>How about waiting untill the combat is over. The negative APs you
>drive your oponent down to (includign cou de grace) equals the rating
>of the wound. I think this should be the primary mechanism by which
>wounds are inflicted.
This was the original mechanic, and it doesn't allow for genre-appropriate results (both sides wounded).
>If we want a secondary mechanism, replacing the 7AP for a -1
>tradeoff, that's fine but I think it should very much be a secondary
>chhoice. After all, you still need to win the contest even if you
>inflict a nasty wound.
Exactly. Perhaps the decision isn't a game-world one, but players need to decide which option gives them the best odds of winning. Our players sometimes used the 7AP->wound rules when ganging up on a single nasty monster. They don't use it most of the time, but that's fine:
Stephen
>I think the main reason to have a wounding scheme is so that a
>victorious combatant might come out of a combat with hurts and
>injuries in a way that the vanilla AP contest would not allow.
>Rather than using the negative APs that an opponent is driven down
>to you might consider the APs lost in the fight.
No, because then AP are simply Hit Points. And the game is simpler if most contests are simply won.
flynnkd2
>What I may have a look at instead is that AP losses actually do the
>wounds you describe, as an EXTRA effect of losing AP. I realise
>this makes an AP loss more significant, but I dont think it will be
>staggeringly greater...
This means that each AP exchange has to be recorded. What a pain!
-- David Dunham Glorantha/HQ/RQ page: http://www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
Powered by hypermail