The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Medpacs (and what irks me about them)
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> Medpacs (and what irks me about them) Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Site Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 4604
Location: Columbus, OHIO, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
Does the operation of a medpac also include diagnosis?

I’d say yes. That’s one reason why it requires a First Aid roll to succeed. Unless I diagnose where the wounded guy was shot, I can’t effectively apply the bacta patch.

Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
I'm starting to thing that two rolls are needed.

Roll 1 = Diagnosis

Roll 2 = Treatment


Then, set the time for Diagnosis longer than one combat round.

...two rolls seems too complicated for space opera to me.

I agree with Bren's general sentiments. The First Aid roll includes the sum of diagnosis and application both, but I feel application of high tech space opera medpacs is fairly simple and straightforward, so most of RAW's single roll is already diagnosis.

And this already takes some of the meta-quality out of it. As players, everyone in the room hears the GM tell the player what his PC's wound status is as a result of the rolls. However the PC missing the roll could mean that in-universe, the PC misdiagnosed the wound and thus mistreated it. Player knowledge may influence when to use a medpac, but it can't help the roll (except in the decision to use CPs and FPs). And this diagnosis aspect of using medpacs is one reason why I feel First Aid isn't at all out of place in Knowledge instead of Technical.

Wajeb Deb Kaadeb, I'm really surprised to read you wanting to house rule something more complex than all editions of RAW by adding another roll to medpac use. That's so un-1e of you!
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1452

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's something more 1E of me:

A - When someone goes down and needs a medpac, either roleplay it out the time it takes to prepare the patient, scan and get info from the scanner, and retrieve/prep the medicines.

B - Then allow the application of the medpac as noted in the rules.



I suspect that combat will expire during A above, and so the application of B will happen in scenes, not rounds, anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1452

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ANOTHER LOOK AT THIS TOPIC



Maybe I'm (we're) not giving the Star Wars medpac enough credit. Here's a scenario that makes sense to me:

The medpacs are prepped for treating a blaster injury, since that is the most common injury to occur in a Star Wars game.

The mumbo-jumbo: There are three primary medicines to treat blaster wounds on most sentients. Ana-One is a medication that numbs the area and helps with pain. Bacta-microtabolism is a bacta distillate that, when in the blood stream, aids healing from within. And, Fizzz, which is a topical foam that hardens after application to a dried plaster state. Fizzz serves as a bandage to protect the wound, a topical coagulant to aid in healing, and a topical local anesthetic, all rolled into one agent.

When a comrade is shot, a person can hurry to that person, pull the pre-set applicator out of the medpac, and apply it by one pass over the wound with Fizzz first, then slapping the applicator against the skin where it will automatically inject the right doses of Ana-One and Bacta-M.

Different species may require different dosages. Up to three species can be pre-programmed into the applicator. This requires the care giver to punch one of three set buttons on the applicator. These red, white, and blue buttons can be pre-set to any species in the medical library. When buying standard medpacs, they usually come with one human setting (the white button) and two blank settings that can be programmed to the user's tastes.

More expensive applicators also serve as monitors. Once the applicator is slapped onto the patient, the readouts on the applicator report all vital signs.





USING THE MEDPAC

So, a pre-programmed medpac is easy to use. You just make your way to the patient, press the correct button for species, if necessary, wave the applicator over the wound is dispenses Fizzz. Then slap the applicator onto the patient's skin.

This can usually be done within 5 seconds of reaching the patient.





A DIFFERENCE IN EDITIONS

In 1E, medpacs can only be used on a patient once per day. You cannot use multiple medpacs on the same patient.

Failing the Medicine roll to apply the medpac only means that it takes more time to apply the medicines to the wound. In game terms, you roll once per round until successful.




OTHER INJURY TIME

If the medpac is set for blaster wounds, and the character is burned, instead, or cut from a knife wound, then the applicator can be programmed for different types of wounds rather than being set for different species.



This way, the rule doesn't change. Our expectation of what the rule represents, does.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1452

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A THOUGHT FURTHER...


Although the pic given for the medpac doesn't really support this...maybe the medpac is mainly the scanner/applicator. The rest of the stuff--the scissors, tape, gauze, other topical agents, etc.--are extra support stuff.

When someone is shot, you pull the applicator and click two buttons: Human. Blaster Wound. The applicator does the rest.

I can see that in five seconds.




And, I can see a super-smart applicator unit, with a miniature droid brain, that I mentioned up-thread. A person doesn't have to know much about Medicine. You just open the applicator and slap it on the being. Instantly, the applicator will know the species, the wound, and apply the correct medication.

The Medicine skill (First Aid in 2E) represents the knowledge that the care giver has and can give the applicator even more information, making for better use of the unit. Thus, shorter application times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Site Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 4604
Location: Columbus, OHIO, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Medpacs (and what irks me about them) Reply with quote

Wajeb, now you're talkin'!

Whill wrote:
1 round - returning a character to consciousness and/or removing all stun effects
2 rounds - healing from wounded to no wound status, and healing from wounded twice to wounded
3 rounds - healing from incapacitated to wounded twice
4 rounds - healing from mortally wounded to incapacitated. (Normally this is done after stabilizing the patient.)

Wajeb, thanks for putting my supposition into a better perspective.

garhkal wrote:
Whill wrote:
I feel that first aid with medpacs should not be something that can stack like this because "first aid" is supposed to be only the first aid that is applied before a character gets actual medical attention. It's not second, third and fourth aid! I have already altered medpac rules to better address that silliness:

If the first aid roll misses the difficulty by more than 7 points, the medpac has pushed the injured character’s body to its limit. No more medpacs can be used on him for a full standard day (24 hours). After a medpac has been used successfully, another medpac cannot be used on that character until there is another change in wound status from damage. Whether used successfully or unsuccessfully, increase the first aid difficulty one level for each additional medpac used on a character in a single full standard day.

So in my game, a character can only get one medpac used on him successfully per wound status change due to damage. After that, if still wounded the character must receive medical attention or heal naturally. Also, RAW just jumps from First Aid to bacta tanks so I added another possible level of professional medical attention (surgery, etc.) in between.

I like this rule.. Consider it yoinked for when i do Home games.

There is a great disturbance in the Force!

With only one medpac per wound status change from damage, the only time medpacs will ever be used on a character multiple times in one day is when they get multiple new wounds in one day. It has happened in my game. PC gets incapacitated in one battle and then gets healed to wounded twice with a medpac. Then later that day gets another wound so back to incapacitated. No stacking of multiple "first" aid rolls on a single injury.

Glad to be of service!
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1452

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yet Another Way To Go....


We can also use the MedScanner, from page 39 of Fantastic Technology to diagnose, and make that piece of equipment relevant.

Then, once we've used the MedScanner, it syncs with the MedPac, and we apply the medpac as per the rules.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3606
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
Regarding die codes and die code accumulation, it is confusing to quote the original 2e book when that edition was officially revised and updated 21 years ago (R&E).
Honestly I don't think there is any confusion between a 25 year-old rule set and a 21-year old rule set when the edition used was clearly listed with page or section references. The reason I quoted the Second Edition is not because it is some higher authority or preferred version, but because I learned that edition first so those are the rules that set my expectation and interpretation of the D6 dice progression.

In doing that I was seeking to
    (a) explain why I used the die progression of 1D, 1D+1, 1D+2, 2D....
    and
    (b) provide the rules on which I had based the use of that progression.

Quote:
But when die codes are temporarily multiplied such as with Force Points, or when die code values are added together such Strength+Weapon Damage, the pips are added up separately from the die codes. The "+3s" and higher are not "converted" to pips as they would be for die code advancement. Die Code advancement is a totally different thing than multiplying or adding die codes temporarily. I feel it's actually very straight forward.
Rather than again asserting this as the case it would be helpful to cite the RAW in some section in a particular set of rules that states that as the progression.

Quote:
And I do have a degree in Mathematics and got an A in Probability & Statistics calss, so I have a decent grasp of die roll probabilities for the game.
I don't especially want to play argument from authority. But I will if you insist.

Quote:
I was considering how each possible last random time die code value compared to 1D+2, not how they compare to each other. Is that more clear?
Yes. Thanks. I understand why you would prefer to use 1D+3 to 2D in this situation and feel that 1D+3 was a more suitable or useful step in a progression for this situation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Site Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 4604
Location: Columbus, OHIO, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
Honestly I don't think there is any confusion between a 25 year-old rule set and a 21-year old rule set when the edition used was clearly listed with page or section references. The reason I quoted the Second Edition is not because it is some higher authority or preferred version, but because I learned that edition first so those are the rules that set my expectation and interpretation of the D6 dice progression.

In doing that I was seeking to
    (a) explain why I used the die progression of 1D, 1D+1, 1D+2, 2D....
    and
    (b) provide the rules on which I had based the use of that progression.

But we are discussing interpretation of RAW, and you are not citing the most up to date version. Part of the "revision" of "revised and expanded" includes some rewordings of rules, clarifications. This rule was not actually changed between 2e and R&E. But it was clarified further. You were citing the first version when the second version is clearer. That is unnecessarily complicating RAW interpretation.

Bren wrote:
Rather than again asserting this as the case it would be helpful to cite the RAW in some section in a particular set of rules that states that as the progression.

I think R&E speaks for itself, but we did bring up that it was further clarified in the last Adventure Journal. Those are specific sources. You are quoting an older edition and then expecting us to refute that with quote citations from the newer edition. Wouldn't it have just been easier for you to cite the last edition in the first place?

Bren wrote:
I don't especially want to play argument from authority. But I will if you insist.

I was not arguing from authority. I mentioned my degree because you clearly thought that I didn't understand the D6 probability and statistics 101. I was not stating 'you are wrong because I have authority'. What you said was correct. I agree with you. You were right. I was saying you misunderstood that I had misunderstood. I already acknowledged that I had been too vague by explaining how 1D+3 was better for that chart. I only stated the one criterium of the minimum value. I should have been more complete in the first place, and if I had, perhaps you wouldn't have felt the need to insult my intelligence.

Anyway, again for supreme clarity, my degree was not mentioned to argue anything. The record shows I actually agreed with you. My degree was mentioned to explain how I knew you were right on that point. Which logical fallacy is it when you create a conflict that doesn't exist?
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3606
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
But we are discussing interpretation of RAW, and you are not citing the most up to date version.
I explained why I cited the Second Edition.

Whill wrote:
I think R&E speaks for itself, but we did bring up that it was further clarified in the last Adventure Journal.
I thought we were discussing the rules (plural) in Star Wars. Regardless actual citations with a section or page, and preferably an actual quote, are useful (I’d say necessary) to any serious discussion of what the rules say rather than what you or I infer or remember from the rules we read at some day, year, or decade in the past. Pointing at a 280+ page rule book and an unnamed article from some issue of the Adventure Journal isn’t much different than you simply saying, “because I say so.” While you aren't required to provide citations, sans any a citation of a specific rule there isn't really anything more to discuss regarding the progression for die codes in WEG's Star Wars rules.

Whill wrote:
You are quoting an older edition and then expecting us to refute that with quote citations from the newer edition. Wouldn't it have just been easier for you to cite the last edition in the first place?
I explained why I quoted the Second edition and made it clear that I was doing so. I've made my interpretation of the rule clear and I think I've clearly indicated on what I based my interpretation. I never claimed that the Revised Edition, the many issues of the Adventure Journal, or for that matter, D6 Space, were in conflict with the interpretation you assert. Personally I’m comfortable with the rule I use and with the rule that I base it on. You seem equally comfortable with your interpretation whatever its source or sources. I see no reason to spend my time looking up specific references for you to support the assertion you’ve repeatedly made. So, no, in fact it would not have been easier for me to look up references from multiple sources.

Whill wrote:
I was not arguing from authority. I mentioned my degree because you clearly thought that I didn't understand the D6 probability and statistics 101.
But mentioning your degree didn’t clarify anything. You did that with the reply that you wrote. No degree was required or asked for. So the only reason I saw for you including your credentials was to make an argument from authority about your knowledge and understanding of statistics based on the authority of your degree credentials.

Quote:
I only stated the one criterium of the minimum value. I should have been more complete in the first place, and if I had, perhaps you wouldn't have felt the need to insult my intelligence.
No insult to your intelligence was intended. I honestly fail to see how a simple statement like “1D+3 isn’t better than 2D. Sure 1D+3 has a higher minimum but it has a lower average and lower maximum” is an insult. To me it is a simple, factual statement. Sure it’s an obvious statement, but sometimes stating the obvious is needed for clarity and you’re not the only person who may read my reply.

Similarly, the table you included in your reply listing the specific minimums, means, and maximums for 1D+2, 1D+3, and 2D was equally obvious. It didn’t occur to me to feel insulted that you chose to include that level of detail in your post. Was I was supposed to feel insulted?

Quote:
Which logical fallacy is it when you create a conflict that doesn't exist?
At this point I hesitate to even speculate. Perhaps it’s better if I just move on to another topic or thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1452

PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was just watching Hacksaw Ridge before the Series came on, and I was marveling at how fast the morphine tabs worked.

Watching that, it reinforced my conclusion above that a medpack must be some type of (probably bacta based) Star Wars tech healing agent that a person slaps on an injured being--a sort of one-size fits all wounds solution that aids and accelerates natural healing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dredwulf60
Captain
Captain


Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 529

PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
I was just watching Hacksaw Ridge before the Series came on, and I was marveling at how fast the morphine tabs worked.

Watching that, it reinforced my conclusion above that a medpack must be some type of (probably bacta based) Star Wars tech healing agent that a person slaps on an injured being--a sort of one-size fits all wounds solution that aids and accelerates natural healing.


BUT...

Morphine doesn't actually heal anything. It just masks the pain.


IMO the truth behind the workings of the medpac:

it's a vestigial remnant from the original style of RPGs... the ubiquitous D&D healing potion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ray
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 31 Oct 2003
Posts: 1383
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, North America, Western Hemisphere, Earth, Sol, Western Arm, Milky Way

PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My group was always of the mindset that the medpac was that it made you "good enough" to move to get some proper treatment.

Enough to return a person to combat capable, but they better see a doctor right after it otherwise they're risking serious problems.
_________________
"And you, sitting in that turret, doing nothing but pick your nose..." "Just marking my kills." - Fitz and S.C. MacDuff
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1452

PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dredwulf60 wrote:
Morphine doesn't actually heal anything. It just masks the pain.


Which is why I mentioned SW tech. The tech is there for a solution that is injected into a being--that works with most known beings and generally promotes health, like bacta that can be used on just about any injury. Cell regeneration or something like that.

And, it works, quick. Takes little Medical knowledge (maybe just for the dosage, which is why there is a skill requirement in some versions of the game).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1452

PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ray wrote:
My group was always of the mindset that the medpac was that it made you "good enough" to move to get some proper treatment.

Enough to return a person to combat capable, but they better see a doctor right after it otherwise they're risking serious problems.


Sure. I wasn't trying to change the rules on what the medpac did. I just wanted to reason out how the medpac could be so helpful on any Alien being in a single combat round of a few seconds.

The picture of the medpac is misleading. It shows scissors and gauze and tape and vials of medicine. There's even a diagnostic computer in there. But, if that's the medpac, there's no way it can be used in a single combat round. You can't even take out the components you need or take out, turn on, and use the diagnostic computer in one round.

I'm guessing, instead, that the madpac is a single hand-sized device that injects some bacta-based healing agent into the blood stream. Whenever someone is hurt, you don't need to diagnose. Just slap one of these puppies onto the character, and basic healing from within is enhanced to a certain degree.

Different editions of the game put different restrictions on medpacs. In 1E, which I play, a medpac can only be used once on a character. Medicine skill is required, so I figure this is to judge the amount of solution used with the pac. Don't want to use too little, for no effect, or too much, for an overdose.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ForbinProject
Commander
Commander


Joined: 16 May 2016
Posts: 318

PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
Dredwulf60 wrote:
Morphine doesn't actually heal anything. It just masks the pain.


Which is why I mentioned SW tech. The tech is there for a solution that is injected into a being--that works with most known beings and generally promotes health, like bacta that can be used on just about any injury. Cell regeneration or something like that.

And, it works, quick. Takes little Medical knowledge (maybe just for the dosage, which is why there is a skill requirement in some versions of the game).



Using morphine as an example, it doesn't take any medical knowledge. A morphine syrette is prepackaged with the correct dose 1/2 gram.

You take off the cap, insert the syrette, and squeeze the dose to inject it.

Then you "mark" the patient with something like M - 19:55 so medical personnel know what was administered and when to avoid overdoses.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0