Re: Magical Augments - A little extreme?

From: nichughes2001 <nick.hughes_at_...>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 09:50:31 -0000

Sometimes an action has more than one effect, this does not make it more than one action. If my Humakti makes a particularly impressive attack in a duel he may not just defeat his opponent he may also impress the clan Chief with his skill and simultaneously intimidate other watching glory seekers from trying their luck. If its a killing duel he may have split his opponents helm in half. Does that make his attack 3 or 4 separate actions by your measure?

> >Would a single swing that cut through 3 ropes be 3 actions in your
> >opinion?
>
> It depends.
>
> If the three ropes were treatable as a single object, such as
> the moorings from a boat, then I would consider it a single
> action. Cutting through three ropes would still be more
> difficult that cutting through a single rope.
>
> If the three ropes had different purposes of which the cutting
> of a rope would cause a different dramatic effect (the rope
> holding the chandelier, the rope attached to the noose from
> which a captive is struggling from etc.) then I would treat
> their cutting as a different action.
>

So the ropes are in identical positions, the sword swing is identical but the number of actions you believe it to take changes because of what is on the other end of the ropes. What happens if the hero does not know what is on the ends of the ropes?

I would resolve this the other way round, attempting to cut the ropes may be a single action if they are close enough together but whether you actually cut all of them will vary according to your level of success. I think that deciding ahead of time that it requires multiple actions has second-guessed how well the hero might perform the action and limited their possible success.

> >How about a single spear thrust that punched through a
> >shield and impaled someone in the guts?
>
> Two separate actions.

At which point I am tempted to give up, by that logic firing the Harpoon takes two actions against a man with a shield but only one against an unshielded man. I believe you are over-analysing to an almost bizarre degree but clearly your tastes simply differ from mine.

>
> >I can hear the laughter now
>
> I'm sorry but mockery doesn't qualify as meaningful argument.
>

Nor does it make for a playable game, which is why I would never try to apply the sort of analysis in detail that you seem to prefer. Interpretations of game mechanics which appear ridiculous to the players are not playable.

> >Suffice to say that from a mis-spent youth clobbering people
> >with swords and doing silly martial arts things this does not match
> >my understanding or how armed or unarmed combat skills work (except
> >in the case of very unskilled combatants).
>
> But I wasn't talking about simulating armed or unarmed combat,
> I was talking about describing it _narratively_.
>

So was I, narrating the hero's action rather than trying to narrate and evaluate all the possible consequences of that action ahead of resolving the action's success or failure. It is a single action regardless of the fact that (dice rolls depending) it might have multiple consequences. If in our example the hero does not get a complete success then some elements of what they are attempting do not happen.

--
Nic

Powered by hypermail