RE: Wounds are not just for combat

From: Nick Hollingsworth <nick.hollingsworth_at_...>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 09:26:44 +0100

>>Why are wounds seen as specific to combat.

Hibbs, Philip:
> Because physical combat is the most obvious use for the conflict
> resolution system. Roleplayers like fighting.

So physical combat is an easy way to explain what a wound is. But there is a risk that by always using combat as the example we mislead the listener into thinking that the combat rules are somehow different. Since "wound" sounds like its a physical combaty sort of thing this would be an easy trap to lead people to.

> Psychological wounds are, it seems to me, even worse than physical ones.
> Physical healing in Gloranthan roleplaying is common. Healing of damaged
> standing is almost unheard of. I guess that's what the "Issaries the
> Concilliator" HQ is for.

Of course the vast majority of wounds are thankfully short lived.

In last weeks game the tough humakti came up against the steel gaze of the local matriach and, after a spectacular loss, fled with his tail between his legs. I had him spend the rest of the game on -25% on all tasks involving any social interaction and -50% if her family were present.

I don't know if the ruling was cannon but everyone seemed to think it was fair that *something* like that should happen, including the player in question.

Powered by hypermail