I guess I think that many gaming systems uses health as an abstract, which can be a useful shorthand, but it leaves a lot to be desired. Checking for bloodloss, limb failure and post battle complications like infections would probably be a too much.CCarter wrote: OK...so you like specific-damage criticals just because they impair the PCs?
You could do that just with a wound penalty system based off total hit points or equivalent, rather than needing specific injuries. For example, Shadowrun and White Wolf both have an increasing penalty when you're down Health boxes. Or, damage in Tunnels & Trolls comes straight off your Constitution and so reduces your ability to make Con saving rolls.
Totally correct. In systems using critical hits based off probablility, the players are at a clear disadvantage. It's like gambling against a casino.Roy wrote:Obviously, when enemies can crit you back they punish the player worse. But luck always favors the opposition. Always. That's why IP Proofing is so very important. in D&D, and in other systems for that matter as the concept is system independent - any system where you play through a long campaign, with little character switching mandates IP proofing. So, just about everything except joke systems like Paranoia, CoC, etc.
The reasoning behind implementing crtical hits or failures in a game system was just something I was curious about. If I was clever and patient enough to make my own system, I would probably use a stunting mechanic to represent killing blows in combat. Minor & major injury tables for when a PC takes a beating. That could be done with or without auto success or failure, but the gambler in me likes rolling a 20 and cool shit happening.
