From: CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CX6L)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: RE: Yet more killing attacks
Date: 10 Jan 93 18:08:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: VM1.10JAN93.14195639.0064
Organization: McGill University

In article <1993Jan10.084255.14568@netcom.com> akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) writes:

>Besides play balance concerns, another thing that
>bugs me about the extreme variance of killing attacks:
<example deleted -- Zap!>
>Isn't this absurd?  Shouldn't the damage from an attack
>be reasonably consistent?  What is the real-world explanation
>for this amazing variance?

     Well, rules systems aside, real-life lethal attacks do have a
rather large degree of variance in their lethality. Furthermore,
the potential deadliness of the attack (which would translate to
number of dice of KA in Hero terms), does **not** always have a lot
to do with this variance. Knives, swords, claws, etc can abrade
skin, or imbed in muscle and fat, or sever major arteries, depending
on the dozens of uncontrollable variables surrounding the attack (in
real-life terms, I mean :). Whether the sword is a foot-long bowie
or a six foot long four-and-a-half hand Martian Energi-Sword (TM),
a nick is a nick is a nick --  and beheading is beheading.
     Bullets are even more variable: check out the Journal of Trauma.
Any bullet can kill, and any bullet can graze. Often, it is *better*,
if one is going to be hit by a graze anyhow, to be hit by one from a
high-energy round: the chance it will transfer any appreciable energy
is actually somewhat lower (this is the empirical truth, trust me).
Again: there is *great* variance, owing to the "quality" of the hit,
and it is not easily linked to muzzle energy!
     In general, a large number of dice is going to centre on a larger
damage: representing the fact that, on *average*, a more deadly attack
will be (big surprise) more deadly. Sufficiently deadly attacks will
be uniformly nasty on any reasonable hit (*not* just a nick), while
less deadly attacks will generally be less nasty -- unless you get
lucky. This is how game designers try to model reality. It is not
necessarily a good model.
     Note that the real underlying problem in Hero is this rather
absurd division of attacks into "killing" and "normal", and defenses
into "normal" and "resistant". A kick to the head can kill a normal
man, just as surely as a 5.56mm round, if done correctly. A Gentex
helmet can keep either from being deadly, if worn. Nightsticks,
punches, kicks, cars, etc . . . are *deadly*, and can kill -- rest
assured. Bladed weapons and projectiles can kill also. Dividing
them up reflects cinematic reality, not real-life: where physiology
and physics must be obeyed. Asking for "real-life" explanations of
anything under this system is probably asking for too much.
     For the record, a knife wound is *more* likely to "stun" in
real-life than a mace blow: blood loss and the *psychological*
shock at having the skin breeched contribute far more to the
"stunning" of real humans than does having a few ribs broken.
Hero humans are *not* terribly "real", however: they are far
too strong and hardy, and do not react to damage in anything
like a realistic fashion.
-Kromm.