> any degree of reality (nicely timed article on that on RPGnet), but
> also fails to represent the heroic struggle against mounting wounds
> and injury so often depicted in fiction. You either have rules for
Fair point, although this idea is honoured mostly in the breach, with rare and honourable ezxceptions such as Die Hard. Most dramatic leads shrug off their injuries in a few scenes, and whats more this does not really challenge the suspension of disbelief of most, just the pernickety. I'm not suggesting abandoning the actual existing rules for injuries; those would be totally appropriate for the modelling of attrition. All I mean is that the fluidity of the mechanics allows for a certain dramatic license; I think it can be exploited to give most of the detail we look for, backed up by the penalty systerm for truly persistent injuries.
And incidentally, the GM does not need to play fair with NPC's the way need to play fair with players; I would think its perfectly OK for a GM to narrate bloody deaths for NPC followers even before a level of victory or defeat is established; although the AP for the NPC at the start of the fight was cumulative with those of the follower, even if the NPC recovers AP during the fight, this does not mean the follower has to be brought back, only that their situational advantage is as great. The NPC still has the follower ability though, so in the next scene they can srtill have a follower of the same rating. All of this means that you can still have a body-strewn battlefield within the existing mechanics, without having to hardcode certain wounding levels into it (any more than are established with a level of defeat and exchnage for penalties).
> it, or you make up arbitrary and potentially inconsistant results.
> You could say, of course, that once you make the results
consistant,
> it's a rule (which you may or may not want to apply every time).
>
> Wulf
Powered by hypermail