Hmm, I'm thinking we're actually saying the same thing in different ways. I suppose the term "losing APs" or "loser" leads one to believe that the person or thing that has been overcome is suffering a negative consequence. While in combat, that is definitely the case, if you are imbuing a sword with a magical ability, for example, the "losing" sword can gain an ability when its opponent overcomes it and forces it to "lose" APs. In essence, I am saying that the loss of APs can be a flaw or an ability depending on the type of contest. In your building a house example, the loss of APs could be traded for abilities or qualities of the house. The final negative outcome would determine final quality of the house as determined by final negative APs.
> >My take is that if you have stated as the goal of your
contest "kill
> >or wound my opponent" that wounding will result as part of the
> >losing AP process. Rather than making this a choice of the loser,
> >simply state than any AP loss of 7 or more (optionally 10 or more)
> >results in a the loser gaining a flaw/wound equal to the AP loss,
as
> >described by the GM. Whether or not a wound is inflicted, the AP
> >loss occurs. That is, it does not matter whether you have taken a
> >wound or not -- an AP loss is always an AP loss.
>
> But as an end result this is still possible. That's what the RP
total is for
> at the end. At the point they lose, it's up to the winner to
decide what
> happens with that total. So, if they loser has taken any wounds
along the
> way, these are "unrelated" to the big wound that they're going to
get as the
> overall result.
I like the effect of having wounds occuring during the contest, modifying the target number in successive rounds. So 3 wounds at 13, 7 and 18 would result in a -4 modifier to the target number while still fighting.
My take is that the wounds inflicted during the contest would be counted over and above the final result of the contest. In the normal rules, in the States of Health section, it says "If the hero also suffers from one or more hurts, those penalties are applied after the injury penalty is calculated." So the same injured character from above, should he suffer a Major Defeat and be Injured, would be at -50% to appropriate abilities, also have to deal with the 3 wounds and heal them separately. The same character, were he to win the contest, would still have to deal with the 3 wounds.
The winning of the contest happens the same way it does in the normal rules, by driving the opponent to negative APs -- wounds are simply an added effect than can produce a flaw (or in the case of the sword or house, an ability). The added benefit of sticking to APs is that you don't have to add a rule for the number of times the loser can take the flaw during a contest. The contest ends the way it would using the normal rules, and both the winner and loser can end up with wounds.
> >To be operfectly clear:
> >An AP loss of 1-6 is is simply an AP loss, reflecting gaining a
> >better position, maneuvering, etc.
> >An AP loss of 7+ is an AP loss PLUS a flaw/wound as described by
the
> >GM.
>
> That's a viable system, don't get me wrong. It just doesn't
accomplish any
> of the design goals that I've set for the system I want to see.
>
> >I like the idea of gaining an ability as a result of a transfer of
> >AP to another player. For example, a transfer of 13 APs from
> >opponent 1 to opponent 2 would result in Opponent 1 taking a
> >flaw/wound and losing the APs, while opponent 2 would gain, for
> >example, an Outmaneuver And Wound opponent ability of 13, which he
> >could choose to cement after the content for 1 Hero Point. In the
> >current battle, he'd get the +1 bonus for his fight if it applied,
> >and later on (if it was cemented), the ability could be used as a
+1
> >augment to all his or her deadly battles.
>
> So you see this only as sensible in the case of Transfers, and not
in any
> other circumstances? I'm a bit confused as to where your objection
lies.
I don't have an objection to the addition of abilities via APs at all -- I think it works beautifully; I just don't think a new currency (RPs) is needed to express it.
> >The final results of AP loss would work as they do in the current
> >rules for the loser, but wounds on either side would continue
until
> >they healed over time or were magically treated.
>
> My current rules, or the current real rules?
As exaplained above, but I meant the current normal rules.
> >I didn't really understand the Conflict Results of the draft rules
> >you wrote. Couldn't this be simpler and just use the straight AP
> >loss or gain to determine the flaw/wound or the new (temporary or
> >permanent) ability?
>
> Simpler yes, but problematic in that the total achievable becomes
a bit too
> high. If I have a 5W ability, and drive you from 1AP to -24, I can
then take
> a parting shot, and drive you further down to -29. Or, using RP
accounting
> 49 more points than your resistance. That's over two masteries,
and not
> particularly difficult if the target has a low resistance. It
would mean
> that I could target a 12 TN resistance for a project, and come up
with a 1w3
> result reliably. With my system a 12 TN is limited to a 7W result.
Much more
> reasonable.
I don't see a problem with a person being driven to -29 APs (even with the parting shot) and using that to determine the final outcome of the contest. In a battle, that person would be Injured (-50% modification) and may have a number of wounds as a result of large AP loss during the battle.
In the case of the sword or house, How about reversing the results of the Contest Consequence Table? So here the sword house would receive up to +50% of the "losing" resistance, or the total APs lost, whichever is lower. If the house were to have been driven to - 29 APs and its target number was 12, the best quality/ability it could gain would be 18, no matter how far into negatives it was driven. The only addition here would be for Dying, which would be +100% of the "losing" resistance. The house could have an ability of 4w.
> >As far as the Simple Contest use of APs, I like the idea if the
> >resolution can be determined after one roll of the dice. I would
> >think the option of doing it without APs should be available if it
> >doesn't add anything to the narrative.
>
> From one POV, that's sorta how it works now. If I have more AP
than you, and
> bid everything in the first round, then it's a Simple Contest in
effect,
> anyhow, right? You'll note that the multiples for larger loss will
tend to
> correspond with the breakpoints for larger losses. So it's pretty
unified as
> written. All I've done is to make the outcomes the same for all
uses.
>
> In any case, if you do a simple contest, the result will end up
being a Hurt
> -1 for somebody in the normal system. So theoretically there's
still
> recordkeeping to do, as much as my system has. Instead of Hurt -1,
in my
> system you write Beaten Up 13, or whatever. Now, sometimes using
the normal
> Simple Contest rules, I don't bother recording it, because the NPC
> opposition isn't going to come back anyhow. I'd assume that,
likewise with
> my system, if it wasn't important, that you'd just narrate the win
and
> ignore the result.
>
> So I'm not seeing any need to use the normal system every using
these rules.
> At the point that "it doesn't add anything to the narrative" the
systems
> function identically. Or is it the bid that bothers you? I see
that as
> important because, as the stake gambled, the downside is always
important to
> the narrative. I really do want to know just how the character is
wounded,
> and precisely to what extent. That's the point of the whole system.
>
I can definitely see uses for bidding AP for a simple contest. How hard do you want to try to pick the lock? Do you want to be cautious, or throw everything you have into it? I just would like a way that picking a lock didn't become an extended contest. In the case of assigning an ability or flaw to something, it certainly makes sense, however. I guess in my case, a person would have to bid at list 7 AP in order to assign an ability of 7; anything less would only be an AP loss. I like that your system requires 1 Hero Point to cement an ability at 13. Would an ability at 6w require 2 HPs?
The nifty thing about all this is that as you are bidding to create flaws and abilities, they can backfire, and the reverse of what you intended may come to pass...!
Gil
Powered by hypermail