Please excuse me for the following gentle tangent answering some of Lanefan's questions.
Herremann the Wise said:
I think a secondary effect that was a disadvantage would be very interesting. The biggest change that the game has to make in a future edition (at least according to the system I'm developing at the moment) is to go from a binary resolution system to a ternary resolution system. By having three possible results rather than two, you can really get some funky stuff happening (such as what you suggest above).
My only concern might be the slippery slope leading to 4, 5, 6 results from a single action leading to massive overcomplication.
I agree, you need to keep it as elegant as possible even if the system is more complex. To clarify, what I suggest is changing from a core mechanic that primarily works upon success/failure, to a ternary one that naturally takes into account a more favourable result (a critical if you will). By this, I mean a typical result of failure/partial success/full success. The full success may encompass two results to resolve, a partial success just the one while the failure incorporates the disadvantageous secondary effect. For some groups this is too much stuff while for others, it gives a more vibrant spectrum of action resolution. Obviously, I'm looking to satisfy the latter more so than the former.
Herremann the Wise said:
...hit points/wounds system...
So far, this is surprisingly close to the fatigue point/body point system we've used for 30 years.
I think this might have originated in White Dwarf 1979 Issue No. 15 and Roger Musson's "How to Lose Hit points... and Survive" article. The main thing is that by separating purely physical damage on its own (in the shape of wounds), you free the combat system from hamstringing the DM in describing what the hell happened when Crixas just got whomped by a greataxe. If it's hit point damage, then the axe buffeted the defender's armor or the defender got lucky zigging at the last moment, while if it is physical damage, then that axe has bit in and Crixas is crying out for a nurse with the sight of his own blood everywhere.
Importantly in terms of 4th edition, the warlord's "Inspiring Word" is a great way of increasing hit points: giving the target a boost in morale that helps them to keep going, to keep blocking attacks and defending themselves and not giving up. However, in terms of healing physical damage or wounds, it makes absolutely no sense and thus why 4e has got the right idea in regards to how to utilize hit points, although it does not separate out physical damage and thus the prime issue still remains. Importantly what this all allows is making sure that more than one specific type of character can increase the longevity of allied combatants in combat. In fact, I would take the warlord concept further to a charismatic fighter boosting the morale of his allies (buffing their hit points) with a killing blow on an important enemy combatant. It is easy to think of other classes similarly finding ways to boost hit points of themselves and others when you think of hit points as they have been basically defined; just minus the physical damage component. Physical damage always requires a healers powers (be it mundane or divine).
The differences: we don't have fatigue points as a spendable resource, nor would I ever want to see this - it feels just a bit too over-the-top for me.
Perhaps we are not so far apart in this regard. I would not want to see such a thing used for wuxia-style running across the ceiling, whacky over-the-top moves and maneuvers. However, what I would like to see is the dynamic of burning the candle at both ends in combat. A combatant may go about defensively conserving their efforts as best as possible, or a combatant could choose to go all out throwing caution to the wind in the pursuit of quickly overwhelming their foes. I'd like to think this could be done while reasonably following the fiction of the combat. I'm curious on your opinion though for while our desire for complexity may be different, I imagine the style of our respective games to be quite similar from having read your postings for numerous years.
Also, consciousness is directly tied to your remaining BP via a die roll. And your "irrevocably dying" doesn't fit; if the character is still alive at all then there's curing that can make it more alive (I'd like it to be different but this is one case where rules trump realism and I can't come up with a fix that works) and I don't even want to think about how that would interact with spells like Death's Door.
I'll explain a little further, and so see if you like or not. Healing as in restoring physical damage/wounds, be it mundane or divine usually takes an amount of time measured in hours more so than seconds. A combatant's body having suffered a degree of punishment becomes incapacitated and if they suffer further damage still (damage exceeding their deceased limit) they reach a point where their body cannot heal itself or be reasonably aided in healing itself by the aforementioned typical healing methods. There is certainty that the combatant will die unable to be saved by reasonable means, it is just a question of how long they can fend off death's grip. At this point, the combatant may still be conscious and aware of their fate and their last moments upon their world. This gives you the GM the capacity to introduce the whole dying words narrative into an encounter. The character may die instantly or survive for several minutes in this condition but normal healing is ineffective; even higher powered "instantaneous" divine healing does not work on such a character - the divine magic is unable to speed up the bodies natural healing.
However there are magics, be they divine sacrifice of the most supreme degree or the darkest of a black cabal's secrets that can affect a character in this state. The death's door magic that you mention is possible... but is the price paid too high, or is it something that a character can "live" with? There are always ways of achieving things but they perhaps demand a price too high.
I don't understand this. In our system with extremely rare exceptions you cannot take BP damage until you have run out of FP; and you hit point total is defined as BP + FP. It seems you have HP and WP operating independently of each other, which if nothing else requires the players to each keep two separate tracks; I know in my game this would prove a headache.
In 3e, we kept track of lethal damage, non-lethal damage, negative levels, resistances, temporary hit points and so on. Now I'm not trying to say that such is for everyone because obviously it is not but for some groups, they are used to such things. The way I have done it in terms of a character sheet is to have a large hit point column that is regularly adjusted, and then a number of wound boxes that will contain only a single number to represent a specific wound. These boxes are readily totaled and so it is easy to see if one's character is incapacitated or "deceased"/in the process of dying.
However, the handling and healing of wounds is something a little more involved (be it handled after a group has had their daily rest of eight hours or whatever rest is appropriate). There is the start of the adventuring day where wounds are regularly handled.
But how do you transfer HP to WP and back in your system?
Potential damage goes directly to wound points unless the character has the capacity to transfer this damage to hit point loss. This represents, the character being able to turn a blow, suffering a bruise or bump, getting lucky when they should have been wounded, sucking it up and continuing on because the princess is relying on them and so on. All characters have this capacity but there are situations where the character cannot automatically transfer this damage to hit point loss: if a character is critically hit, if they are completely flat-footed (and not just off-guard), if the damage is unavoidable (the classic falling into lava thing). Obviously, if you have no hit points left, you cannot transfer such damage either.
Any physical damage or wounds must be healed as previously mentioned. This means that the character might still be carrying a scar or even stitches in a wound; but by being healed, the wound no longer physically affects their performance. Hit points however are readily restored. A short rest and you get your breath and mojo back and a rub, bandaging or a kiss makes the bruises feel better. Hit points thus generally exist separately of wound points. Hit points are still the classic buffer they have always been.
You'll still need a battlefield healer unless you're implying WP cannot be recovered by any means other than rest.
Lan-"Death's Door is the bane of so many death-and-dying systems"-efan
As you can see from above, there are many ways that hit points can be restored, even in battle and not just by a cleric. I can imagine most classes having access to ways of increasing their own or other's hit points. The second wind idea for example from 4e (or Raven Crowking's shrugging it off mechanic) are nice ways of achieving this too.
Wounds however are nasty. The average body can take a bit (it is related as much to size and muscle bulk as much as physical constitution and vitality) but it is perhaps the mind and will of a character that can keep them up when by rights they shouldn't be. Wounds are not readily insta-healed except by powerful divine magic (in the form of prayer or holy items). As such, when a character is bloodied (having suffered a fresh wound), the player is meant to get the message that an encounter is about to start getting tough. This dynamic is certainly a shift from regular D&D and most likely more to my (and possibly your Lan-"I like my mead strong and meat bloody"-efan's tastes). 
Or not... but heh.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
