> > > You assume that the entanglement is
> > >complete even though the contest is still under way.
> >
> > I've no idea where you get that from either.
>
> because you want me to escape using a game mechanic rather than
simply
> relying on the narrative. If I bid to escape you might require a
certain
> level of AP bid but if you are restricting my actions based on a
narrative
> enclosure then I have to assume I _am_ actually entangled - not
possibly
> entangled.
I think there is a problem here that has not been adequately addressed.
In the absence of a specific statement that the creature was ntangling this arm or that leg, I wouldn't impose any restrictions on a character that had ben partly entangled (just lost some APs). However suppose the creature (or the GM on it's behalf) had made a statement like this: "The creature flails a tentacle at your legs, trying to wrap round them and get a grip on you", and then the creature succeeded inflicting a significant AP loss. That presumably means the character's legs are at least partly entangled and it would be reasonable to impose some limitations as a result (perhaps a -5 on using a kick attack).
This latter case isn't specificaly in the rules, but I would allow it. I see it as a reward for making specific statements of intent that add to the drama of the narative. I'd like to encourage characters to make statements that help construct a compelling story of what happens through the fight, and little extra side effects like this are IMHO a nice way to do it.
What Paul is saying is that all he needs to do is say "The creature attacks... success you lose 8 APs. Your character's legs are entangled." I don't like that at all. The main reason is that in this case there's nothing specific the character can do to stop his legs being entangled. For example he might assume the atack was a tentacle trying to bash him against a rock - in which case he might defend with a strength related ability to resist the impact. An entanging attack would be better defended against using an agility, or even tumbling ability to slip free of the attack.
I'm realy not fond of 'mystery meat' statements of intent - you don't know what was actualy happening untill after the dice are rolled. The troll example is another case, we don't know it was trying to bash the character's sheild arm untill after the dice were rolled, so the character was potentialy deprived of the chance to use a specific defensive tactic to avoid that outcome. It makes it very hard to figure out what ability is most apropriate to the action being attempted, and what ability is most apropriate to defending against it.
In summary, I have no objection to extra side effects of an attack, however those side effects must have been specificaly stated as goals in the statements of intent.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail