Re: zombies

From: Mikael Raaterova <ginijji_at_...>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:30:02 +0200

>Zombies have the special 'fight-on' rule. But why? The
>Glorantha-centric explanation is that, being already dead, they must
>be hacked to bits to be defeated: it takes more chops to take them
>down. But how is that different from a Tough monster that needs more
>chops to take them down? Or a skilled swordsman who can fight on
>longer?
>
>I think the 'fight-on' rule is a poor translation of a, *gasp*,
>RuneQuest rule. RQ zombies, IIRC, had to have all their hit locations
>destroyed to destroy the zombie. Thus spake the simulationist game.

I think you are right.

>But in dramatic terms, a zombie is merely able to keep fighting
>longer than an otherwise-equivalent-monster. In HW rules terms, I'd
>say that means many APs. Normally, many APs means a big ability
>rating, but you can have many APs with a small ability rating if you
>switch abilities during the contest.

If flexibility is still one of the core themes of HW, then what's to stop you from giving certain creatures more AP than their rating would otherwise allow?

>Perhaps a cleaner way of
>describing zombies would be to give them a poor Close Combat ability,
>but an enormous Already Dead ability. Zombies would attack with their
>Close Combat, but defend with their Already Dead.

That's a possibility. Another way is that all weapon attacks against undead suffer a big handicap.

-- 
-
Mikael Raaterova        [.sig omitted on legal advice]