> >Rather than using the negative APs that an opponent is driven down
> >to you might consider the APs lost in the fight.
>
>This would imply that all characetrs that lost any APs in a fight
>would be wounded, which doesn't seem right at all. It would also mean
>that characetrs who were only driven to a few negative APs, and hence
>only marginal defeat, would be criplingly injured which also doesn't
>seem right.
Not "crpiplingly." If I was using my best Ability of 10W, and lost 35 AP, that would give me only a -4 Auto Augment from the resulting wound. Sure it would be hard to cure, but that's cool to me. If you want to avoid any wounding, then don't fail a roll. Keep in mind that this doesn't have to be wounding, it can be fatigue, or dizzyness, or shame, or whatever other negative sort of Ability that seems to make sense with the conflict. OTOH, I'm OK with doing it either way, personally.
Which segues nicely into my next point. What's the rule for duration of Abilities? If you don't cement them, they go away. So, if my character is wounded by another, he has only to wait and it'll dissapate like any other Ability not cemented. Like other Abilities that dissapate, it'll do so in an appropriate way in-game - wounds will heal, shame will be overcome, dizzyness and fatigue will go away in a few minutes of rest (and using Ability rolls to expedite these processes is, of course, more than dramatically appropriate). In fact, if I want to keep a Wound around for some reason, I'd have to cement it. To use the previous example, and my idea on creating new Abilities, what I might do is use the wound in a Contest to create a Scar Ability. Then I'd have to cement that Ability with a HP to prevent it from fading.
Or, if the GM were to say it was OK, I could call the Scar a "Flaw" and he could allow me to keep it for free, like taking any other Flaw.
So, again, it's just an extension of the current rules, no exceptions are being made other than the method by which we determine the level of the new Ability. And that's only as "intrusive" as the current Hurt in combat rule.
One poster said that they tended to ignore flaws, but always played Hurts. All I can say is "why?" Maybe if you didn't have Hurts you'd pay attention to the Flaws more. If that was more of a standard part of every Conflict, then perhaps you'd remember it in all cases. Again, Hurts seem to me to simply be Abilities bought at 7 from which we get an Auto Augment of -1 for appropriate things. Why not use the full rules for Abilities and drop the distracting exception?
Someone also brought up the idea that these were ancillary to the Contest in question. Well, yes, they are. But then so is the current Hurt rule. The way I think of wounding during a contest is as if the action were unrellated, essentially. In fact I'm on record as suggesting that this is exactly what's going on, as all Contests don't include the phrase, "and wound him on the way there". As in "I want to defeat him, and wound him on the way there". Not a valid Contest goal. The wounding is unrellated to the "Defeat in Combat". Note that with a simple Contest, I'd allow one to wound another using something like the suggested system that looks like the Community Support results table. Agian, a simple extension of the principle of a rule.
I'm sure that if we extended things further, that we'd find all sorts of other interesting impliations.
Mike
Powered by hypermail