From:	"Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject:	Re: Critical Hit revisited
Date:	Wed, 6 May 1998 13:51:03 -0400

Drekhead wrote:
>> >> On table 2, why did you alternate between minor and major like that?
>> >> If you roll a 3 with a light wound you will be louder than if you
>> >> had a medium? The odds might work out, but it seems
>> >> counter-intuitive.
>> >
>> >I guess I wanted a more random result. What would be better? Group
>> >them together?
>>
>> I'd say so. You haven't yet accounted for things like the Pain
>> Editor, Trauma Damper, Pain Resistance, Hyper... These could skew
>> the results in one direction or the other.
>
>Yeah, this is very preliminary. I guess how ever those things you
>list would affect the normal knockdown rules would apply here as
>well, and I don't really know how they do.

Well, AFAIK the knockdown rules are intended to mean "physically
losing balance due to the impact", not "Argh! I've been shot!".

I'd say that each of those really only modifies table 2... Pain
Editor means don't roll on T2 at all, Hyper add +x, Pain Resistance
means don't roll if the damage is under your tolerance level. I'm
not sure if TD should affect the roll in the first place...

>> Breaking a bone and
>> spinning should be based on actual damage, while clutching and
>> covering should be based on felt damage. It complicates things a
>> little more, though.
>
>Yes. Freak things happen, people react different to situations,
>etc., which is why I think a random table is best. I tried being more
>specific like you suggest, but I couldn't do it without a hit
>location system, and that greatly complicates things.

Well, just say that T1 is physical damage and T2 is the response
to the pain from the physical damage.

Actually, why not roll on each? Just apply the knockdown to T1,
but roll T2 every time you're hit. It'd take longer, but it would
be more graphic...

James Ojaste