This presents a couple interesting and related topics.
The first topic is one that I think we're already running into in some of the posts above. It isn't the actual injury that is so heinous, as the threat it can pose to the core concept of a character.
thirtythr33 wrote:If it is a big flaw, it will depend on the type of character I am playing. If I am playing a Mercenary, I would probably be okay taking brain damage but not with having an arm or leg amputated. If I was playing a charismatic diplomat of some sort, I would probably be okay losing a hand or foot, but not be okay with the brain damage or massive facial damage. The point is, is that if I wanted to play a character with a very crippling feature I would have created a character with that crippling feature. Being blinded or paralyzed would pretty much always be too crippling for me to continue wanting to play that character.
I think we are naturally very protective of the idea of the character we set out to play. Your grizzled veteran losing an arm can be very good drama. For a man who defined himself as good with a blade, losing the ability to wield one is an existential crisis and makes for good internal conflict. On the other hand, it's not quite as fun when the character's internal conflict becomes
our own internal conflict as we struggle to decide "what do I do with this guy now?" Add to that the amount of points invested in that character's combat abilities over time through SAs and the like and it's not difficult to see why someone could be justifiably discouraged. Some players may find that this sort of arc can make the character for them, take them in a direction they didn't expect and be all the richer for it. Others will be bummed that their swordsman is less swordsy than they had hoped, and lose interest in the character.
Second is the topic of permanent injury as and its role in game design. Right now, the only possible ways to get a permanent injury are:
> Get a level 5 wound to a place that doesn't result in instant death.
> Take a level 4 wound to the face, crown, or groin (if male).
Mechanically, the level 5 injuries serve as the ultimate fail state of combat. Your character has unquestionably been defeated and paid the cost for that defeat in some terrible way. It makes the combat more bloody and menacing than it would be without it, and in the process adds flavor to the conflict.
So now we get to start asking questions, starting with the simplest:
Should losing combat be that bad at all?
Right now the penalties for taking a level 5 wound are death or dismemberment. If we argue that it's too easy to be maimed, it's also probably too easy to be killed. On the other hand, the "average" proficiency level of a semi-professional fighting man in the game is going to be ~6-8. The game lets you
start as high as 11. The tactically minded player is generally avoiding a conflict if they don't have an SA firing (anywhere from +1-5 dice), and if possible you shouldn't be in a fair fight in the first place if you can help it. Advantage of reach, ambushes, and so on. One could argue that if you're fighting someone who is comparably skilled in a fair fight you should have sufficient reason that you're fine gambling your life away. On the other hand, a bad roll at the wrong time could mean that you are screwed no matter how carefully you plan.
Should maiming happen at all?
The rational thought would be that it's better to lose a hand than be killed, but weirdly enough that's often not how players see it (as above). You could argue that from the perspective of PC integrity, it's better to remove maiming entirely except for perhaps as the result of a wound that should otherwise have been fatal.
If we went that direction, though, it means that certain injuries (head and torso, primarily) will be lethal whereas the rest are a bad mauling the results of which you will eventually get over. Longswords seem slightly less impressive when there are no limbs being hacked off, but maybe that's my personal taste. On the other hand, if we have no maiming, then is the exact location as important? Once you declare that a limb can't be removed as a mechanical result of combat we are already beginning to abstract damage. If one can't lose an arm, is there a mechanical reason to care whether it was their hand or forearm that received the blow? It will heal either way, and the arm is useless in the meantime regardless. Our armor mechanics are only as complicated as they are because our wound locations are as specific as they are because our wound results are as specific as they are. If we're throwing out any kind of permanent effect one could easily begin to start abstracting things down to the wound-wheel level and ignore the inside/outside tracks entirely. A boon for the speed of play and book-keeping, to be sure, but at the cost of some realism.
If yes to both, then what?
The obvious answer is what we have now - to suggest that this is an acceptable consequence of combat, but if not, then what? Henri suggested at one point that we could allow level 5 wounds to be altered the way you can survive lethal wounds via SAs, but I worry that will simply mean that injuries become an SA tax, rather than an interesting consequence. Thirtythr33 suggested some kind of refund system to let you sell back proficiencies if you lose your arm -- but should we also sell back skills if they are now less competent? My thief isn't going to be picking many locks with one hand. It's a possibility, but it seems... unsatisfying as a solution.