> The majority of the PC's opposition won't be taking Final Actions...
> The ones that do are likely to be the main villains that the PC's will
> watch like a hawk (or coup de grace to be certain!)
>> "a "dead" soldier opens up with a grenade/submachinegun of his own, >> wiping out the Best Friend of the central character. Had the soldiers >> taken the precaution of administering the coup de grace (a bullet to >> the head for everyone), or policed up the room immediately, the"dead"
There's no indication that this "dead" soldier is a main villain -- rather, he's the "one that got away" when the player heroes were killing off or "policing up" their downed foes.
2) I don't like the idea of players being induced to use a coup de grace "to be certain" of eliminating their Narrator's main villains. It seems counterintuitive and counterproductive.
> It is a positive virtue that the winning side is lax in their security
> precautions - that is what allows the PC's to take their final actions
> when in other games they would already be dead!
The virtue I was alluding to is that the winning PC side doesn't need to prat around specifying the tedious "security precautions" they are taking. I agree that in other posts Roderick has made it clear he doesn't think this needs to be spelled out every time. My fear is that by encouraging it to be spelled out *once*, we are still sliding too far towards simulationist paranoia. But then, I'm an old fart.
> I don't think it is any kind of good for the players to "fear being
> narrated against"
Exactly. See the "war movie" example above -- how would you interpret a Narrator saying: "If only the player heroes had taken the elementary precaution of bayoneting every 'corpse', their Best Friend would still be alive today"?
Cheers, Nick
Powered by hypermail