A link to the article itself: Hit Points, Our Old Friend
In the article, they address the physical manifestation (roleplay aspect) of the mechanical loss of hit points which I find intriguing. The article has me brainstorming a number of house rules I would like to attempt at my gaming table, the foremost of which I wish to run by many minds of this forum. In a nutshell, the basic rule change would be:
When a character suffers a wound that brings him more than halfway to his Wound Threshhold, he flips one of those wounds face-up as a critical.
The timing makes sense around the description of wound states outlines in the article. I would apply this rule to both players and enemies. What I am considering is what other changes might need to be made to accommodate such a rule, if any. For players, I would still want to allow eagles and comets to trigger critical effects, as core. The strength, I think, is for the many monsters that lack critical effects (or chances for such critical effects). I think, it will positively increase the odds that a given player will see 1 critical wound over the course of a fight, without that critical being the first of many as seems to be the case during play sessions -- though that may just be players unwilling to accept tactical withdrawal as an option.
Does anything strike you, as DMs and Players about unforeseen consequences or benefits of such a rules change? Does this seem like an accurate portrayal of the damage concept outlined in the article, converted to the WFRP3 system? Did the article spur any other WFRP-related brainstorming in anyone else?
I do highly recommend the Wizards articles regarding 5e D&D. They are being very transparent about design goals and process in articles that address roleplaying as a whole. Obviously, it is spun within the language of D&D, but the concepts they are addressing are quite universal.