Re: Argument overridden

From: Paul Andrew King <paul_at_...>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:16:19 +0000

>wrote:
>
>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?

Well a couple of points here. Firstly it is the sort of thing that the game system ought to be capable of handling (and I'm not convinced that a single hurt is enough). And it IS consistent with the descriptions of what APs represent.

Now maybe you would insist on converting part of the AP loss to a Hurt and do it that way, and that's fine -just so long as there's some way it can happen. (Just a thought, maybe there ought to be an option for players to choose to let their character take a hurt rather than losing APs.)

But I think that what I am suggested is in touch with the rules as they stand - consider this from p68 "Until a character drops to 0 or fewer advantage points any wounds will be superficial. They may well cause him considerable pain, ruining his concentration and slowing him down,..." This is before any mention of hurts as an alternative to AP losses.

>
>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.

I think that we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

>
>> > 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.

-- 
--
"The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of 
immortality.  More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals 
in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala 
Guide to Taoism_

Paul K.