Permanent damage

[Vahn]

Heya all

I was running a session of ASIF last night and one of the player (the second son of the house) almost died when he was betrayed by his mercenaries and also when bandits captured him. After everything ended well (more or less), my players asked me if there was a table for permanent damage due to what happened.

I didn't see anything on the book but I remember reading somewhere that players may gain drawbacks and flaws with time. I know some of them are pretty obvious, like maimed if someone cuts a finger or a hand, etc. But, do you use some kind of improvised table for drawbacks for this kind of situations? I just went with what it seemed more or less logical with a few endurance rolls (he ended with a flaw in athletics).

What do you guys think?

[Legate]

Depending on how badly he was injured I wold indeed use the maimed disadvantage. If he wasn't damaged that badly I would say something like -1 off of Agility, Athletics, or Endurance.

[Tao Jones]

In the Defeat and Consequences section of the Combat chapter, it mentions one of the possible outcomes called "Maimed", that reads "Permanently reduce one ability score of your opponent's choice by one." Sounds like just what you're looking for! Just reduce the player's Endurance, or perhaps impose a Flaw (Endurance) in place of that.

[Carriker]

There isn't a random table for something like that, as this system prefers to give a little more agency to a character's fate. But, as you mentioned, a solid beating sounds like a good opportunity to pick up a new Drawback, and thus gain an extra point of Destiny - something chosen by the player, rather than imposed on him.

[nakraal]

In my campaign my player just got brutally defeated by Black Walder Frey in a tourney Grand Melee. Black Walder continued to hit him imposing wounds after the player yielded. (the player has Nemesis with Walder Frey, so...)

Now I decided that the flail hit on his face imposed him the Marked drawback + an awareness flaw. Am I too harsh (shoul I give him 1 of the 2?) and if he gets the Marked drawback he will take a destiny point?

[Legate]

"Now I decided that the flail hit on his face imposed him the Marked drawback + an awareness flaw. Am I too harsh (shoul I give him 1 of the 2?)"

The player is lucky his charatcer still has a face after eating a flail like that. I think you are pretty well spot on with this one.

[coldwind]

In my campaign my player just got brutally defeated by Black Walder Frey in a tourney Grand Melee. Black Walder continued to hit him imposing wounds after the player yielded. (the player has Nemesis with Walder Frey, so...)

Now I decided that the flail hit on his face imposed him the Marked drawback + an awareness flaw. Am I too harsh (shoul I give him 1 of the 2?) and if he gets the Marked drawback he will take a destiny point?

Seems a bit harsh to me. One of the two is sufficient, although I would certainly allow the player to take the other as well and gain a Destiny point.

[Legate]

In my campaign my player just got brutally defeated by Black Walder Frey in a tourney Grand Melee. Black Walder continued to hit him imposing wounds after the player yielded. (the player has Nemesis with Walder Frey, so...)

Now I decided that the flail hit on his face imposed him the Marked drawback + an awareness flaw. Am I too harsh (shoul I give him 1 of the 2?) and if he gets the Marked drawback he will take a destiny point?

Seems a bit harsh to me. One of the two is sufficient, although I would certainly allow the player to take the other as well and gain a Destiny point.

With respect, are you kidding? He took a flail to the face...I'm not even sure how he would still be breathing; it should have shattered his skull like an egg. We are talking severe damage to all the senses (ie badly broken nose, shattered eye sockets, trauma to the ears) Also, he probably (if this were real life) would have walked away with a broken jaw and deep lacerations to the face all of which would not heal properly (given modern standards). If that isn't worth "Marked" and an awareness drawback, I don't know what is.

One of the things I have always thought is over looked in an RPG of this kind is the type of horrendous wounds these weapons deal in a blow. Conventional healing practices would not work as well as they do in RPGs. But, then again you wouldn't get much adventuring done from a hospital bed I guess.

[coldwind]

In my campaign my player just got brutally defeated by Black Walder Frey in a tourney Grand Melee. Black Walder continued to hit him imposing wounds after the player yielded. (the player has Nemesis with Walder Frey, so...)

Now I decided that the flail hit on his face imposed him the Marked drawback + an awareness flaw. Am I too harsh (shoul I give him 1 of the 2?) and if he gets the Marked drawback he will take a destiny point?

Seems a bit harsh to me. One of the two is sufficient, although I would certainly allow the player to take the other as well and gain a Destiny point.

With respect, are you kidding? He took a flail to the face...I'm not even sure how he would still be breathing; it should have shattered his skull like an egg. We are talking severe damage to all the senses (ie badly broken nose, shattered eye sockets, trauma to the ears) Also, he probably (if this were real life) would have walked away with a broken jaw and deep lacerations to the face all of which would not heal properly (given modern standards). If that isn't worth "Marked" and an awareness drawback, I don't know what is.

One of the things I have always thought is over looked in an RPG of this kind is the type of horrendous wounds these weapons deal in a blow. Conventional healing practices would not work as well as they do in RPGs. But, then again you wouldn't get much adventuring done from a hospital bed I guess.

With respect, no, I am not.

It seems harsh.

To arbitrarily say a foe lands multiple full-force flail hits to a non-helpless character's face without a chance to mitigate the damage, and then to heap on top of that multiple drawbacks without offering the player some form of in-game compensation?

That seems incredibly harsh.

This system does not have a hit-by-body-location system, and in fact, is completely designed to give player's agency in narratively describing how their characters are affected by damage, injuries, and wounds.

To mechanically review, the Narrator had Black Walder auto hit (normal requires a burnt destiny) and presuming that damage was enough to defeat the PC, got to choose two of the possible outcomes of defeat rather than just one (not a specified use of destiny, but easily one comparable to another burnt destiny). So, without in-game compensation, the Narrator has effectively allowed the Black Walder to burn two destiny, and now the PC effectively requires 3 burnt destiny to fully recover (1 to remove marked, 1 to remove the awareness penalty, and likely 1 to remove Nemesis). Not to mention however many injuries and wounds the PC still has to recover.

That seems very incredibly harsh.

[coldwind]

One of the things I have always thought is over looked in an RPG of this kind is the type of horrendous wounds these weapons deal in a blow. Conventional healing practices would not work as well as they do in RPGs. But, then again you wouldn't get much adventuring done from a hospital bed I guess.

As an aside, it's not so much that they're overlooked, it's that they're ignored because it would require so many factors taken into consideration that it would require advanced mathematics, physics, or criminal forensic degrees to figure out where the victim is hit, what angle the hit strikes at, how deep the weapon impacts, how damaged the victim's body is, how resilient the victim is, how bad secondary injuries are from collapsing to the ground, whether infection sets in, etc. etc. etc... .

So systems simplify.

And in particular, as I said above, ASoIaF gives players the agency to say what happens to them. One of the most elegant solutions in my opinion.

[Legate]

Agreed, ASOIF does a pretty good job of making wounds something to be afraid of. But, it really would not be as difficult as you say. All that would be required is a simple mechanic (PC takes X amount of dam and he is critically wounded) and he makes an Endurance roll if he passes then he fights on, if he fails he is incapacitated for the round. As simple chart could also be done to give an idea of what type of wound has been sustained. If anyone has read the Yggdrasill rules they are simple, yet elogant and pretty bloody at times.

[nakraal]

With respect, no, I am not.

It seems harsh.

To arbitrarily say a foe lands multiple full-force flail hits to a non-helpless character's face without a chance to mitigate the damage, and then to heap on top of that multiple drawbacks without offering the player some form of in-game compensation?

That seems incredibly harsh.

This system does not have a hit-by-body-location system, and in fact, is completely designed to give player's agency in narratively describing how their characters are affected by damage, injuries, and wounds.

To mechanically review, the Narrator had Black Walder auto hit (normal requires a burnt destiny) and presuming that damage was enough to defeat the PC, got to choose two of the possible outcomes of defeat rather than just one (not a specified use of destiny, but easily one comparable to another burnt destiny). So, without in-game compensation, the Narrator has effectively allowed the Black Walder to burn two destiny, and now the PC effectively requires 3 burnt destiny to fully recover (1 to remove marked, 1 to remove the awareness penalty, and likely 1 to remove Nemesis). Not to mention however many injuries and wounds the PC still has to recover.

That seems very incredibly harsh.

Hm...the action was like that:

After 2-3 rounds of combat with closing up, cautious attacks, maneuvering to impose reach penalty to the other etc,

(Both foes in full plate)

1.Black Walder landed a terrible blow on the player who suffered all his allowance of injuries
2. The player does not yield (fellow players urged him to keep on), he distracts his foe & strike him for 2 injuries
3. Black Walder knockdowns player and he strucks him severely on his back for wound #1
4. Player tries to stand up. Spends a fatigue to strike for some bruises on Walder
5. Walder knockdowns him and hits him for wound #2
6. Player yields while prone
at this point:

7. Walder hits again, severe head strike for wound #3.

Doesn't that suffice for a maim?

And if not, cant Black Walder choose the consequences of defeat at point 7, after the player yields? In that case he would choose to maim him but no 3rd wound would be imposed (as point 7 would be the narration of the conseq. of defeat than an actual combat round)

Its supposed that in a tourney its dishonorable to do so, but a dishonorable char can do so none the less. (There where consequences for him later in the tourney).

The surrounding lords and tourney judges stop Black Walder from continuing and he leaves the melee grounds.

[Legate]

"So, without in-game compensation..."

I'm confused, what "in-game compensation would you allow?

" and now the PC effectively requires 3 burnt destiny to fully recover (1 to remove marked, 1 to remove the awareness penalty, and likely 1 to remove Nemesis). Not to mention however many injuries and wounds the PC still has to recover."

Why on Earth would you even consider that? These are great RP opportunities.

[Canarr]

@coldwind and Legate: I think you're both misinterpreting that, hence the confustion.

The way I understand it, the "flail to the face" thing isn't the *cause* for the acquiring of drawbacks; it's merely the narrative description of the result following the rules. Upon defeat, the opponent may choose any result from the list provided; Maimed is one of them (resulting in some sort of visible scarring plus a Flaw to an ability of the opponent's choice); so, Black Walder - and thus the Narrator - could legitimately impose the Flaw to Awareness if they want. Provided, of course, that Yield offers the opponent the same actions as Defeat does; the rules don't explicitly state that, but since Yield involves throwing yourself at your oppoent's mercy (a quality not regularly attributed to Black Walder), it seems fitting.

The player could, then, burn one DP - one, not two or three - to change the result of his Defeat from Maimed to Knockout, thus sparing himself the scar and the Flaw. And no, he wouldn't get a DP for getting Maimed, if he chooses not to burn a point to avoid it.

So much for the rules. The narrative part would then be something like, "the knight let the heft of his blade slip from lifeless fingers, looking up at his imposing opponent from the ground. The ribs crushed by the devastating blows Black Walder had rained upon him sent jolts of pain through his body with every breath; he knew the next hit would finish him, so he yielded, hoping against hope his nemesis might prove better than his reputation and spare his life. The other man looked down on him, face invisible behind his helmet's visor. Then, slowly, as if to savor the moment, he raised his flail above his head, left it hanging for a moment, before bringing it down on his helpless foe. As the massive weapon descended, it seemed to block out first the sun, then everything else."

Later in his tent, the maester would then determine that the last blow had shattered his helmet, driving splinters into his left cheek and eyesocket, crushing his cheekbone and injuring his eye. Even though the maester's knowledge of the healing arts saved his life and his eye, it didn't really seem to focus right anymore.
Or, if the DP was burned, it turned out the blow only glanced off the helmet, knocking him out without inflicting further harm.

So, yeah. That would be the options that I see for the resolution of this situation. Personally, were I the player, I'd probably go with the burning of the DP - if only to piss off my Nemesis because his dishonorable action in the tourney didn't even gain him anything

[Legate]

I like it. Though I probably would go with the scar and the drawback...it adds flavour to the character. I had a B'Tech character, a Kuritan officer, once who was shot in the knee during an assassination attempt and I wrote the injury into the character's history, even though as per the rules there was no lasting damage (ie he walked with a slight limp for the rest of his career up to the point when as an old man and General he sometimes required a walking stick.) I like this type of extra detail to the history of a character.

[Canarr]

Could be fun, yeah. Could also be a lead-in to a personal feud between the two, that can only end with the complete annihilation of either one; or, depending on the PC, he might be striving to maim Black Walder in return - Sleepers-style: "Every time I look in the mirror, I see your face. Now, every time you take a bath - you see mine."

[coldwind]

@Legate: It's not as simple as "X damage is a critical wound" without changing the fundamental design decision that damage, injuries, and wounds are primarily under player control. Barring a critical hit (an existing system) and a few benefits, there is no way to force an injury or a wound on a character - it is the player's choice to reduce damage inflicted by suffering an injury or a wound.

I'm not familiar with the Yggdrasil system, but I've never seen a usable "simple" chart mapping damage taken to type of injury - too many variables to factor into from weapons, hit location, skill, toughness, etc..

Now, as to the "too harsh" debate...

First off: since the "too harsh" question was asked, then that would imply one of two things - the Narrator himself thought he may have ben too harsh, or the player thought it was too harsh. Thus, it doesn't seem that unreasonable that some people would agree that the whole situation seemed too harsh. That's not to say that it was too harsh, but it's certainly ok to say it seems to harsh.

That said, if the player is ok with the outcome, then the situation is moot.

So, I'll proceed with the assumption that one or more players are still thinking the situation was too harsh.

@nekraal:

Full stop on the on Number 7 "severe head strike". Who said it was a "severe head strike"? All these arguments about "marked and awareness penalty because he took a flail to the face" all rest on the problem of "to the face", but the system doesn't let you say "it was to the face". Only the player gets to say that. At most, the Narrator can say, "Black Walder hits you hard... take X damage." Unless it was a critical hit or Black Walder has a benefit that imposes additional wounds or injuries, there isn't even a guarantee that the PC takes a wound - he could just let all the damage through en route to being defeated (defeat through 0 health is no different than defeat through too many wounds).

Now, one way or the other, yes, the PC is defeated, and unless he burns a Destiny, Black Walder gets to choose his defeat option, and yes, maiming is one of those options he can pick. But he doesn't get to pick two options - and picking both Marked and a reduction to Awareness would be two options picked. That's why I said one or the other is fine, but both seems too harsh.

And technically no, Black Walder doesn't get to choose the consequences of defeat if the PC yields. That's the point of yielding (ie - "Ok, you win, but my PC gets left unconscious on the ground"). If Black Walder accepted the Yield, then he accepts the outcome the player offered. Now that said, Black Walder doesn't have to accept the yield, and by attacking that's exactly what he didn't do, and if his attack deals enough damage to defeat the PC, then Black Walder gets to choose the outcome of defeat as normal. But he still only gets to choose one outcome.

That said, because it makes for a good story, I would still allow the player to pick the other option in addition and gain a Destiny point for it, but it should be the player's choice, not an extra thing imposed on him without compensation.

Also, for the record, it is not dishonorable to ignore a yield; that's the chance you take when you surrender. It's not nice, and may have other repercussions or missed opportunities, but it's not dishonorable. It's only dishonorable to go back on a yield - either reentering a fight after yielding, or accepting a yield and then going back on your word.

@ Legate (again ): "in-game compensation" usually means Destiny Points.

And yes, they are great RP opportunities, should the player wish to pursue them. But again, it should be his choice, not an imposition of the Narrator.

@Canarr: It is certainly possible a misinterpretation is happening, but I don't think so. Just a difference of opinions (both of which are valid, of course)

As I said above, if you yield, you pick the outcome (pg 161 under Yielding in Defeat and Consequences). Your opponent doesn't have to accept. Black Walder's flail attack (which from nekraal's description was actually rolled) would suggest the yield was not accepted (which is fine), but also means it's not narrative description for the outcome. And since it was rolled, Black Walder doesn't get to say it was in the face; even if the player chooses to take a wound instead of being defeated by going down to damage, it player who gets to say what happened to his character. Black Walder does get to choose the outcome (and Maimed is a possibility), but it is still the player who gets to describe the how (Black Walder may choose for a -1 to Awareness, but the player still doesn't need to describe it as a smash to his face - it could just as easy be described as the player throwing an arm up at the last minute, having that arm twisted in such a way that a piece of metal jammed into his ear and damaged it so now he can't hear quite so well...)

And again, the point isn't that Maimed is too harsh. It isn't that Marked is too harsh. It's that imposing both together seems too harsh.

I completely support a player saying, "Hey, Mr. Narrator, can I use this defeat as a way to pick up another drawback to gain a Destiny?" and in so doing, taking, for example, Marked when Black Walder only choose Maimed. It's not so cool when the Narrator says you have to take both when the rules only call for one.

But again, all this is based on the assumption the player thinks they've been shortchanged in this. If not, then the whole thing is moot.

[Roadspike]

I agree with everything Coldwind said but one point:

Ignoring an opponent's attempt to yield is not the action of an honorable knight. Now, this is slightly different from 'ignoring an opponent's attempt to yield is dishonorable,' but it's a point of semantics. You don't -have- to accept an opponent's attempt to yield, but it's the honorable thing to do. Ignore it too often, and you'll get a reputation as a dishonorable and bloodthirsty warrior. In a tournament, it is certainly dishonorable. Tournaments are not about killing your opponent, or even hurting them, they're about proving your superiority over them.

[Vahn]

After reading all this, I guess ASIF lets you imagine what you like. There is no restriction at all... That's great but sometimes you are too used to other games that you expect some instructions.

Well, my player fell off a "small" cliff and got tied and forced to walk while the bandits were riding so he fell was more time on the floor than walking xd and got kicked some times in the end. He can't walk as he used to now

Thanks for all the tips!

[Carriker]

I completely support a player saying, "Hey, Mr. Narrator, can I use this defeat as a way to pick up another drawback to gain a Destiny?" and in so doing, taking, for example, Marked when Black Walder only choose Maimed. It's not so cool when the Narrator says you have to take both when the rules only call for one.

This is precisely the philosophy of the system, yes. Different groups are going to handle the narrative that flows from the mechanics differently, of course, and that seems to be where the disagreement and/or confusion is arising.

On one hand, you have the attacker making the "I smash my flail into his filthy face" declaration, and backing that up with a successful dice roll. That's one approach.

On the other, some groups are going to have the defender narrate what just happened to their character. "He hits me for 9 damage? Ugh. I take two Injuries, then, and a point of damage. His flail strike slams into my helmet, and the blood rushing into my eyes impedes my effectiveness."

In both instances, those are narrative devices whose ENTIRE mechanical effect is already wrapped up in the combat exchange as presented. But, the narrative description can certainly be used to justify more lasting outcomes of the conflict.

As mentioned, if Black Walder defeats the knight, he might choose the Maimed outcome, applied to his Awareness. The player of the defeated foe still gets to decide what that looks like. Blood vessels in one eye burst, perhaps, leaving him with a hideously blood-shot eye for the rest of his days, or perhaps shards of bone drove into his ear canal, lessening his hearing. Whatever - those are the narrative details that the player of the defeated character gets to make the call on.

Likewise, the player can also say "So, he kick my ass pretty good. I've been meaning to get another Destiny point, and this looks like a good opportunity. Can I say that the injury that caused blood to run in my eyes while I was fighting was a bit more serious than I originally thought? The injury festers after the fight, and then I lose sight entirely, so I can take the Impaired Sense Drawback?"

[nakraal]

Coldwin:

The player yields and I must choose a consequence of defeat.

I considered that Black Walder would select the Maim outcome and the "Marked" flaw.
Thus the game mechanics selection drived my description of a "head blow" instead of the description of a head blow driving the game mechanics.

[coldwind]

Coldwin:

The player yields and I must choose a consequence of defeat.

I considered that Black Walder would select the Maim outcome and the "Marked" flaw.
Thus the game mechanics selection drived my description of a "head blow" instead of the description of a head blow driving the game mechanics.

Again, if a player yields, he chooses the outcome. The other character doesn't have to accept the yield, of course, or may even counter-offer, but if he (Black Walder) does accept it, he (Black Walder) doesn't get to choose the outcome of defeat.

Also, it's that "and" for those two outcomes I feel is harsh. Picking Maimed is just a -1 to one ability. Technically there is no option to impose a Drawback like "Marked", although it seems a reasonable alternative to "Maimed". But both together seems harsh.

[Canarr]

I'm still not quite following... the description of Maimed as a consequence of Defeat in my (GoT Edition) rule book states that the character receives a visible scar (loss of thumb or eye are listed as examples) and receives -1 rank to an ability of the opponent's choice. To me, that sounds like the original idea put forth by the game's Narrator, and well within the rules. Of course, that would only be one drawback - Maimed - not two... maybe that's the point of contention?

[coldwind]

I'm still not quite following... the description of Maimed as a consequence of Defeat in my (GoT Edition) rule book states that the character receives a visible scar (loss of thumb or eye are listed as examples) and receives -1 rank to an ability of the opponent's choice. To me, that sounds like the original idea put forth by the game's Narrator, and well within the rules. Of course, that would only be one drawback - Maimed - not two... maybe that's the point of contention?

That's exactly the issue. Maimed is fine. A purely descriptive scar is fine. The Marked drawback is fine. But included both the mechanics of Maimed and Marked seems too much.

[Canarr]

I thought Maimed is basically Marked with an additional mechanical penalty on top?