>If you lose, you have the option of taking one ^or more^ wounds for a
>saving of 4 AP each.
>
>I.e. the Humakti holding off the walktapus to let his friends escape -
>"I can't let him scare me away/incapacitate/knock me off the cliff (end
>the contest, in rulespeak) yet, my friends aren't safe! He's slapped
>me a nasty tentacle slap but I'll stand here and take it no matter how
>much I'm hurt"
>
>Does this make sense? The defender obviously has more flexibility in
>whether they continue to participate, at a higher cost.
I'm not sure it does. Sure, it's the available AP that determines whether you are able to continue, but the idea of taking Wounds INSTEAD of being tired is extremely fake. Wounds should be WORSE than tiring, not just a lesser evil. Wounds in this system are an escape from the consequences of combat, not the result of it. A wound should MEAN something, an injured leg would reduce agility and mobility, an arm would reduce weapon or shield skill, etc. A -1 is nasty at low ability, but pretty meaningless higher up (excepting the mostly artificial mastery breaks). Possibly, a wound should be relative, maybe -1 x(level of mastery of the wounded +1), representing a reduction in physical ability, not just skill (you can't resist a knee injury just because you're a faster runner, quite the opposite). So with a skill under 1W, a wound is -1, with 1W to 20W it's -2, etc.
Maybe that's a bit radical though, I'd say, either convert all AP into wounds at 7 AP a time (not just 1 per exchange), or make wounds worse, maybe -2 per wound. Make wounds IMPORTANT. Don't make it less than 7 AP per wound though, that turns it into the Death of a Thousand Cuts.
Just ideas though, don't think I'd use any of them myself without some more work.
Wulf (making the most of the Caps Lock on my new keyboard)
Powered by hypermail