Wish list

[Descronan]

Some folks want certain things from their games. I'm one of those game authors who likes to know what stuff my audience WANTS and I try to provide it.

So what do you want to see in a games publications?

=============

One of the discussions in the Ask a GM section sparked this one. How do you deal with disfigurement and crippling wounds? Are these things your group even wants?

I know some folks want the ability to do this in their games so I made that one of the optional rules. You have to understand the basics before we can really talk about details, but suffice to say, if your character is hit for more than 20% of his max damage, he would be crippled some how. Now the rules go into detail and allow you to roll on a table if you wish, but we always try to encourage GM rulings over rolls.

One thing I was toying with - let the victim decide. The rules can tell you when a character is crippled, but letting the victim of the wound decide what part is crippled allows the player to have some control over the situation. That way if the PC hits a monster for 20% the GM can choose the type of crippling wound. But if the PC is crippled, they choose.

Thoughts?

[Arch Lich Thoth-Amon]

Critical hits, critical failures, disfigurement and crippling wounds, are all fair game in my campaigns. I like my material really dark and gritty which is why i favor WFRP more today than ever before. If you add these elements i listed above, as well as always giving the character the feel of risk, no matter his or her level, then you have my interest. Also, and this is my m.o., i never let my players choose their crippling wounds.

Good thread, Descronan... don't know how i missed it.

[Descronan]

Thanks Thoth,

The way SEG deals with crits is up to the GM (aka Narrator). They can choose to use the hit location tables or they can pick and choose. But the core mechanic is if an attack causes 20% of your max damage you are crippled - aka broken bones, cut tendons, etc. At 30% the attack amputates.

You made a good point about lethality/danger... The system is skill based, not level based. We use hit points for Max Damage, but those are based on Health and Strength. If those Attributes change then your max damage changes. The joe-blow average character has a Max Damage of 100 so he would be crippled on a shot of 20 points damage or amputated at 30 points.

The danger comes from your Stun Number - aka how tough you are. When you are hit you make a Stun Check based on how much damage you have taken in combat. More damage = greater chance of being stunned or knocked out. Joe-blow likely has a Stun Number of 5 so by the time he takes 15 or more points of damage he's got a good chance of being knocked out and a 50% chance (and higher) of being stunned.

Our toughest character in our ongoing campaign has a Stun Number of 15. By the time he takes 45 points damage he's in the same boat as Joe Blow.

Now you probably want to know how much damage a weapon can do. A typical single-handed sword does 2-17 points damage (3d5 +2). If you roll three 5's then you get to roll again. You can also spend Merit Points (xp) on adding dice. On top of that, we have been using the optional rules for highly skilled attacks - roll 5 over the defense and you get an extra die of damage. Roll 10 over and its +2d etc...

We had a PC attack a spearman and rolled 10 over (+2d5) and then boosted his damage by spending 2 merit points (+2d5) so rolled 7d5 for his damage. He rolled three 5's so rolled again coming up with a total of 48 points of damage (hit location face). That was clearly over 30% of the enemy's Max Damage so the spearman was killed in one shot, his head cut in two across his eyes (all descriptive rather than rolled).

On the other hand, if you omit the optional crippling/amputation rules, that spearman would have survived, but would most likely have been knocked unconsicous.

Bottom line is that you can layer on rules as you want and need. The more cinematic and survivable you want it, the fewer rules you use. But the core rules use the Stun Number.

[Descronan]

Also, and this is my m.o., i never let my players choose their crippling wounds.

One of the reasons I suggested letting the victim decide is cause I have had a lot of players who absolutely HATED being crippled or scarred or anything that changes their POV of their character. Giving the player a chance to participate in the decision gives them the option of weaving that into their character concept and isn't as heavy handed as the GM deciding.

If their idea of a crippling wound is a broken bone with no scar, that's fine by me. Maybe the next guy takes the weapon into acount and describes it as a torn tendon or something. But with adequate guidelines on how to deal with the healing process, it doesn't matter for game mechanics.

Amputation on the other hand... That's obviously more severe and the victim won't have much say in what happens unless you ignore hit locations.