Jump to content



Photo

Gruesome Injury–Too Gruesome?


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 EldritchFire

EldritchFire

    Member

  • Members
  • 487 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 05:44 AM

 I'm a bit turned off by the crit result of 126-130, Gruesome Injury. One characteristic is permanently reduced by 1. Permanently. Non-recoverable. 

Does that strike anyone else as odd? This is the one and only example of a permanent reduction of anything in the game. Heck, even starship crits don't permanently reduce any of it's traits. Maybe it could be the chosen characteristic is at -2, or two different characteristics are at -1? Heck, with it's higher difficulty, a -1 might stay around for a bit longer than with the Horrific Injury result.

I'm just not a fan of any system where a random roll of the dice can take something that vital to the character away.

-EF



#2 LukeZZ

LukeZZ

    Member

  • Members
  • 340 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 07:02 AM

EldritchFire said:

 I'm a bit turned off by the crit result of 126-130, Gruesome Injury. One characteristic is permanently reduced by 1. Permanently. Non-recoverable. 

Does that strike anyone else as odd? This is the one and only example of a permanent reduction of anything in the game. Heck, even starship crits don't permanently reduce any of it's traits. Maybe it could be the chosen characteristic is at -2, or two different characteristics are at -1? Heck, with it's higher difficulty, a -1 might stay around for a bit longer than with the Horrific Injury result.

I'm just not a fan of any system where a random roll of the dice can take something that vital to the character away.

-EF

I think permanent means "until replaced". In the star wars universe full clones can be grown, Repli-Limb Prosthetic organs created and cybernetic limbs/organs build.



#3 EldritchFire

EldritchFire

    Member

  • Members
  • 487 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 08:08 AM

LukeZZ said:

EldritchFire said:

 

 I'm a bit turned off by the crit result of 126-130, Gruesome Injury. One characteristic is permanently reduced by 1. Permanently. Non-recoverable. 

Does that strike anyone else as odd? This is the one and only example of a permanent reduction of anything in the game. Heck, even starship crits don't permanently reduce any of it's traits. Maybe it could be the chosen characteristic is at -2, or two different characteristics are at -1? Heck, with it's higher difficulty, a -1 might stay around for a bit longer than with the Horrific Injury result.

I'm just not a fan of any system where a random roll of the dice can take something that vital to the character away.

-EF

 

 

I think permanent means "until replaced". In the star wars universe full clones can be grown, Repli-Limb Prosthetic organs created and cybernetic limbs/organs build.

Well yes, you can always increase Brawn, Agility, or Intellect with cybernetics, but that's still causing you to be behind the "curve" so to speak.

If they mean 'until replaced' it should say as much. To most people, permanent means just that, it's gone for good.

-EF



#4 LukeZZ

LukeZZ

    Member

  • Members
  • 340 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 10:44 AM

I would say that a permanent damage is a damage that cannot be repaired (like an amputated limb, a burned skin, etc…).
But with the star wars technology you could always replace the damaged part with a cybernatic or organic one.
As an extreme example, you could decide to implant your brain into a cyborg body (like Grievous): this way any penalty linked to your old body would disappear.



#5 Exalted5

Exalted5

    Member

  • Members
  • 68 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 12:39 PM

 The wording definitely needs to be cleaned up.  If it's truly "permanent" then why even bother with listing a difficulty (presumably for a medical check), right?  My take was that it was permanent until repaired/replaced/regrown.

But I agree on the confusion, and, if it is actually unfixable, it's definitely a bit harsh.  Then again, getting shot in the face with a disruptor rifle might do such things…



#6 gribble

gribble

    Member

  • Members
  • 411 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 02:06 PM

Exalted5 said:

 The wording definitely needs to be cleaned up.  If it's truly "permanent" then why even bother with listing a difficulty (presumably for a medical check), right?

I'm assuming because the critical injury can be healed, just not the permanent reduction effect. Kind of the opposite of the temporary effects that end before the actual critical injury is healed.

FWIW, I like it. Nothing like permanent characteristic loss to put the fear of god (of combat in this case) into the players. It's one of the problems with D&D 3 / Pathfinder / D&D 4e IMO - not having that fear of real permanent loss really contributes to the "kick in the door and kill everything" style of play, which isn't my cup of tea.


Star Wars Edge of the Empire (Beta test) resources

Reference Sheets | Combat Reference Sheet | Critical Cards | Talent Tree Reference

 


#7 LethalDose

LethalDose

    Member

  • Members
  • 782 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 05:09 PM

"Gruesome Injury" is the first of the "severe" injuries and the least  threatening of the "You are very very VERY F***ed up injuries".  It also only has a 5% chance of appearing on any roll its even a possibiity for.  

I think its fine as it is.  If you want to avoid this kind of injury, surrender.

 


"All models are wrong, but some models are useful."  - George E. P. Box


#8 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 September 2012 - 08:15 PM

LethalDose said:

If you want to avoid this kind of injury, surrender.

 

I don't think players like surrendering any more than they like running away…



#9 LethalDose

LethalDose

    Member

  • Members
  • 782 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 08:35 PM

AluminiumWolf said:


LethalDose said:
If you want to avoid this kind of injury, surrender.

I don't think players like surrendering any more than they like running away…

I knew that was gonna be your response if you saw that post.

Fighting with 3 critical injuries should be a big risk. If there is no danger of permanent loss, then there is effectively no risk. This is really just reiterating Exalted5 above. 

I don't like that I have to pay taxes, but the option is I risk the chance of going to prison. And let's face it, I'm just too pretty for that.

Just like real life, the players (like people) should have choices, but no one said any of the available choices have to be good ones.

-WJL


"All models are wrong, but some models are useful."  - George E. P. Box


#10 LethalDose

LethalDose

    Member

  • Members
  • 782 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 08:36 PM

 EDIT: It was reiterating Gribble comments on D&D, not Exalted5.  -WJL


"All models are wrong, but some models are useful."  - George E. P. Box


#11 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 September 2012 - 08:55 PM

LethalDose said:

If there is no danger of permanent loss, then there is effectively no risk. This is really just reiterating Exalted5 above. 

 

-WJL

 

 

 

I would argue that most people do not need to be risking much to have fun. Indeed, most games are played with nothing more riding on the result than who wins and who loses.
 
In the end, what you are risking is that you will have put in the time and not won. And this is clearly enough for most people. Indeed, risking more than that is, I think, going to be perceived as Unfun by a large number of people.

 



#12 Slaunyeh

Slaunyeh

    Member

  • Members
  • 376 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 11:23 PM

AluminiumWolf said:

 

I don't think players like surrendering any more than they like running away…

Players don't like to lose. Players don't like rail-track story telling where there is no risk and no consequences to anything they do.

Just because "you don't like it" doesn't mean it shouldn't be a viable option. I guarantee you that my character doesn't like to be captured by the Empire, but that doesn't mean it didn't make the story better when it happened. If there's no risk, success is meaningless. If a plan can't go bad, there's no point in making plans in the first place (and, to keep with the 'I know what every player on the planet want' rhetoric, players love to come up with elaborate plans).

So yes. Sometimes you just have to realize that the fight is lost and it's better to live and fight another day, than to 'go down stupid'. I'm not surprised that you think players like to die from stupidity. I'm not one of your players.

Thank goodness.



#13 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 October 2012 - 12:07 AM

Slaunyeh said:

 

 

 

Players don't like to lose.

 

 

Yes. I strongly suspect that you will find that losing is punishment enough. Hell, it works for every other damn game in existance. Either way, I hope one day to see a roleplaying game designed around the realities of play rather than… wishful thinking. Seriously man, when do players ever surrender? Even if you try to do the scene where five hundred goons appear from nowhere with their guns levelled at the PCs so they can be captured and the bad guy can explain his plan to them you can pretty much guarantee at least one of the PCs will try to draw down on them. H



#14 Jegergryte

Jegergryte

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 12:24 AM

All the time, if they have to. Stupid (and bad) players whine when they are challenged and risk loosing (ie dying). When opposed by a group of pirates on their ship, sure they try to fight them, but four players against a Nebulon-B full of crazy pirates, well, if they didn't escape because they wanted to take them on, they risk serious bodily harm and being sold into slavery… its not fun for the characters, but the players - mine at least - love a challenge, potential death and unforeseen consequences - escaping slavery and restarting with a new ship, perhaps new identities and such is a great opportunity to get new obligations and get rid of old debts!

If you prefer "railroaded" games, play ludo. "Players" don't "dislike" or "like" anything in particular, except playing games. Which is a social and more or less democractic event, wherein players and GM challenge each other to varying degree… some people like straight forward lead by the nose games where they don't have to think and not really play - which is FINE - others enjoy games where thinking IS involved and where their characters to run the risk of death, where the supernatural or the evil is more powerful than the natural or good. Loosing fingers or ears is not fun for the players on one level, yet it creates stories, emotional connections and investment in the characters and the game. Dying is not fun, but the risk need to be there, otherwise survival becomes meaningless, just to reiterate the points above.


Make sure your brain is engaged, before putting your mouth into gear.

"What about the future...? We can only hope, we cannot however account for the minutiae of the quanta, as all accidents in an infinite space are inevitable."

GMLovlie's/Jegergryte's Cubicle direct link to supplements here.


#15 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 October 2012 - 12:49 AM

 +++++Dying is not fun, but the risk need to be there+++++

Then how do you explain the near total non-existance of permadeath in the online gaming space?

(Course, you always get people on the forums for the Barbie Horse Adventures MMO calling for permadeath and full looting or no fun. The difference between TTRPGs and MMOs is that the MMO people tend to ignore them.) h



#16 Jegergryte

Jegergryte

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 01:07 AM

Online gaming is something else as far as I'm concerned. By equating online gaming with tabletop gaming - of any sort - you're making a mistake. Sure there are similarities, and perhaps more these days than in the early days - but that is not necessarily a good thing. The principles and framework of an online mmo, or fps, are different than a tabletop rpg or board game… Whereas an online game, for instance mmo is about gear and RPing has little to no impact on the actual game itself, anyways this is derailing the topic of this thread and taking it towards a pointless and meaningless death at the hands of someone who thinks that Online gaming should be the catch-all template for any sort of gaming and that players a little babies that only want to ejaculate their own egos on the table with no risk of getting caught doing it, and suffering the consequences… (with no deviation from said template, only holding hands and guiding the players and keeping them safe and bored.. while some might appreciate this, and games should allow people to play these kind of one sided "things" … they should also allow and supply guidelines for gamers that prefer more grit, more challenge, less cuddly gamepad-oriented gaming)


Make sure your brain is engaged, before putting your mouth into gear.

"What about the future...? We can only hope, we cannot however account for the minutiae of the quanta, as all accidents in an infinite space are inevitable."

GMLovlie's/Jegergryte's Cubicle direct link to supplements here.


#17 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 October 2012 - 01:19 AM

I really don't think TTRPG players are any more hardcore than MMO players. Probably less so, since they care about story and whatnot.

Permadeath and taking permanent damage to your characters should be the weirdo hardcore masochist option in a Star Wars game, if it exists at all. Drives me frigging nuts that TTRPGs are so backwards on this. d



#18 gribble

gribble

    Member

  • Members
  • 411 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 09:18 AM

AluminiumWolf said:

Permadeath and taking permanent damage to your characters should be the weirdo hardcore masochist option in a Star Wars game, if it exists at all. Drives me frigging nuts that TTRPGs are so backwards on this. d

 

Fair enough - that's your perspective. For mine - it drives me nuts that these things *aren't* a part of CRPGs (MMO or otherwise), and that TTRPGs are starting to pick up on this trend as a "good" thing.

It's nice to see a TTRPG providing more of this, and I applaud FFG for it.


Star Wars Edge of the Empire (Beta test) resources

Reference Sheets | Combat Reference Sheet | Critical Cards | Talent Tree Reference

 


#19 3WhiteFox3

3WhiteFox3

    Member

  • Members
  • 72 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 09:35 AM

gribble said:

AluminiumWolf said:

Permadeath and taking permanent damage to your characters should be the weirdo hardcore masochist option in a Star Wars game, if it exists at all. Drives me frigging nuts that TTRPGs are so backwards on this. d

 

Fair enough - that's your perspective. For mine - it drives me nuts that these things *aren't* a part of CRPGs (MMO or otherwise), and that TTRPGs are starting to pick up on this trend as a "good" thing.

It's nice to see a TTRPG providing more of this, and I applaud FFG for it.


I have to agree here, some of my favorite computer games are rouge-likes that have ‘hard-core’ settings that make it so that if you die, you’re dead. It really makes your character a lot more valuable and a greater achievement. Same thing with TTRPGs, character death is what makes the game fun a lot of the time.

That said, not every campaign should see a character death, two of my favorite campaigns ever did not have a single main character death among them. The tension was built in other ways, via extremely strong opposition and the deaths of beloved NPCs as well as just high stakes all around. It is necessary to have those rules, however , if only for those times where a character death is important.
 



#20 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 October 2012 - 09:47 AM

3WhiteFox3 said:

 

 


I have to agree here, some of my favorite computer games are rogue-likes that have ‘hard-core’ settings that make it so that if you die, you’re dead. It really makes your character a lot more valuable and a greater achievement. Same thing with TTRPGs, character death is what makes the game fun a lot of the time.

But would you say a game like that would appeal to Most People?

It is the 'Hard Core Weirdo' setting in video games, but the default in TTRPG. I mean, I'd argue that a lot of people play low lethality TTPRG games just by having the GM fudge it so PCs don't die very often. But still. Why are TTRPGs designing for the hard-core fringe? h






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS