> > I've been thinking about situations where the hero can succeed
but
> > still be injured or suffer a drawback, and mechanics for handling
> > such situations.
> ...
>
> If the hero was injured or suffered a drawback, they were defeated:
> their objective was to succeed without injury, clearly they have
failed
> to achive that. Only partially defeated, so some kind of Marginal
Defeat
> or Minor Defeat or a Tie, rather than a Major or Complete defeat.
I'm actually quite amazed by your statement. Imagine that Argol and his little sister are attacked by a pack of wolves, and Argol fights to save her. Your blanket statement makes two dramatically potent outcomes impossible.
(a) Success: Argol fought the wolves off and saved his sister even though he himself was injured by numerous bites.
(b) Failure: the wolves manage to get between Argol and his sister. Two wolves bring her down, while the rest attack Argol, who isn't strong enough to fight off the wolves and get to his sister, but strong enough to defend himself.
If i understand you correctly, injury is the mark of failure. If so, then (a) is a failure because Argol is injured, while (b) is a success because he isn't. YGMV, but in my Glorantha this is simply not so.
The very premise of my question was situations where the hero *can* succeed yet suffer injuries. Rescuing someone from a burning building was one example, and saving someone from hungry wolves is another. The objectives in question are self-sacrificial in the sense that the hero accepts the risk of injury to himself to achieve his intention, and in such situations bodily injury *need not* equal defeat.
/ Mikael
Powered by hypermail