Had a somewhat involved discussion (possibly slightly heated...) about the potential treatment of wounds (and by treatment, I mean how to deal with them rather than curing them) in the system.

We both accept the importance of TOR being a flavourful system which gives room for description of outcomes.

How do other people treat the description of wounds to characters? I was suggesting drawing a distinction between wounds where you are not rendered weary and those where you are.

I was suggesting that such a wound (one where the character is not weary) be considered and described as essentially superficial - you are 'walking wounded' and it effects how quickly you recover Endurance, and there was no need for additional game mechanic penalties. If you are weary due to endurance loss, the wound slows the rate at which you do not get a penalty.

My friend was proposing that wounds have penalties applied to actions where the wound is relevant - so if the wound is characterised as affecting the arm, it might make certain tests of athletics more difficult. if it affected the leg, it might increase the travel TN, and so on.

I would be very interested to hear how others both describe wounds characters receive, and whether they apply other in game modifiers as a consequences of a wound. I am not looking to resove the debate through the medium of the forum - in the cool light of day I can see value to both approaches, I am simply interested in how other players and Loremasters have handled this issue.

Thanks in advance for all positive responses.

We have simply used the rules as written. While we describe the nature of the wound strictly for flavor purposes, we only apply the mechanical penalties per the rules. And, of course, when a weary and wounded character fails a test because he rolled a 1, 2, or 3 on one of his skill dice, then we describe the failure as being due to his injury in some way.

There are systems that work with wound s, but this isn't one of them. How would you determine where the wound is, so that you could determine the relevant penalties? Description? Rolling dice? Wound is just an extra level of complication that most games don't need.

This is really the hit point argument. Why is it that in many RPG's characters can fight at full power until their HP run out and they fall over? Because that's the way the rules are set up, for ease of use and smoothness of play. In this case, the Weary rules add a little bit of depth to the regular HP sort of play, enough to add flavor, but not enough to bog anything down.

Even Rolemaster, if I recall correctly, didn't worry about wound s on every hit, though the criticals did mention s and specific penalties.

Yes and no. RM has a two-fold approach. There are simple hit points that could be increased to a maximum number dependent on your race and individual status (high or low constitution score). Any hit causes the loss of these abstract points. You can die from only losing these, but it takes a lot of punishment to do so - and it's not the normal way. The loss of these points represents superficial wounds, bruises and exhaustion.

Real wounds (e.g. the one this thread is about) are exclusively handled by criticals in combat. There you are exactly told what the specific injury does: Cuts, fractures, burns etc. to a specified of the body. The accompanying penalties from these wounds are specified as well. Some are quite self-explanatory though, e.g. when a vicious cut from a sword causes the content of your abdomen to drop to the floor...

Best
Thomas

So far in my campaign, I'm staying with the rules as they are. Tolkien seldom described wounds to the detail of say a RM critical system. Take as an example Boromir's fall. "He was pierced with many arrows" is the primary description given by Tolkien. Visually, that has most often been depicted as arrows piercing his torso. However, that is not in Tolkien's narrative.

I think the combat system with it's piercing blow and possibility of a resultant wound reflects Tolkien's narrative style quite well. Of course if a LMs narrative style tends towards systems like RM, then an addendum can easily be developed and grafted onto the combat system. All of this is made easier by the simple elegance of the core mechanics. House rules are easily added without ridding the house of published rules, or changing them beyond recognition.

Regards,
E

The Star Wars RPG by wizards (not played Saga edition, so not sure if it's true in that game) used Vitality and Wound points.

Vitality was the near misses, flesh wounds, bruising and other superficial injuries.

Wounds were the more serious injuries inflicted by critical hits that could lead to instant death.

In the last D&D 3.5 game that I ran, I used the same rules (which are in Unearthed Arcana too).

I mention this because it similar to the Endurance and Wounds of TOR.

Personally, I prefer the damage to be dealt with like this, as it allows people to recover from fights quickly if they sustain only minor injuries, but keeps that 'one shot kill' there, as a reminder of how fragile life is.

Thus far in my TOR campaign, only one character has sustained a wound, but it's inevitable that someone will die... and that's part of the fun of gaming.

End of ramble!

Yes, there are instances (not *so* rare when you have a closer look) where Tolkien goes into detail. IIRC he does it where it is necessary for the plot or serves the story by describing an especially vicious event (naturally, since it's about battle injuries) or furthering the narrative. The killing of Gelmir, the fall of Fingon or the cripple Sador in Húrin's household are examples.
The - specific - death of Thrór, and especially later Náin in the battle of Azanulbizar are other examples.

Best
Tolwen