Earlier this year, I played and enjoyed a game of Beyond the Supernatural, which warmed me to Palladium after years of dismissing it. For some reason, I am hung up on the absurdity of SDC, and I was going to make a blog post about it, when I realized... SDC is really no more or less absurd than any wounding system in most of the games I have played. Hit points are just as absurd. I suppose the difference between the two is that hit points have always been semi-abstract, whereas SDC is blatantly stated to be damage that is "just a scratch."
...of course, take all the athletic skills and pick the right OCC and having a magnum unloaded into your character can be "just a scratch."
...but is this any different than a D&D character surviving a blast of dragon's breath, or being shot five times with a heavy crossbow, etc, etc...? If hit points are abstract and don't necessarily represent injury, then what is cure light wounds? Does it not restore "luck" or "plot immunity" or any of the other abstract stand-ins for what hit points are supposed to be?
I imagine the feasibility of hit points is also impacted by one's perception of combat round as an abstract representation of an exchange between two parties, or if every attack roll is a swing of the weapon.
I had planned to house rule SDC into a sort of "fatigue" that absorbed damage from fisticuffs and other low-lethality attacks, but I remember how cumbersome that type of thing was in Champions, plus I seem to have deconstructed my own criticism of it. If a 9th level fighter can take a hit from a hill giant's club, for whatever reason, I suppose I can stomach the concept of SDC. I sometimes wonder if my mind can more easily accept medieval weapons and the hit point system are far removed from my daily existence, while the news regularly reminds me how fatal modern weapons are.