Is STUN more important than BODY?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is STUN more important than BODY?

 

Yes' date=' very convincing. I believe it's an excellent argument for those with extensive combat training (or who have otherwise learned to take a hit) to have more STUN or DEF. My point, however, was that this doesn't make the experienced warrior [i']immune[/i] to pain, it just means they can take more of it before they suffer extreme effects.

 

...but then again I don't think that STUN=Pain. In fact enough pain can tend to keep you conscious. It is a combination of factors. I've seen someone taking their own blood with a lancet; tiny pinprick, and they faint. Well, to be fair, went all wobbly and had to sit down for a few minutes, but nonetheless. Personally I don't see that as having taken stun as such (although it could arguably be that effect) but more something like a 'make an Ego roll when you first see your own blood'. I know a nurse who had no problem with blood, her own or others, but tells the tale of holding out a metal bowl for a patient to be sick into and he was. She stood holding it for a minute and realised that the metal bowl was getting warm because of the puke in it and that flipped a switch in her head and she fainted - out like a light.

 

Now we can't really simulate this in Hero but my point is that practically anything, whether it actually causes damage or not can result in a human passing out, becoming unconscious. OTOH last year I snapped my achilles tendon and couldn;t stop laughing. Same reaction, probably, different result.

 

If we are going to have any kind of definition of what stun is in game we probably need to relate that to the effects that cause it, and we need to look at usual effects, not the 'well he is passed out but there is not a mark on him - I'm baffled' stuff.

 

Generally, whilst stun is probably not any one thing, it can be usefully considered to be short term trauma. Hero broadly defines damage in terms of Body and Stun damage. Stun accumulates and disperses pretty quickly. If we step outside the mechanics, you can get thumped a few times, fall to the floor in a swoon and be up for the 10 count. In mechanical terms you took enough damage to put you at (say) -5 stun but you had enough time to take one or more recoveries and you were back int he fight.

 

In all likelihood if we simply treat stun as a measure of anything we are going to wind up disappointed: ultimately it is a storytelling tool, and a very useful one at that.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Is STUN more important than BODY?

 

...but then again I don't think that STUN=Pain.

STUN is pain! Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

 

 

In fact enough pain can tend to keep you conscious. It is a combination of factors. I've seen someone taking their own blood with a lancet; tiny pinprick, and they faint. Well, to be fair, went all wobbly and had to sit down for a few minutes, but nonetheless. Personally I don't see that as having taken stun as such (although it could arguably be that effect) but more something like a 'make an Ego roll when you first see your own blood'. I know a nurse who had no problem with blood, her own or others, but tells the tale of holding out a metal bowl for a patient to be sick into and he was. She stood holding it for a minute and realised that the metal bowl was getting warm because of the puke in it and that flipped a switch in her head and she fainted - out like a light.

 

Now we can't really simulate this in Hero but my point is that practically anything, whether it actually causes damage or not can result in a human passing out, becoming unconscious. OTOH last year I snapped my achilles tendon and couldn;t stop laughing. Same reaction, probably, different result.

 

If we are going to have any kind of definition of what stun is in game we probably need to relate that to the effects that cause it, and we need to look at usual effects, not the 'well he is passed out but there is not a mark on him - I'm baffled' stuff.

 

Generally, whilst stun is probably not any one thing, it can be usefully considered to be short term trauma. Hero broadly defines damage in terms of Body and Stun damage. Stun accumulates and disperses pretty quickly. If we step outside the mechanics, you can get thumped a few times, fall to the floor in a swoon and be up for the 10 count. In mechanical terms you took enough damage to put you at (say) -5 stun but you had enough time to take one or more recoveries and you were back int he fight.

 

In all likelihood if we simply treat stun as a measure of anything we are going to wind up disappointed: ultimately it is a storytelling tool, and a very useful one at that.

 

No arguments from me here. I'm sure you notice my response on your What is STUN thread of not too long ago. Pain doesn't necessarily mean STUN loss, and STUN loss doesn't necessarily mean you're feeling pain, but you can be feeling pain while losing STUN and vice versa and in common use the more pain you are feeling, the more your STUN is reduced. In many cases, it's just pain, your body reminding you something ain't quite right somewhere, like when you have a headache, but you certainly aren't constantly taking STUN damage all afternoon.

 

In any case, speaking of pain specifically... pain caused by injuries, or potential injuries, is a warning from the body that something bad is going on. This pain causes a kind of reflex action of slowing down, cringing away, stopping, or any number of other defensive reactions. These keep you alive by letting you know about the danger (don't get shot by Pulsar's blasts, they hurt).

[Vondy]

Re: Is STUN more important than BODY?

 

Have you ever met my wife?

 

Which could have simply been put in honest language: no.

[Vondy]

Re: Is STUN more important than BODY?

 

I dont know if Sean is working from the same information as me (who has not been in combat and, if I can help it, never will be) but Reality Czech indicated that experience is a factor in the effect of the shock of BODY damage:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1301440&postcount=8

 

Sounds convincing to me.

 

Doc

 

I'm not entirely convinced - and I've been through it. He does have a point in that you can be trained to function well under mild levels of shock, but wound factors are highly variable, as are individual reactions to them on a physiological level.

 

There is a world of difference in how the body reacts to blunt trauma, which doesn't generally penetrate the flesh, and cuts (e.g., blades) and piercings (e.g., bullets) that do penetrate - and as a result cause direct physical damage to internal systems.

 

Also, it doesn't match up statistically with wound factor studies conducted by the armed forces and law enforcement. The vast majority of statistical data indicates that wound factors with gunshot wounds have objective, but complex, results.

 

If the bullet passes through cleanly without hitting anything significant, then training can be a significant factor. But those are clean wounds (or, flesh wounds, if you prefer). If, however, it starts to cut up rough with the bodies major systems (and that's not just major organs and arteries) then there's no amount of training that will keep someone functional.

 

The only advantage that old soldiers have is that they've been through it and that by dint of experience and training they are far less inclined to panic, even when wounded. But not panicking is only one factor, and with some wounds, even wounds that are not mortal, it may not be decisive. The real world has more than two wound factors.

 

I've seen veteran soldiers with combat experience taken down by small pieces of shrapnel that just happened to hit the wrong place (e.g., a piece of shrapnel that hit the nerves that control the shoulder). The man was up and moving within fifteen minutes (how many hero combats last that long?, but his arm wasn't wasn't working, and he was clearly working through the pain of the wound - which doesn't amount to body damage.

 

If shock equates to stun then no amount of recoveries would have brought him back to 100%. You would have to implement some kind of long-term stunning rule. The system provides two abstractions to deal with a body and mind that have countless interactions. For instance, sometimes minor wounds are painful due to nerves being affected, while major wounds are not.

 

Add into this inexperienced men who react incredibly well when wounded due to adrenaline (which should not be underestimated), or just plain outrage and the heat of the moment, and it the theory becomes even more murky.

 

I don't object to calling shock "stun," but at the same time, body and stun are lame abstractions that don't really equate to what actually happens in the real world - like most game mechanics. Real world wound factors are extremely complex and don't fit neatly into the abstractions provided. Trying to make direct corollaries is full of giggles, but it also amounts to that most time-honored of gamer pastimes: abstracted horse-puckey.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Is STUN more important than BODY?

 

to answer the thread title:

 

Yes, in one important aspect.

 

You might be able to do something with negative body.

 

You won't be able to do anything (but maybe recover) with negative stun.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is STUN more important than BODY?

 

Which could have simply been put in honest language: no.

 

OK, so much for humour. It depends what you mean. I've never been shot by anything more dangerous than a paintball but I've been in plenty of fights as I do a bit of martial arts now and then, so I know what being hit, kicked, dropped on your back from 6 feet and strangled (sometimes all at once) can and does feel like TO ME, and what effects it had ON ME.

 

I doubt you can find anyone who, albeit they have wider experience, can say much more unless combat trauma is their specialist field.

[Silbeg]

Re: Is STUN more important than BODY?

 

Yeah, I was convinced too. My reading wasn't that there was less pain but that, in game terms, far less of the pain translated into STUN damage for veterans than it would for greenhorns.

 

As you say, that could be modelled either by increased STUN or relevant defences. possibly even higher CON to resist stunning.

 

 

Doc

 

Another possibility is that training (such as Boxing, etc) could give conditional Damage Reduction. This also fits in with the story about Houdini's death, where he claimed that he could withstand and blow to his stomach, but was severely injured when caught unawares (DR or PD, RSR?)

 

Assuredly, a professional boxer (or other athlete) will have increased STR, BODY, and CON, all of which (in HERO terms) will have increased their defenses. In a situation where they have "learned" to take damage.

 

With boxers, specifically, they will often be "rolling with the punch" (a defensive manuever), thus reducing the effect of the blow.

[Silbeg]

Re: Is STUN more important than BODY?

 

Now we can't really simulate this in Hero but my point is that practically anything, whether it actually causes damage or not can result in a human passing out, becoming unconscious. OTOH last year I snapped my achilles tendon and couldn;t stop laughing. Same reaction, probably, different result.

 

Bummer.

How is your recovery going?

 

I know what that one is like, had the same thing happen to me in 2001... playing softball. Was trying to beat out an infield hit, and 2/3 of the way to first base, it snapped. My buddy coaching first said it sounded like a gun going off... but all I didn't even realize what had happened until I ended up on the ground past the base.

 

Funny thing was, in my case, it never even really hurt. It felt wierd, because the calf muscle had pulled up when released, and the foot was "floppy". However, I made it back to the bench (with help), and then eventually to my car, and halfway home. Had to stop that far (was a 30 mile drive) because I was having problems with my clutch.

 

Throughout all of that, though, I never went into any form of shock, or anything. I attribute this to a life of sports-related injuries, from sprained ankles, collisions, to a destroyed knee. So, I think that there is something to be said about experience teaching your body that it can survive damage.