> > Instead, alter the _cancelling_ rule: Stop cancelling if it would
> > reduce _both_ participants below 10W. e.g., 2W vs 2W: no cancelling.
> > 2W3 vs. 14W3, cancel to 2 vs 14. 2W2 vs 9W2: cancel to _2W_ vs _9W_.
> >
> > (The 10W is a somewhat arbitrary breakpoint, but the idea is to
> > avoid both "everyone keeps losing" and "everyone keeps criticalling"
> > being the most common result, each of which is Icky.)
>
> I think you really mean "below 10 no mastery" (especially in light of your
> second example - reduce to 2 vrs 14).
No, that's consistent with what I said; 2W vs. 14W has one guy still over 10W, therefore keep cancelling. Maybe it's more clearly stated as:
Cancel until the lower contestent is below 10W.
(Rather than the existing "until below 1W", effectively.)
> Unlike you, I have no problem with both "masters" being unable to 'lay a
> glove' on each other, slowly grinding each other down - it points up the
> evenly-matched aspect of the fight in a way that Success/Success doesn't
> (Crit/Crit sorta does in the "Narrator Choice/Fight to a standstill"). BUT,
> I also can see your side that both pummeling each other into unconciousness
> is, in a way, non-dramatic.
I have no objection to that as such. But it's farcical to have a _totally different_ game mechanical result for a minutely different game-world situation: 1W vs 1W "grind each other down", whereas 1W vs 20 plays out totally different. (i.e. one would be almost all tied losses, whereas the other would be almost all marginal victories/defeats.)
Powered by hypermail