Ok, I think at least Paul and I are working gradualy towards some common ground here, although there are still some points of difference, for example:
...
> I would feel it reasonable to state that the Hero caught the blow
on
> his shield, but that now his shield arm is numb and possibly broken.
>
> Now there is no explicit statement that the Troll is trying to hurt
> the Hero's shield arm but it IS reasonable given the narrative.
>
> That is the sort of thing I mean - no explicit statement, but the
> result follows from the stated actions.
The Hero has lost a bunch of APs, and if you want to narrate that this is because his shield arm is hurting that's fine, but for me the AP loss fully and completely accounts for the game mechanical effects of the exchange. Stating that he couldn't use his sheild, or shield related abilities because his arm is too hurt is IMHO going too far. Furthermore, how come his arm is so hurt given he hasn't actualy suffered a wound?
He's already suffered the effects of the defeat in the form of the AP loss. Imposing further penalties on top of that risks accusations of vindictiveness. If the troll's player (or the narrator) had said 'The troll is going to try and bash his shield so hard it breaks his arm' that's a different matter. The 7 AP for a wound transfer rule could be invoked and we're fine, but IMHO you can't deduct APs from the guy and apply the effects of a wound as well just because you feel like it.
> > So long
> >as we're actualy on the same page - that restrictiing available
> >actions should be based on specific narative reasons for doing so
and
> >can't be just imagined up by the narrator, we're fine.
> >
> OK, I think we're in agreement there, then.,
Almost, except I still feel that as in the troll example, extra penalties aren't realy necessery and aren't particularly fair.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail