> >You might have a lot of small, nasty looking, but 'harmless' flesh
> >wounds/bruises. But when you get a solid hit with a broad sword (or a
> >knife for that matter), you'll be going down.
>
> I think this is where we part company. For me, it is far more heroic if
> you go one fighting despite the fact that you are badly hurt and likely
> to die. If you crawl forward despite being badly wounded and take out
> the enemy pill-box at the cost of your own life THEN you're a hero.
Ok, so you like it more 'heroic'. What flavour heroic is this? The AD&D kind where the character, at worst, only dies after a couple of dozen sword hits, or the RQ kind where you just as easily can be killed outright, or even better, incapctated by a messed up arm. Also known as 'heroism through blind luck with the dice' genre.
Not my flavour heroism though...
> >I must confess that I like this much better than the hit point
> >mechanism: a fight should be about gaining advantages. When you are in a
> >position to gut him, its over.
>
> And most of the time if you gut someone they're out of the fight. But I
> hate I REALLY REALLY HATE (I'm getting into rant mode now) the fact that
> in HW you end up with one person basically unhurt and the other
> incapacitated but most likely not dead.
So what is wrong with one person being basically unhurt while the other is incapactated? I imagine this is a likely outcome of violent confrontations. By the way, this is what made me fall in love with RQ. In AD&D you enter combat expecting to be wounded. In RQ you only survive if you can avoid being wounded. Just as in Hero Wars.
> I hate it for what it says about combat and for the 'action movie
> paradigm' that it's trying to simulate.
Ok, so you want Heroic, but not 'action movie'? I'm not saying that they are identical, but I think it is enough overlapping that it'll be very hard to satisfy your wishes. A narrow path, indeed.
Ha en god dag!
Frank Rafaelsen
Powered by hypermail