to take Injuries and Wounds, or not to take, that is the Q

[Zapp]

First off: I think this "voluntary" aspect of "critical hits" is wonderful!

Now, am I right in assuming you would seldom/never take any of these as long as you can keep your Health above zero?

Losing Health doesn't have any repercussions as long as you haven't reached zero, right?

Example: You have Health 12 and (I assume) therefore an Endurance of 4.

you receive 7 points of damage. Would you do anything else except going down to Health 5? If you the next round get another 7 points of damage, would you do anything else but take a single Injury and 3 points of damage (going down to 2 Health)?

Things I imagine could complicate things: if there are effects in the game that give small amounts of damage over time. Say, poison perhaps?

If you are exposed to something that drains your Health by one point per round (another example might be extreme heat), you might be better off starting to take Injuries as soon as possible, keeping your Health as high as possible to withstand the damage over time.

After you've left the area (of extreme heat perhaps), you would suffer your Injuries of course, but the alternative would have been accepting Injuries just to avoid dying from the DoT. A strategy that obviously wastes Injuries - besides, you run out of Injuries and Wounds pretty quickly anyway.

Not saying DoT's exist in the game, just using them as an example. Or is it always better to use Health first?

[Patchface]

I'd have to say that the SIFRP damage system is the one (previously unknown) quick-start rules part I find most impressive. It seems easy yet innovative, deadly but not random.

Now, am I right in assuming you would seldom/never take any of these as long as you can keep your Health above zero?

Losing Health doesn't have any repercussions as long as you haven't reached zero, right?

So far, I don't see any serious disadvantages to losing health points, so yeah...

I think that's how it's meant to work, too. You take as much damage as your Health allows, then you resort to taking injuries, then wounds.

[RJS]

Patchface pretty much describes my thinking here, but I imagine there may be a few places where taking an injury to negate a hit might not be a bad idea.

[Lexarcana]

I think that's how it's meant to work, too. You take as much damage as your Health allows, then you resort to taking injuries, then wounds.

If this is the way it actually works, it is a bit of a missed opportunity, as the best way to exploit the mechanic would actually render the 'choice' portion of it almost meaningless.

For example if wounds would actually cancel not ALL damage, but a number of damage points equal to your current Health (or Health x2?), the choice would be much more meaningful and hard to take, IMO.

Francesco

[Zapp]

I've come to the conclusion the "choice" aspect is more of a writing shorthand than any real design feature.

That is, making it a choice is a smart way of implementing the rule in a straight-forward and easily explained manner that probably will generate less rules questions and avoid complaints about any inflexibility.

At first, I thought the choice itself was going to be a highlight of the (sub-)system, but I have changed my mind about that.

[Zapp]

I should add I'm referring to the (perceived) choice between losing Health and taking Wounds/Injuries.

The choice between taking a Wound or an Injury remains, of course.

[Lexarcana]

That is, making it a choice is a smart way of implementing the rule in a straight-forward and easily explained manner that probably will generate less rules questions and avoid complaints about any inflexibility.

That would be a really smart stylistic choice, if maybe a little deceiving.