Re: 'Simulationist' Wound/Combat system for HW?

From: Julian Lord <julian.lord_at_...>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 15:03:47 +0100


Philippe :

> > > Does your group use the Wounds rule(s)? I came up with the "trade
> -7
> > > AP loss for a -1 wound) precisely to simulate combats where the
> victor
> > > ends up wounded.
>
> > > And a narrator is always free to apply a similar
> > > penalty for an AP loss of 15 or more (p. 151).

> There is something that annoys me with these two rules : they feel
> too 'inefficient'.
>
> I don't think I would trade a 7-AP loss for a foe for a malus of -1. A
> 7 AP loss is not too bad (not too hard either, somewhat a 'middle
> range' wound between two normal fighters), but -1 is truly nothing...
>
> As for the automatic -1 given by the Narrator every time 15 AP are
> lost, why not, but it still seems something that can be shrugged off
> by anyone, too.

That's exactly why I suggested that the rule was good for some house styles, but not all.

The point is, that these are cumulative penalties, and are therefore good for, say, something like the Battle of Iceland scenario, where wounds have a chance of effectively accumulating from contest to contest, but not say, for the scenarios in BA where that might be unlikely.

Campaign styles that used more Battle of Iceland type action can make good use of the Wounds rules, but I agree that in more open approaches to campaign construction, with more time between scenes, they are certainly inappropriate for any "simulationist" purposes.

> IMG, dramatic fights are mostly between 10W-5W2 PCs and NPCs . If for
> 5 rounds, each time causing a 7 AP loss, the player decides to go for
> the '-1', at the end we have a quite grateful foe : losing 35 AP would
> almost have defeated him, whereas -5 to his CC doesn't count _that_
> much (it's important, but not as much as losing 90% of his AP). And he
> still have all of his AP... So, when would a player choose to 'wound'
> someone ? Never, he would go straight to his gaol : a 0 AP foe.

Going for wounds is a good tactical option where many weaker characters fight few strong ones, or where several groups succesively assault the PCs.

Basically, it all boils down to a difference in style between narrating either long, extended conflicts or quick, decisive ones. If your house style tends toward the latter, the Wounds rules are fairly irrelevant.

It also boils down to being mostly a GM tactic, but not a player one

> HQ seems to go for a more 'proportionnal' approach : you do not bid so
> much 5 or 10 or 50 AP, but rather a tenth, a third, and so on,
> depending on the risk you take.

I think that will in any case vary a lot from GM to GM.

> I suppose a similar approach to the wound problem would be "Do you
> want him to loss half his AP or to loss half his CC ?"

That sounds pretty radical !

I could as another suggestion see a case for predeclared attempts to wound giving a -1 wound for a marginal success, -2 wounds for minor, -3 for major, and -5 for complete, or something like that.

But I would *not* do it that way myself ...

Julian Lord

Powered by hypermail