Re: The Glorantha Digest V6 #77

From: IUL-Labor <IUL-Schleswig_at_t-online.de>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:03:34 +0200


Digest V6 #77
Pete Nash
> 5) Although the contest resolution works fine for verbal or
> non-dangerous conflicts I think it fails when it comes to combat.
> Using this system to resolve a combat between two opponents only the
> person who loses all of their action points first would be wounded
> or killed. I agree with Michael Cule that this is too much of an
> abstraction and I prefer to see the other participant suffer
> some injury (or its equivalent) during the fight too.

Easy solution for this - make the fight go through several stages (i.e. have the involved characters carried apart during the conflict by external agencies or character action). This way the wounded (and likely impaired, i.e. target-number and action point penalized) character might have a chance to get a wound across to the opponent.

> So it was impossible to give the opponent a bad wound or kill them
> without placing yourself in danger. Again this is counter intuitive
> to me. If Robin is trying to model TV/book fiction how could the
> system handle a disgruntled (inexperienced) wife who simply
> plunges her fish knife into her husbands belly and kills him in one
> shot?

One shot kills are counter-productive for roleplay, really. It is all-right to incapacitate in one very successful strike, but sudden death should be reserved to mastery of killing implements. Like chopping off heads with a sword...

Also note, that in a good opera the dying character gets to sing an entire aria before passing out. Almost the same in a soap opera.


Powered by hypermail