between who goes first and who hits first".In any game where you have bunches of people on both sides, to make who goes first a "big difference" to who hits first, you have to make it hard to hit. And pretty much everyone hates high-whiff games because they make combats drag out, they're often unrealistic and they frustrate people to no end.

I don't think that the way to prevent a combat from dragging out is to give all important combatants "plot-amor" - or whatever we can agree on calling the fact that it is impossible to kill with the first couple of hits. Required use of critical hit tables and wound book-keeping is not speeding up combats either. Low accuracy of starting characters or the abiliy to dodge bullets is another factor slowing down combats.

Please note the highlighted part of the post you quoted. I specifically addressed the "difference between who goes first and who hits first".In any game where you have bunches of people on both sides, to make who goes first a "big difference" to who hits first, you have to make it hard to hit. And pretty much everyone hates high-whiff games because they make combats drag out, they're often unrealistic and they frustrate people to no end.

I don't think that the way to prevent a combat from dragging out is to give all important combatants "plot-amor" - or whatever we can agree on calling the fact that it is impossible to kill with the first couple of hits. Required use of critical hit tables and wound book-keeping is not speeding up combats either. Low accuracy of starting characters or the abiliy to dodge bullets is another factor slowing down combats.

I did not suggest applying plot armour to characters at the start of a fight!

I don't have a problem with the rules as is. I like them! I think they're good as is. I was pointing out a problem with your suggestion.

I did not suggest applying plot armour to characters at the start of a fight!

I don't have a problem with the rules as is. I like them! I think they're good as is. I was pointing out a problem with your suggestion.

You misunderstand me. I'll try to be a more clear.

I think DH2 has a very slow and whiffy combat system. (So did DH1). The reasons, as I see them, are as follows:

1. Important characters needs to be damaged several times to be unable to fight on. Often 4 to 6 times.

2. Every single time anyone gets some damage you need to consult a critical hit chart, and apply the effect. The proces requires quite alot of math for a RPG. The following variables are involved in the calculation: weapon damage (dice-roll + fixed number). Armor. Armor penetration. Previous wound. Previous critical wounds. The damage formula looks something like this:

Wound effect = Ad10 + B - (C-D (or 0 if C<D)) + E*5 + F*10.

3. A starting character has a low accuracy, causing a lot of actions to do nothing. This is what you point out to be a problem with the "win initiative is not the same as win combat" argument, but I find that true for DH2 as well. Low accuracy does not bother me if a single hit could be dangerous, however.

4. The ability to dodge bullets exacerbates the problem in point 3.

The combination of point 1, 3 and 4 causes the combats to require a lot of dice rolling, and problem 2 makes further slows down the process. Point 2 is even worse due to point 1. I also makes it unlikely that a starting level PC with a fully loaded bolt-pistol would be able to kill a master-npc (TB3, no armor) before running out of ammo. As I player, I would think that this was very whiffy, and that would be highly frustrating.

Previous wounds and previous critical wounds are something you'll most likely already have calculated. I'm pretty sure we can all work with fives and tens very quickly, so I don't see that as an issue.

Also, there's a thread comparing combats in DH1 and 2 on these very forums, check out the writeup. If it's to be believed, DH2 isn't very whiffy at all, really.

Previous wounds and previous critical wounds are something you'll most likely already have calculated. I'm pretty sure we can all work with fives and tens very quickly, so I don't see that as an issue.

Also, there's a thread comparing combats in DH1 and 2 on these very forums, check out the writeup. If it's to be believed, DH2 isn't very whiffy at all, really.

Whiffy or not seems to be contentious with some, but we can establish two things which are not subjective - that DH1 was frequently criticised for being whiffy and that DH2 is noticeably less so. We can also extend it further and observe that the whiffiness of DH1 persists up through the rank levels more than it does in DH2 due to way the DoS on a hit roll is taken into account in DH2.

And as you point out, that maths is not especially difficult or time consuming in practice. In fact I'd go so far as to call it an attempt to make something easy look complicated, in all honesty.

I did not suggest applying plot armour to characters at the start of a fight!

I don't have a problem with the rules as is. I like them! I think they're good as is. I was pointing out a problem with your suggestion.

You misunderstand me. I'll try to be a more clear.

I think DH2 has a very slow and whiffy combat system. (So did DH1). The reasons, as I see them, are as follows:

1. Important characters needs to be damaged several times to be unable to fight on. Often 4 to 6 times.

In my test run combat, I had a character go from perfect health to prone on the floor with a shattered leg in one attack, when a Maletant charged her with a steel club. Had two other characters not leapt into the fray to protect her whilst she dragged herself away, it would have gone very ill for her very quickly. If death really is your only criteria (I found the situation interesting in play as is), then yes, she could well be killed in the next round or two. And that was one on one. Had another of the cultists walked over whilst she was lying there, that could be death even sooner. It *is* possible.

2. Every single time anyone gets some damage you need to consult a critical hit chart, and apply the effect. The proces requires quite alot of math for a RPG. The following variables are involved in the calculation: weapon damage (dice-roll + fixed number). Armor. Armor penetration. Previous wound. Previous critical wounds. The damage formula looks something like this:

Wound effect = Ad10 + B - (C-D (or 0 if C<D)) + E*5 + F*10.

As noted elsewhere, I find that a very overly complicated way of describing something none of us here have trouble understanding. And I found it plays quite quickly. Just have a print out of all the wound tables handy to save page flipping. Here is an example of the scenario taking place at the game table:

"She shoots you for 11 points of damage in the left leg, the weapon has pen 2"

"I've got defence of 7(3) in the left leg so that's 6 points of damage. 6 + 2 existing wounds, that's 16... *checks sheet*"

3. A starting character has a low accuracy, causing a lot of actions to do nothing. This is what you point out to be a problem with the "win initiative is not the same as win combat" argument, but I find that true for DH2 as well. Low accuracy does not bother me if a single hit could be dangerous, however.

I genuinely don't understand your version of what you say that I am saying. Yes, I get that you are saying low-accuracy doesn't bother you. But it bothers huge numbers of other people. As well as being frustrating to go "yes, missed again" round after round, it makes combat take ages for no gain. It doesn't even gain you realism - it's just two people failing to hit each other with knives or ten seconds.

4. The ability to dodge bullets exacerbates the problem in point 3.

As I keep pointing out, you either have weapons that don't insta-kill, you have attack rolls that don't hit so often, or you have whoever wins initiative slaughtering the other party. I understand that. Everyone understands that. All you are doing is repeatedly re-phrasing it and then slipping in that you don't care about the missing a lot of the time. WE GET IT! But I am increasingly at the point of not caring anymore. I have been trying to be helpful and I have been addressing your points as if they were criticisms of the system, but increasingly this thread is turning into you saying you don't like the premise of the rules. I have even offered TWO very easy ways for you to make the existing rules work for you but all you keep doing is misphrasing what I wrote and saying the system should follow a radically different path which would be a massive change to something that is already in Beta and which - I guarantee you - would make the game an unpleasant experience for the vast majority of players. The game is *already* deadly, already contains a high degree of realism. Quite frankly, what you keep demanding is not any more realistic (it just introduces problems elsewhere) and makes the job of a GM trying to design a balanced game next to impossible.

Anyway, I'm done here. I had originally considered this conversation to be a general debate, but I feel that I have contributed everything that is needed for that purpose. All that is left of this thread now, seems to be you wanting a system that meets your own edge needs, which I have already made two very easy suggestions how you could accomplish this, and ak_37's general attacks. At this point, I do not believe either of you can be satisfied, nor understand what a Beta test is.

Our discussion is obviously not going anywhere. I would have dropped out of the discussion a long time ago if you did not keep stating that my views were objectively wrong or kept presenting subjective things as objective facts. You keep presenting my views as edge or extreme, even though all I want is a damage system like those in the vast majority of other RPGs (that I know). This is also why I get defensive and keep repeating myself (just like you also do).

I'm sincerely sorry for any misphrasing, however, and I'm not trying to annoy you or be counter-productive. I have done my best to be reasonable, to present what I view as flaws in the system, to tell what I would like done differently, and when asked why I want to change things, I do my best to tell why and what I believe will be the consequences of such a change.

I may not understand what a beta-test is. It's quite possible that FFG don't want to do any big alterations to the game. However, the damage/wound system have been brought up as a problem quite often. It may be worth having another look at this specific part of the system. If they don't want to change anything, they can just ignore the criticism.

Our discussion is obviously not going anywhere. I would have dropped out of the discussion a long time ago if you did not keep stating that my views were objectively wrong or kept presenting subjective things as objective facts. You keep presenting my views as edge or extreme, even though all I want is a damage system like those in the vast majority of other RPGs (that I know). This is also why I get defensive and keep repeating myself (just like you also do).

I'm sincerely sorry for any misphrasing, however, and I'm not trying to annoy you or be counter-productive. I have done my best to be reasonable, to present what I view as flaws in the system, to tell what I would like done differently, and when asked why I want to change things, I do my best to tell why and what I believe will be the consequences of such a change.

I may not understand what a beta-test is. It's quite possible that FFG don't want to do any big alterations to the game. However, the damage/wound system have been brought up as a problem quite often. It may be worth having another look at this specific part of the system. If they don't want to change anything, they can just ignore the criticism.

I overstepped the mark a little bit in implying you were deliberately trying to make things sound complicated.

Similarly, I'm getting frustrated because I feel this conversation was done and dusted the first time around and we're on the third. There's simply no way that FFG will take as extreme a position to combat as I believe you are arguing for and have explained why I believe that. I've also offered two suggestions that I felt were very elegant solutions that could be implemented at a personal table to achieve what I understand you to be asking for.

I don't see what more I can respond to your points with than those two things (explanation and suggestion) and I've been getting frustrated because each time my posts are quoted back at me with re-stating of what is wanted, my mental response is: "yes, I heard, but that's all I've got". Felt like you just wanted to pick it apart. Probably you felt the same.

Peace! I'm done on this topic now. I'm interested in providing feedback for the Beta and that's done on this issue from me. I don't really want to discuss it any further.

You know what, when looking at my posts, I can see that I have been repeating myself an awful lot. I still think my points are valid and very common in other RPGs, but that does not mean that I have to keep repeating them all the time.

Sorry about that.

Your statement contains the implication that other modern firearms RPG systems which dont have this buffer are "he wins initiative wins the fight". If that was your intentions, then I, indeed, would question your credentials. Other RPG system which contain lethal weaponry are not like that. Instead they are at least as much about what weapons? what armour? what skills? what cover? what tactics? (and yes, often enough: what special abilities?).

Alex

:D :D

You know I was nice about it earlier when you started demanding to know which games I'd played as an attempt to raise whether I was qualified to comment. But the above is just downright amusing. Seriously - I require credentials to have an opinion?

Glad to see you enjoying yourself. Didnt say that though. What I am saying is: if you claim or imply that other modern firearms game without DH 2.0's buffer work like "he wins initiative wins the fight", then you either haven't been playing other modern firearms games or are very deluded about these other systems. Shadowrun 1/2 gave you initiative AND additional actions (attacks!)on a good init roll. Initiative was very important in this game. Having initiative was a very far cry from guaranteed winning the battle though. It was just a big advantage.

I've been playing RPGs for around twenty years - everything from Palladium books to all editions of Shadowrun (the comparison example you've been using) to the original Dark Heresy, WHFRP 1st ed, DW:AiTAS and various GURPS, oWoD, nWoD and Traveller. I couldn't tell you what games I've played - I'd have to have a comprehensive list of RPGs and go down it saying "yes... yes... no... they made a game of that??!!?... no..."

Okay, that's kinda worse because if you think "he who wins initiative wins the fight" it means you have no clue what you're talking about.

Really, quite frankly, it doesn't matter. There are people who've got a fraction of my experience and they are better GMs and they are better at maths and they can give as informed or more informed opinions on all these discussions than I can. And there are people who have more gaming experience than I do who might still say stupid things on this subject just because they read the rules too casually or have personal hang-ups about previous editions or what not.

It does matter insofar as to assessing where the problem lies. And apparently it lies with your understanding of other modern firearm-based games. Either that or you are just talking.

Seriously - drop the attempts to qualify what people say based on their "credentials". It smacks of elitism and ad hominim. No-one needs to be a grandmaster to say "I like this" and they most certainly don't need them to be making maths-based arguments as I have been doing in several places.

Misreadings of other people of me are not so much of a problem for me, I have no stake in anyone's perception of me in here.

However, I'd like to point out that it has been quite an essential question for figuring out where the divergence in perceptions between you and I come from. Without asking for your experience and thus your perception of how other games work (by implication) this wouldnt have been possible. So whether it smacks of elitism and ad hominem, it's going to re-occur when and if necessary.

Instead of "questioning my credentials" and making elusive comparisons to other sub-categories of RPGs (which is risks invoking No True Scotsman fallacies), address the specifics. I said that reducing the small buffer window between first harm and death increases the factor of "he who wins initiative wins the fight". And I stand by that. It's a clear logical consequence. The more you can kill someone in one or two hits, the more you can win a fight in a single round and the more you can win a fight in a single round, the more winning that single initiative roll creates a dramatic outcome on the fight. That's obvious. The only two ways to reduce that buffer and not increase the power of winning initiative are (1) to change the definition of death, e.g. some kind of second wind mechanic like in 4th D&D or (2) to significantly reduce the chances of people actually hitting each other. I.e. Bring the Whiff.

Now if you have a third method that does what you're suggesting without making the first initiative roll a huge factor, then I'm interested to hear it because despite my twenty years of role-playing, I still have plenty to learn.

Yeah and I am saying that even if that buffer wasn't there, initiative would merely provide an advantage, certainly not ensure victory. (This is especially so at low ranks, where the low characteristics make hitting more unlikely.) There's a huge difference between saying "higher init gives you an advantage" versus a game having "he wins initiative wins the fight" issues.

Well, initiative should be a huge factor in firearms-based games. I'll refer you over to Boothill RPG.

Alex

Again, I'll just comment that the wound system doesn't work for me, not because it's bad per se, but because I'm not a psyker and able to see the future so that I can string the results together in a manner that makes sense, unlike with Hit points.

Oh, and people on fire STILL inevitably explode with the wound table as written. Is this ever getting fixed?

Oh, and people on fire STILL inevitably explode with the wound table as written. Is this ever getting fixed?

So, this is confusing me. Page 208 under "Burning (X)" states: "Putting It Out: A burning character or an engaged ally can attempt to extinguish the flames by spending 2 AP and making an Agility test. The burning character becomes Prone and, if the test succeeds, loses the burning condition." This has not been changed by either Beta update #1 or #2.

Given that both the character on fire and any available ally can make a straight Agility Test with just 1 DoS to completely put on the flame, how is it inevitable that people on fire explode? What am I missing here? (And I don't mean that rhetorically, it's entirely possible I'm misunderstanding or completely missing something.)

Ironically, my thoughts on this have been the exact opposite of those expressed. Why would 1 DoS on an Agility Test put out a character smoldering with Burning (1) the same as a raging inferno of Burning (12)? I would suggest it makes more sense for a successful Agility Test to reduce the Burning condition by a number of levels equal to its DoS. So if you're dealing with a Burning (12) - it might take you longer than 5 seconds to put out the inferno.

Cheers