Permanent Limb Loss and You

[Ozfer]

So, I'm working on a system meant to be fairly deadly and brutal, and I am curious about your opinions on one aspect of combat often ignored in RPG's: Limb Loss.

How do you feel about it?

Is the realism added worth the disappointment of being permanent handicapped (It assumed you cannot regrow the limb through magic)?

If you were, say a master pickpocket, and your hand got cut off, would you feel that this ruined your character concept, or gave you a whole new angle?

Feel free to elaborate in any way not covered.

[JusticeZero]

Whether it adds a "new angle" is irrelevant, since mechanically, my character has been made unplayable.

[Talakeal]

How I deal with it in my system is that when a player takes a critical hit I give them the option to pick up a flaw which represents permanent injury. It is voluntary on the players part and awards bonus character points to compensate.

[Ozfer]

Talakeal- Yes, I considered that option, but ultimately decided that I wanted combat to be riskier, and a voluntary flaw doesn't convey that feeling.

JusticeZero- Well, it doesn't render him unplayable, you'd just have to change a couple things around. And wouldn't it provide a nice roleplay angle, being a master of a trade you can't do anymore? (Actually, you could just use your left hand with a penalty, but still.)

[Rhynn]

Limb loss and similar injuries are fine for a game that's not a traditional dungeon crawl type. In Aces & Eights, an ex-gunslinger preacher who lost several fingers from his better hand is a perfectly fine thing to be, for instance. Similarly, in The Riddle of Steel, I could easily see playing a character who's suffered one or more gruesome losses to the combat result tables

It certainly encourages playing the game less violently. If combat has consequences (beyond just possible death), it's going to be very serious business.

Even in a more traditional game, it can work fine. One of my favorite characters someone's played at my table was a dúnadan ranger in MERP who lost his hand in a battle with orcs - the orc chief hacked it off. He was a giant badass. (A long-term tagalong NPC of the party became mute after falling in a bit trap and getting a stake in the throat.)

[Ozfer]

Yes, that's the mentality I'm approaching this with (Caution, violence is deadly). I don't want to make combat something that people are too afraid to approach though. And, of course, Someone who loses a limb in a fight usually gets a bunch of bad-ass points.

[Emmerask]

So, I'm working on a system meant to be fairly deadly and brutal, and I am curious about your opinions on one aspect of combat often ignored in RPG's: Limb Loss.

How do you feel about it?

Is the realism added worth the disappointment of being permanent handicapped (It assumed you cannot regrow the limb through magic)?

If you were, say a master pickpocket, and your hand got cut off, would you feel that this ruined your character concept, or gave you a whole new angle?

Feel free to elaborate in any way not covered.

It depends a bit on the campaign.
In a campaign where I´m invested in my character and that is more then just hack and slash dungeon crawl then I would be fine with this handicap, its something to overcome and I will do my best to do so.

If its a dungeon crawl with the characters only being bags of stats then I would be against it, why should I have a handicap in the only thing that matters in this particular game.
Better retire the character and roll a new one

[The Dark Fiddler]

It depends on the system, and it depends on the player, and it depends on the character.

In a game of Dark Heresy, my psyker recently fried his own hands to uselessness through malfunctioning psychic powers. I think that, combined with the coma he put himself in when he attempted suicide, provides a great springboard for future roleplaying. It's also okay with me because my psyker doesn't really need hands, and was already a bit crazy to start with (thus, he's going to be keeping his hands useless in place of his previous ritualistic self-harm to show his devotion to the emperor).

If, instead, my friend was playing a swordsman in a setting where prosthetics aren't possible, then he'd probably be much more upset. A fighter of any sort who can't hold a weapon is all but useless, so the character is pretty much done... that can be very upsetting if you had a lot left to do with the character.

I feel that limb loss should only occur in two situations, unless you've talked about it extensively with the players in advance: when it will have little impact on the character or be easily cured (like my psyker), or in place of a different, equally serious consequence (if the character was going to die, and losing a limb means he needs to NPC-ified, then that's a fairly even trade).

[Mr. Mask]

I don't want to make combat something that people are too afraid to approach though.

...Why not?


I'm rather sick of systems that lack harm. I'd prefer to triumph violently over my enemies, or fall. With good armour, you aren't likely to lose limbs, other than too infection, so it balances out nicely as you get better gear and can play thing more like aggressive, experienced shock troops.

For the sake of my curiosity, I'd like to ask if when you say you're making a deadly and brutal system: Are you trying to make a gritty system, that conveys the feel of something like Conan, with spectacular violence--or are you interested in depicting combat accurately?

[Ozfer]

I have no experience with Conan or it's various counterparts, but I'm trying to depict combat fairly accurately, but with room for heroism under the right conditions, such as people paying the equivalent of Fate points to ignore pain, add dice to their attack, etc...

And I certainly want combat to be something that people are afraid of, just not to the point that it never happens (Because, come one, its fun ).

[Rhynn]

For the sake of my curiosity, I'd like to ask if when you say you're making a deadly and brutal system: Are you trying to make a gritty system, that conveys the feel of something like Conan, with spectacular violence--or are you interested in depicting combat accurately?

What Conan are you talking about? In Howard's novels, injuries tend to be... injuries. I can only think of one story where Conan suffers improbable injuries (Xuthal of the Dusk, fighting the Lovecraftian god of Xuthal).

[Jay R]

1. I think most players will roll up a new character if it happens.

2. Since it's more likely to happen to a fighter, and it's more deadly to a fighter, I would only use this in a game if I thought the magic-users and clerics were underpowered compared to the fighters.

[Ozfer]

1. I think most players will roll up a new character if it happens.

2. Since it's more likely to happen to a fighter, and it's more deadly to a fighter, I would only use this in a game if I thought the magic-users and clerics were underpowered compared to the fighters.

1.Well, that's certainly an option, even if it isn't something I want to encourage :|.

2.Well, that actually fits the system I'm making. Thanks for the thoughts.

The Dark Fiddler- Sorry I missed your comment. You criteria for when limb loss should happen is interesting, and I'll definitely think about that.

[Rhynn]

1.Well, that's certainly an option, even if it isn't something I want to encourage :|.

It's a very likely occurrence, though. Retiring a character because of a crippling injury makes sense both for the character and for the player. How would you encourage players to keep playing a character with crippling permanent injuries?

Edit: I think retiring characters is a great idea in general, whether because they got to a high level or because they're unable or unwilling to continue adventuring. Retired characters shouldn't just disappear, either - they should become part of the setting.

[TheStranger]

It's a very likely occurrence, though. Retiring a character because of a crippling injury makes sense both for the character and for the player. How would you encourage players to keep playing a character with crippling permanent injuries?

Edit: I think retiring characters is a great idea in general, whether because they got to a high level or because they're unable or unwilling to continue adventuring. Retired characters shouldn't just disappear, either - they should become part of the setting.

I agree with this. If injuries have permanent consequences, and future combat is correspondingly more deadly, you have to be ready for players retiring from adventuring after they take an arrow to the knee.

I think injuries make for interesting stories because they are challenges to be overcome, but they create a lot of balance problems in an RPG because they can screw with the power curve as the game progresses.

[Rhynn]

I think injuries make for interesting stories because they are challenges to be overcome, but they create a lot of balance problems in an RPG because they can screw with the power curve as the game progresses.

Well, "balance problems" and "power curve" only apply to a narrow-ish subset of RPGs (including, of course, D&D 3.X and 4E), but yeah. For D&D 3.X, I'd never use these ideas...

[Ozfer]

It's a very likely occurrence, though. Retiring a character because of a crippling injury makes sense both for the character and for the player. How would you encourage players to keep playing a character with crippling permanent injuries?

Edit: I think retiring characters is a great idea in general, whether because they got to a high level or because they're unable or unwilling to continue adventuring. Retired characters shouldn't just disappear, either - they should become part of the setting.

It's interesting that you think it's a great idea in general, because the very reason I didn't want to encourage it was that I thought it would be dislike by players. Aside from that, I like the concept just because of the storytelling it enables.

As for the balance issues, that's a non-issue with this system. Characters are expected to have diverse power levels (In fact, there are no levels, just skills that improve).

[headwarpage]

As for the balance issues, that's a non-issue with this system. Characters are expected to have diverse power levels (In fact, there are no levels, just skills that improve).

Even in a level-free system, some characters' skills are improving, but other characters are being crippled and getting less useful over time. That seems like it would be the problem for most players; having your character get mechanically worse rather than better as you play.

[Water_Bear]

I like the idea of limb loss to be there (although preferably as result of a "you hit 0hp, roll not to die" chart rather than from a Critical Hit table) because it can be badass and makes sense logically. Ideally you could lose limbs from non-combat injuries as well; having a burning house collapse on you or falling off a cliff can be tough on your limbs, or so I hear anyway.

My main gripe with it, like all forced transformations of characters, is that there should be an option for the Player to put down a character they no longer want to play. Retiring them, deciding that the attack killed them instead of mutilating them, turning them over to the GM as NPCs, whatever. Because forcing someone to play a character they don't like is awful no matter why you're doing it.

[Ozfer]

I like the idea of limb loss to be there (although preferably as result of a "you hit 0hp, roll not to die" chart rather than from a Critical Hit table) because it can be badass and makes sense logically. Ideally you could lose limbs from non-combat injuries as well; having a burning house collapse on you or falling off a cliff can be tough on your limbs, or so I hear anyway.

My main gripe with it, like all forced transformations of characters, is that there should be an option for the Player to put down a character they no longer want to play. Retiring them, deciding that the attack killed them instead of mutilating them, turning them over to the GM as NPCs, whatever. Because forcing someone to play a character they don't like is awful no matter why you're doing it.

Yes, retiring a character will always be an option. Also, the way the system is organized, it is completely possible (and just as likely), to lose a limb by doing something stupid like falling off a cliff or dropping a house on yourself. Thanks so much for your thoughts :).

EDIT- Headwarpage: Well, ideally players won't be getting their limbs chopped off left and right, and with combat being so deadly, it shouldn't be too much of an issue unless your party is both exceptionally unlucky and really reckless.

Looking over that last sentence, I realized I just described every adventuring party ever .

[Erasmas]

I had an NPC fighter that fought sword'n'board style and lost his sword hand. He struggled through, fighting with his offhand and shieldless, until his next level... where he received training (read "a feat") to learn how to make his left hand his predominant one and had his shield modified with a 'cup' that his stump slid into.

[Geordnet]

It sounds like a very good idea to me. Permanent limb loss is essentially permanent stat loss, but more interesting. It'd be a good way to keep the danger up without having to actually kill off anyone, too.


There's a limit to how much a character can afford to lose before it must be retired, though. Obviously the limit is only one eye, unless you pull off a "magical sight replacement" trick.

For the lower body, a character can loose one leg below the knee and still be able to maintain balance if the other foot is still operational. A character which can still feasibly adventure in a wheelchair (ex. a wizard) would be able to afford loss of both legs.

For upper body, the loss of one hand (or arm below the elbow) is easily (and badassly) dealt with, but losing both is the end for any character which can't do stuff directly with their mind. Up to two fingers may be lost on a hand while maintaining a near-normal level of ability.

[Mastikator]

If combat can easily result in permanent damage then players will always look for a non-combat solution, including fleeing, unless substantial rewards are given specifically for violent combat.

To be honest, I like it, lethal combat is scary, you should be involved in it if you don't value your character's life.

[Treblain]

My problem with this would be that an injury often reduces the ease of mobility, exploration, and ensuring party safety. Limb loss or other disabilities can be interesting, but you don't always think about how this affects more than just the character's combat or skill capabilities.

If you get stuck with a peg leg and a lowered move speed, you're going to force the party to consider leaving you behind every time they need to leave in a hurry. It's a compelling moral dilemma the first time, and after that it gets frustrating. Plus, having to stay back to help your limping buddy means more combat against bad odds, not less.

Finding creative solutions to compensate for your disabilities is fun, but they'll either become repetitive problems that slow the game down, or else you solve them over and over with the same solution you used the first time and the disability is effectively negated. Look out for party resentment and boredom.

[Ozfer]

My problem with this would be that an injury often reduces the ease of mobility, exploration, and ensuring party safety. Limb loss or other disabilities can be interesting, but you don't always think about how this affects more than just the character's combat or skill capabilities.

If you get stuck with a peg leg and a lowered move speed, you're going to force the party to consider leaving you behind every time they need to leave in a hurry. It's a compelling moral dilemma the first time, and after that it gets frustrating. Plus, having to stay back to help your limping buddy means more combat against bad odds, not less.

Finding creative solutions to compensate for your disabilities is fun, but they'll either become repetitive problems that slow the game down, or else you solve them over and over with the same solution you used the first time and the disability is effectively negated. Look out for party resentment and boredom.

Hmm... That's a good consideration, and definitely something I'll think about.

Mastikor- Yea, that's one of the major pros of limb loss.

Geordnet- Yes, I just don't want limb loss to replace death, otherwise someone will always be losing appendages before they eventually drop.

Erasmas- Did you think this was more or less fun than simply keeping your hand? Did you feel stifled or rewarded for overcoming your characters obstacle?

[valadil]

I think there are three types of players out there. Those that would roll with it. Those that would be pissed about it and not have a good time. And those that would take the first excuse possible to roll a new character. I think most players are #2 and I think #3 outnumber #1.

Whenever I've seen this proposed to a group, someone in the group has always responded that they'd rather have the character die and start over without the handicap. Having another player do that wouldn't necessarily make me jump on that bandwagon, but it would go along way to ruining the experience of playing a handicapped character.

The only game I've played where the players accepted permanent injuries to their characters was Deadlands. But most of those permanent injuries were phobias, which were circumstantial. And Deadlands is famous for its high character turnover. Playing a blind guy for two sessions isn't as bad as being stuck with a character with that flaw for a year long campaign.

I don't think magical regeneration (or mechanical attachment depending on the genre) is a bad compromise. I'd just make it slow. Nobody is regrowing a leg in a dungeon. That's something you do between missions when you have a month of down time. I'd say something along the lines of hand: 1 week, arm: 2 weeks, leg: 1 month.

[inuyasha]

Whether it adds a "new angle" is irrelevant, since mechanically, my character has been made unplayable.

what if you trained yourself to use your feet with lots of dexterity...


...what...you think im joking? Im actually quite serious

[Need_A_Life]

Well, if randomly losing body parts is an unavoidable risk of any conflict, I'll be going for whatever role is most useful sans limbs. Seriously. If there's a telekinetic, telepathic brain-in-a-jar option I'll go there.
It's really the sort of thing that can ruin a lot of concepts. "Oh, so you're the swiftest ranger in the Eastern Realms and your skill with bows are legendary. Unfortunately, since you lost your eyes..." isn't fun and neither is the handless swordsman (now, cutting off the hands of NPC swordsmen; that's comedy )

[Mr Beer]

If you want a gritty dangerous realistic combat system, then you should include limb loss as a possibility.

The objections raised in ITT are to do with player satisfaction, which is a legitimate concern. But if the players aren't down with the realistic danger of getting a hand chopped off when fighting with swords, they probably aren't going to enjoy that style of campaign anyway.

It's not limb-loss that's the problem, it's everything else that goes with a real world approach.

Those players aren't going to happy if their character trips over a rock, breaks an ankle and dies of blood poisoning a week later either. Or if the party gets losts in the forest and most of them starve/thirst to death before making it back to civilisation. Or if they acquire some loathsome social disease that gives them an all-over rash, a rotting nose and eventual madness and death.

[Geordnet]

If you want a gritty dangerous realistic combat system, then you should include limb loss as a possibility.

The objections raised in ITT are to do with player satisfaction, which is a legitimate concern. But if the players aren't down with the realistic danger of getting a hand chopped off when fighting with swords, they probably aren't going to enjoy that style of campaign anyway.

It's not limb-loss that's the problem, it's everything else that goes with a real world approach.

Those players aren't going to happy if their character trips over a rock, breaks an ankle and dies of blood poisoning a week later either. Or if the party gets losts in the forest and most of them starve/thirst to death before making it back to civilisation. Or if they acquire some loathsome social disease that gives them an all-over rash, a rotting nose and eventual madness and death.

Yeah, that's basically all it comes down to. Most players prefer (or think they prefer) not having their characters harmed. (Personally, I think they're just depriving themselves of fun, but it's their choice.) Either way, things like limb loss are what players who like gritty realism will want to see.