<snip>
> But I'd be skeptical about being so fast and
> loose with this as to result in a situation
> where there was an artificial difference
> between "the contest has ended, take your
> lumps", and "the contest is on-going, who
> knows?"
In our campaign, we have had this situation on several occasions and we have not seen a problem in play (as opposed to talking about it as a theoretical rules problem).
We play contests such that when any participant (let's call him Fred) is knocked to zero, Fred's opponents may declare a parting shot or coup de grace against Fred on their next action. Whether this opportunity is taken or not, they may not act any further against Fred until Fred finds a way to act with negative AP or gets positive APs.
Fred may be lent APs by his friends (or other participants) until one side emerges victorious and all opportunities for coup de grace/parting shots have been used or not. Up to this point, Fred may labour under the penalties for his current status (-1 for each Hurt, -50% for injured, no actions for dying etc.), but his status may change from dying to injured or injured to hurt etc.
At the end of the contest, the "superposition of states is collapsed", and Fred is dying or injured etc.
I can see that, if we had a player healer, we might consider Fred's negative APs to be another opponent and continue the contest. But we don't so this point is irrelevant (to us).
The above is the formalisation of what I remember happening. In game we think much less rigourously and go with what seems to make sense at the time.
regards,
Charles
Powered by hypermail