Topic: Falling Damage
Started by: Starshadow
Started on: 1/10/2004
Board: The Riddle of Steel
On 1/10/2004 at 8:03am, Starshadow wrote:
Falling Damage
I know this is an issue that have been discussed a few times in this forum, but it's been mainly concerned about armor and falling damage.
What about TO?
The issue has been adressed, but I can't seem to find any answers to the question.
Wouldn't a guy (or gal) with a high TO recieve less damage than someone with a low TO?
The way I understand TO is how much bashing you can handle before you break; wouldn't this reflect on falling damage as well?
On 1/10/2004 at 12:03pm, StahlMeister wrote:
RE: Falling Damage
Yes, You're right!
I calculate with TO when someone of my group is falling. Adjust the rules as You wish....
On 1/12/2004 at 8:17pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Falling Damage
I would maybe allow some sort of relative TO. That is, some of TO probably comes from Size. And the bigger they are...you get the picture.
So the question is whether or not your character is larger or not. Here's an interesting rule that has nothing to do with reality at all, but might be fun to play. Add ST to falling damage, but subtract TO. That way small tough guys take falls better than large soft guys.
The problem, of course, is that size isn't lnked to strenght quite that closely. Still..
Mike
On 1/12/2004 at 8:50pm, toli wrote:
RE: Falling Damage
Mike Holmes wrote: I would maybe allow some sort of relative TO. That is, some of TO probably comes from Size. And the bigger they are...you get the picture.
I think EN might be a better modifier than TO for modeling some sort of size penalty. It is more closely relates to your physical condition and therefore muscle/fat ratios. Thus large poorly conditioned characters would be more likely to take damage in a fall.
Just being bigger won't make you fall any faster (9.8 m sec-2 for all objects).
NT
On 1/12/2004 at 9:22pm, Merritt Baggett wrote:
RE: Falling Damage
>Just being bigger won't make you fall any faster
Yes however, (and someone correct me as needed) wouldn't the force with which you hit the ground be a combination of mass and acceleration. As you say, acceleration would be constant but wouldn't the bigger -> more massive person hit the ground with more force?
On 1/12/2004 at 9:47pm, Durgil wrote:
RE: Falling Damage
That's correct. Smaller (less massive) animals can expect to live from higher falls than bigger (more massive) animals. Therefore, to be realistic, I think that it should be proportional to the inverse of TO or size or a combination of the two. Your explanation makes sense, Merritt, but I would pick TO because it seems like the bigger the creature (i.e. dragons and giants) the higher their TO score. That correlation doesn't seem to me to follow for the other attributes except for ST.
On 1/12/2004 at 9:50pm, Lxndr wrote:
RE: Falling Damage
Maybe take a tip from the height/weight tables? I forget the exact formulas, but if you're wanting to deal with both size and toughness, it's a place to start.
On 1/12/2004 at 10:03pm, toli wrote:
RE: Falling Damage
Durgil wrote: That's correct. Smaller (less massive) animals can expect to live from higher falls than bigger (more massive) animals.
I was thinking within humans not so much mice vs dragons. For small animals wind resistence would have some effect. THere are also biomechanic limits to the strength of muscle, bone and ligaments, which would make small animals less likely to be injured.
My point was that conditioning (EN) would likely be a factor, not that ST or TO should be ignored. Well conditioned atheletes (soldiers?) would be less likely to get injured. EN also affects weight in the char generation stage. Thus an overweight character (low EN) would probably put more stress on bones or ligaments that a strong character who's body was conditioned to take the abuse, that is had ligaments used to lifting heavy weights...
On 1/12/2004 at 10:18pm, Durgil wrote:
RE: Falling Damage
Durgil wrote: Your explanation makes sense, Merritt, but I would pick TO because it seems like the bigger the creature (i.e. dragons and giants) the higher their TO score.
I don't know what I was thinking Merritt, I meant Toli.
On 1/12/2004 at 10:23pm, Bob Richter wrote:
RE: Falling Damage
No, I think it's fine the way it is. Basically, your TO counters itself, determining both the force of your fall and your ability to absorb the blow.
If you want to decouple TO from mass, that's fine too...it just ends up being more complex.
On 1/13/2004 at 12:44am, kenjib wrote:
RE: Falling Damage
toli wrote:Durgil wrote: That's correct. Smaller (less massive) animals can expect to live from higher falls than bigger (more massive) animals.
I was thinking within humans not so much mice vs dragons. For small animals wind resistence would have some effect. THere are also biomechanic limits to the strength of muscle, bone and ligaments, which would make small animals less likely to be injured.
I think it's somewhat a matter of how mass increases exponentially compared to area. This is one reason why babies have more trouble conserving heat - they have much more surface area per unit mass. Similarly, a larger creature has more mass per structural surface area, and thus more pounds/kilos pressure per inch/cm from the impact of a fall. This also helps determine how gravity of a planet can limit the potential size of living organisms and is used in xenobiology for speculative purposes, and lots of other things. Am I wrong on any of this?
On 1/13/2004 at 12:55am, Stephen wrote:
RE: Falling Damage
I'd suggest keeping it as simple as possible. As a trained stagefighter, I can tell you that the damage done by hitting the ground is controlled not by size or mass, but by the force of the fall -- the vast majority of which, for any fall over 3', is generated by the planet and not appreciably different for any reasonably-sized adult -- and the degree to which you can redirect that force upon impact. A 120-lb man can hurt himself more badly falling five feet than a 200-lb man does falling 15', if the bigger man knows how to roll with his landing.
I believe there are rules for successful AG rolls countering falling damage, but if not, I'd suggest making a simple AG roll vs. Acrobat SR or default; every success reduces effective distance fallen by 2'.
On 1/13/2004 at 1:11am, toli wrote:
RE: Falling Damage
quot;kenjib THere are also biomechanic limits to the strength of muscle, bone and ligaments, which would make small animals less likely to be injured.
I think it's somewhat a matter of how mass increases exponentially compared to area. This is one reason why babies have more trouble conserving heat - they have much more surface area per unit mass. Similarly, a larger creature has more mass per structural surface area, and thus more pounds/kilos pressure per inch/cm from the impact of a fall. This also helps determine how gravity of a planet can limit the potential size of living organisms and is used in xenobiology for speculative purposes, and lots of other things. Am I wrong on any of this?
Certainly when you are talking about large size ranges like a shrew to an elephant, those type of things are important. That was partially what I was referring to in terms of biomechanics. Again, I was really thinking about man sized only.
While weight does give you more momentum, but muscle mass can be protective as well. More muscular characters will have larger, stronger ligaments and more surface for muscle attachement but there are limits to how effective that is. Well conditioned muscle mass will protect you from injury to some extent as well because the strength of muscle develelpment actually adds some protection in terms of joint strenght and cushioning.
I think the whole process gets tricky rather quickly in reality and is not worth modeling too closely. In part it will depend on how you fall and upon what you fall. Say for example a character fall off a balcony onto a table. A light character might simply fall onto the table and stop there, coming to a stop rather abruptly. A heavy character might break the table decelerating of a longer distance.
My main point was really that poorly conditioned mass is worse than well conditioned mass because it doesn't have the strenghtening effect.
On 1/13/2004 at 6:02am, kenjib wrote:
RE: Falling Damage
toli wrote:
Certainly when you are talking about large size ranges like a shrew to an elephant, those type of things are important. That was partially what I was referring to in terms of biomechanics. Again, I was really thinking about man sized only.
But the game has small fey and dragons too. Should the mechanics be designed to support the full range or just humans?
On 1/13/2004 at 5:03pm, toli wrote:
RE: Falling Damage
kenjib wrote:
But the game has small fey and dragons too. Should the mechanics be designed to support the full range or just humans?
Oh, I'd agree you would want to be able to calculate falling damage for all creatures. However, I don't think the mechanics for a 12in seihe and a 2000 lb dragon (or what ever) would be the same. I think you would actually need separate mechanics for small, medium and large characters. As pointed out, the relationship with mass vs. biomechanical considerations wouldn't be linear. For example, I wouldn't bother with falling damage for small animals unless they fall really far.
Again, I was only referring to human sized, so you can discount anything I said when you are referring to really big or really small creatures.
For human sized creatures, at least, you might use some mod based on the height calculation of TO+ST-AG-EN (is that correct). The TO and ST give you a mass side of the eq but the AG and EN account for flexibility and efficient use of mass (muscle not fat). THen calculate damage and deduct TO as normal... or some thing...
Overall, I'm too lazy to modify what's in the book...
On 1/13/2004 at 7:35pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Falling Damage
The principle involved is often refered to as the Cube-Square law. If you want to be an expert on it, then please refer to:
http://www.io.com/~tbone/gurps/GULLIVER/
Yes, this is all in GURPS terms, but it is, essentially, a thesis on how physics should be modeled (Bob, you'll really groove on this).
Specifically:
http://www.io.com/~tbone/gurps/GULLIVER/B6damage.htm
Look about Half way down at the section on falling (it also refers to collisions above it). It gives thoughts about the breakfall sorts of skills that somebody mentioned, and how to handle it.
multiply damage by the square root of (your mass in lbs. / 150)
Then you'd allow toughness to reduce, as the above assumes some sort of HP-like system. In this way, you have your cake and eat it too. Complicated, but it works.
It also means that the most effective way to kill a dragon is to get it to crash. :-)
Mike
On 1/13/2004 at 7:49pm, Bob Richter wrote:
RE: Falling Damage
I drooled for a couple of hours the first time I read that, and then I put it away, wary of overcomplicating things and ending up with Hackmaster.