The healing that kills

On Nov 22, 8:51 am, b....DeleteThis@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager) wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am wondering if I have understood the following situation
> correctly. Bill, who has HP 10, has sustained 21 points of injury (so
> he is at -11). He survived this, but is unconscious.
>
> While he's just laying there, a brick falls on his head dealing him 4
> more points of injury. He is now at -15 HP but is otherwise still
> fine.
>
> Imagine if the above situation had been modified as follows: before
> the brick fell (Bill is at -11), Mary the friendly healer happens by
> and heals him of 2 points of damage. He is now at -9. The brick then
> falls, bringing him down to -13. Now Bill has to roll vs HT or die
> because he crossed -HP (again). The fact that he was healed may be the
> death of him.
>
> Is this correct?

By a strict interpretation of the rules, yes. I'd call it more of a
quirk of the death roll rules than an actual broken rule, though.

Still, if a GM pulled this I'd pistol-whip him.

Brandon
 >> Stay informed about: The healing that kills 

In article <13kbtsoqcrq8ef8 RemoveThis @corp.supernews.com>,
Jefferson <Jeff_Wilson63 RemoveThis @bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>Yes. Why are you asking?

It just seems strange that getting healed can kill you. Or that the
reason you died might basically be that you succeeded in a HT roll (to
regain HP) . . .

Cheers,
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd RemoveThis @pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
 >> Stay informed about: The healing that kills 

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:51:58 +0000 (UTC), bcd.RemoveThis@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C
Dalager) wrote:

>
>Hi all,
>
>I am wondering if I have understood the following situation
>correctly. Bill, who has HP 10, has sustained 21 points of injury (so
>he is at -11). He survived this, but is unconscious.
>
>While he's just laying there, a brick falls on his head dealing him 4
>more points of injury. He is now at -15 HP but is otherwise still
>fine.
>
>Imagine if the above situation had been modified as follows: before
>the brick fell (Bill is at -11), Mary the friendly healer happens by
>and heals him of 2 points of damage. He is now at -9. The brick then
>falls, bringing him down to -13. Now Bill has to roll vs HT or die
>because he crossed -HP (again). The fact that he was healed may be the
>death of him.
>
>Is this correct?

Yes. However if you were going for something approaching realism then
you'd be using bleeding rules that would have killed him anyway
without Mary's First Aid roll.
 >> Stay informed about: The healing that kills 

On Nov 22, 6:51 am, b....DeleteThis@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager) wrote:
> Imagine if the above situation had been modified as follows: before
> the brick fell (Bill is at -11), Mary the friendly healer happens by
> and heals him of 2 points of damage. He is now at -9. The brick then
> falls, bringing him down to -13. Now Bill has to roll vs HT or die
> because he crossed -HP (again). The fact that he was healed may be the
> death of him.
>
> Is this correct?

I believe so. It is, as you point out, absurd. It might be preferable
to house-rule that making your HT roll for e.g. -10 hit points covers
you for at least the duration of that encounter for that particular
level of injury, so you don't roll every time you cross the threshold.
You'd still have some issues with defining "encounter," and with long-
term healing/damage cycles, but it makes a little more sense.

-Max
 >> Stay informed about: The healing that kills 

Bent C Dalager <bcd RemoveThis @pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
> In article <13kbtsoqcrq8ef8 RemoveThis @corp.supernews.com>,
> Jefferson <Jeff_Wilson63 RemoveThis @bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>>Yes. Why are you asking?
>
> It just seems strange that getting healed can kill you. Or that the
> reason you died might basically be that you succeeded in a HT roll (to
> regain HP) . . .

It is odd, and if you want a rule to fix it, I suggest that after being
stabilised (succesfull First Aid roll or not losing any HT for a couple
of hours), you only need to make HT rolls for each full HT that you end
up below the level you were stabilised at. Or something like that.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
 >> Stay informed about: The healing that kills 

mcv wrote:
> Bent C Dalager <bcd DeleteThis @pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
>>In article <13kbtsoqcrq8ef8 DeleteThis @corp.supernews.com>,
>>Jefferson <Jeff_Wilson63 DeleteThis @bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>Yes. Why are you asking?
>>
>>It just seems strange that getting healed can kill you. Or that the
>>reason you died might basically be that you succeeded in a HT roll (to
>>regain HP) . . .
>
> It is odd,

It is? One of the most dangerous things that can happen to a
person is suffering an injury when the body is in the process of
healing a previous one. The shock can easily kill, even if
neither injury is particularly severe. If anything the rules are
_too_ lenient. A more appropriate rule would be to require a HT
roll for _any_ injury after healing that leaves a person below 0
points, not just one that passes the normal check boundaries.

I have no idea why people would think that something that passes
the realism check so easily is absurd.

--
Jefferson
http://www.meanspc.com/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/
 >> Stay informed about: The healing that kills 

>>>>> "J" == Jefferson <Jeff_Wilson63.DeleteThis@bigfoot.com> writes:

J> I have no idea why people would think that something that
J> passes the realism check so easily is absurd.

Because it doesn't map well to the abstraction of damage, which most
people have a lot more experience with than actual injury. So you
take something that's plausible behavior, throw in magical healing,
ignore an optional rule, and things seem to go wonky because they're
not neat and tidy anymore.

Charlton


--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur.DeleteThis@chromatico.net
 >> Stay informed about: The healing that kills 

Jefferson <Jeff_Wilson63.DeleteThis@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> mcv wrote:
>> Bent C Dalager <bcd.DeleteThis@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
>>>In article <13kbtsoqcrq8ef8.DeleteThis@corp.supernews.com>,
>>>Jefferson <Jeff_Wilson63.DeleteThis@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>>Yes. Why are you asking?
>>>
>>>It just seems strange that getting healed can kill you. Or that the
>>>reason you died might basically be that you succeeded in a HT roll (to
>>>regain HP) . . .
>>
>> It is odd,
>
> It is? One of the most dangerous things that can happen to a
> person is suffering an injury when the body is in the process of
> healing a previous one. The shock can easily kill, even if
> neither injury is particularly severe. If anything the rules are
> _too_ lenient. A more appropriate rule would be to require a HT
> roll for _any_ injury after healing that leaves a person below 0
> points, not just one that passes the normal check boundaries.
>
> I have no idea why people would think that something that passes
> the realism check so easily is absurd.

It does not pass the realism check. Depending on how much damage you
got, a successful HT roll that brings you just on the other side of
a HT threshold endangers your life more in case of a small amount of
extra damage than a failed HT roll would. This is weird (although I
don't expect it to have a serious impact on anything).

Your solution would also work, because it also fixes the problem that
a successful HT roll in some circumstances brings danger that a failed
HT roll doesn't.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
 >> Stay informed about: The healing that kills 

On 26 Nov 2007 16:54:37 GMT, mcv <mcvmcv.RemoveThis@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>Jefferson <Jeff_Wilson63.RemoveThis@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> mcv wrote:
>>> Bent C Dalager <bcd.RemoveThis@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
>>>>In article <13kbtsoqcrq8ef8.RemoveThis@corp.supernews.com>,
>>>>Jefferson <Jeff_Wilson63.RemoveThis@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>>>Yes. Why are you asking?
>>>>
>>>>It just seems strange that getting healed can kill you. Or that the
>>>>reason you died might basically be that you succeeded in a HT roll (to
>>>>regain HP) . . .
>>>
>>> It is odd,
>>
>> It is? One of the most dangerous things that can happen to a
>> person is suffering an injury when the body is in the process of
>> healing a previous one. The shock can easily kill, even if
>> neither injury is particularly severe. If anything the rules are
>> _too_ lenient. A more appropriate rule would be to require a HT
>> roll for _any_ injury after healing that leaves a person below 0
>> points, not just one that passes the normal check boundaries.
>>
>> I have no idea why people would think that something that passes
>> the realism check so easily is absurd.
>
>It does not pass the realism check. Depending on how much damage you
>got, a successful HT roll that brings you just on the other side of
>a HT threshold endangers your life more in case of a small amount of
>extra damage than a failed HT roll would. This is weird (although I
>don't expect it to have a serious impact on anything).
>
>Your solution would also work, because it also fixes the problem that
>a successful HT roll in some circumstances brings danger that a failed
>HT roll doesn't.
>
>
>mcv.


Okay, in some cases it does pass and in others it does not.

If your at -9 after some sort of intervention, first-aid, surgery,
magic etc; and that damage was localized (say a chest wound). Then
having some one cut off your little toe should not force a HT roll for
death. If on the other hand that extra point of damage occurs in a way
that would agrivate the major wound it is more than reasonable that
one point of damage could be fatal.

In any case it is the GM's call.
--

Grant
 >> Stay informed about: The healing that kills