Altering combat lethality

[Infojunky]

It's been discussed before: http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=36857

It's being discussed now: http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=50272

Leaving aside the argument part of it (whether or not the game is "too lethal" or "not lethal enough"), what are some approaches for stepping the lethality up or down that would be easy to implement without doing too much violence to the game as published?

The fastest and most realistic way is require a Saving-throw every time a character takes damage. To be brutally honest amount of damage is mostly an illusion, it what is damaged that really matters, coupled with the over-all physiological state when the wound occurs. Amount of damage only increases the chance of inflicting said critical injury.

Arguments about specific weapon system damages are kinda pointless until you decide on the metric you are going to use to evaluate how they do damage. TNE and GURPS used penetration as their core metric of how much damage a weapon system does. With any secondary wound characteristics worried about after the penetration vs. armor equation is worked out.

With this I would require a endurance roll for every wound inflicted to remain standing on top of the current system. With a medical roll to figure out if the inflicted character is Dead, Bleeding out or just unconconscious.

 

[Strithe]

I think if you're looking for a way to make combat deadlier, just use an old variation of the "system shock" rule from Classic Traveller:

If a single hit takes the character from full to zero Endurance, the character must make an Endurance roll. Failing it knocks the character unconscious, and a failure with effect 6 or more kills the character instantly.

This means that one shot kills vs. unarmored characters are fairly likely, and instant incapacitation is also likely.

Against an unarmored Endurance 7 target, the chances for a single shot drop would be:
A 3d6-3 pistol would be about 16% killed, 43% unconscious
A 3d6 rifle would be 24% killed, 61% unconscious
A 4d6 shotgun would be 26% killed, 66% unconscious

Body armor would help tremendously, the same character in a 4-point flak vest would have:
A 3d6-3 pistol would be 4% killed, 11% unconscious.
A 3d6 rifle would be 13% killed, 34% unconscious
A 4d6 shotgun would be 11% killed, 29% unconscious

The advantage of this is that it's simple, & doesn't bend the rules a whole lot or add much more complexity. The bad news is that snipers will become absolute killing machines. Someone with the appropriate Gun Combat at 3-4, a scope, and time to aim will get enough DM's that an instant-kill from ambush is a certainty.

Even with the normal rules consider a gauss-rifle armed sniper with skill 4, Dexterity 9, and six actions spent aiming: at anything under 250 meters, this is a total DM of +11, which means on average he's going to hit with an effect of 10. This means against an unarmored character with 7's in all physical characteristics, any hit will knock the target unconscious, and 84% of the time they'll be dead. Even with the flak jacket the chances are still 97% likely to render the character unconscious.

 

[Strithe]

If you want to model projectiles vs. armor, a simple and realistic solution is to simply rule that on a non-penetrating (damage < armor protection) hit vs body armor, any natural six on a damage die still causes a point of damage due to blunt trauma.

This will make even your battle-dress equipped characters a little nervous around handgun or shotgunned armed assailants, and if the tables are turned your PC will feel at least some satisfaction in bruising goliath before he's immolated by the PGMP.

 

[far-trader]

...The bad news is that snipers will become absolute killing machines. Someone with the appropriate Gun Combat at 3-4, a scope, and time to aim will get enough DM's that an instant-kill from ambush is a certainty.

Not seeing how that is "bad news" as it seems realistic to me. A highly skilled sniper attacking an unsuspecting target with time to aim SHOULD be an instant kill barring an unpredictable event (wind gust, sudden occlusion of target by a moving intervention, etc.). In fact except for that unpredictable event I wouldn't even roll for it. One shot one kill.

 

[HorusZA]

The "problem" is really the simplification the game makes by equating Armour Effectiveness with Damage Reduction. Not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing. Lots of games use this mechanic.
In reality, that's not quite how it works. There are essentially two separate but related factors at work: the ability of a weapon to defeat armour (penetration) and the terminal effects of the weapon on a body (damage). A shotgun is a good example of this: low penetration but massive damage potential. By combining the two into a single number you're losing an important dimension.
The damage-causing potential of a weapon is not significantly affected by how much material it had to penetrate. There are always edge-cases but the video posted earlier clearly demonstrates that a rifle-bullet will easily penetrate several layers of kevlar and still cause massive trauma. You could even argue that as the bullet has already been deformed by the kevlar it may cause even more damage (the crush-cavity will be huge to begin with) than had it been a unobstructed hit.
In other words: armour does not reduce damage but it creates a binary decision point: do I take no damage or full damage? Sure, soft-armour has the additional problem of blunt-force trauma leaking through, but that's another issue altogether.

 

[CosmicGamer]

the video posted earlier clearly demonstrates that a rifle-bullet will easily penetrate several layers of kevlar and still cause massive trauma.

I didn't get that from watching the video.

So what if the clay is deformed? This means little to me.

Take a lump of clay and step on it. Don't even jump on it, just step on it and see what happens. Clay is easily deformed.

To me, a bullet penetrating a few of the layers and deforming the clay means the armor did distribute energy of the projectile. I can take a stick and thrust it clean through a lump of clay so a bullet would probably go through clay in a neat hole without the armor. But I'm no physicist or materials expert or nuthin. I have no clue how you can calculate the amount of energy distributed or imparted upon the clay via the video.

 

[Strithe]

Bullets do cause blunt trauma damage when they hit non-rigid armor, although I agree the clay's not a good medium for ballistic demonstration, ballistic gelatin is better because it "springs back" like flesh. There are numerous reliable accounts to this effect, although knockdown or knockout from pistol hits is a movie myth. Police officers have taken multiple hits from handguns to their vests, and been able to return fire (although they will be very sore once the adrenaline wears off).

In general, handgun & shotgun rounds may cause bruising when they fail to penetrate kevlar. Most FMJ handgun rounds will fully penetrate a human torso, and the kevlar works by spreading the force over a larger area, so some bruising is inevitable. Shotguns & light rifle rounds will cause more severe bruising & even break a rib or two, and full-power rifles can still penetrate enough to do serious damage.

Of course, technology marches on, and top-level military armor can even stop rifles: http://youtu.be/Avbh4eom1O0

Notice that while the dummy's on spring-loaded mount, the rifle shots aren't flinging the thing around that much. They claim you can take direct hits from rifles & not even get bruising.

 

[HorusZA]

the video posted earlier clearly demonstrates that a rifle-bullet will easily penetrate several layers of kevlar and still cause massive trauma.

I didn't get that from watching the video.

So what if the clay is deformed? This means little to me.

Take a lump of clay and step on it. Don't even jump on it, just step on it and see what happens. Clay is easily deformed.

The clay shows the maximum extend of the temporary stretch-cavity: the shockwave that's created when a high velocity projectile passes through a dense medium and begins to shed its kinetic energy. The crush-cavity on the other hand is the amount of matter that is physically destroyed as the bullet makes its way through the body. Both effects are equally deadly!
The huge hole (stretch-cavity) you see in the clay after the 5.56mm bullet has penetrated the kevlar would probably kill a person from hydrostatic shock, bruised organs & overloading nerve fibres alone. The physical damage from the bullet breaking up and fragments piercing organs, blood vessels and shattering bone with splinters adding to the carnage would finish the job.
With or without armour the effect would have pretty much identical.

A low-velocity projectile such as an arrow or the stick you mention doesn't cause a temporary stretch-cavity, it only produces a narrow crush-cavity. This alone makes such pre-gunpowder weapons far less effective at stopping an opponent instantly and which is why armour works much better: there's far less kinetic energy to absorb.

 

[rust]

The huge hole (stretch-cavity) you see in the clay after the 5.56mm bullet has penetrated the kevlar would probably kill a person from hydrostatic shock, bruised organs & overloading nerve fibres alone.

Well, our armed forces' medical service, which has a rather good
reputation, insists that there has been no documented case of a
lethal hydrostatic shock, and that the cerebral and neural trauma
observed in several cases was comparatively minor and did not
incapacitate the person.

 

[Solomani666]

My combat mods:

* Effect of zero is a grazing shot and does half damage. (This just makes sense according to the tasks descriptions.)

* When damage reduces Endurance to zero, a one time roll vs the original Endurance roll is needed to remain conscious.

* I apply all of the current (damaged) stat modifiers to the character. (Lowered Dexterity makes it harder to shoot, lowered Strength means the character might have to drop his/her pack etc. The character may become fatigued, etc.)

Aside from these modifications, I see no reason to make the combat system more or less lethal than it already is.