Re: alternative wounding rules

From: simon_hibbs2 <simon.hibbs_at_...>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:46:05 -0000

Soru:

> Perhaps it would be better to come up with another name for these
> rules than 'wounding' - sometimes wounds at the description level
> _do_ correspond to AP losses at the mechanics level.

How about Impairments?

I agree with your other points. I imagine three ways you might inflict an Impairment:

1. As the result of a Simple Contest. I like the scale previously suggested for calculatign Impairment ratings (Marginal = 0.5x Ability; Minor = 1x Ability; Major = 2x Ability).
2. Instead of a AP loss. Impairment rating = APs that would otherwise be lost.
3. As the result of an extended contest. Impairment = negative APs.

This avoids double dipping, which I regard as being fundamentaly wrong. It allows for the winner of a contest to still recieve wounds but doesn't end up essentialy mandating it. I'm troubled by rules that make APs synonymous with injuries - this isn't D&D. Also APs can still represent temporary injuries such as bruising, concussion, etc with transient effects.

You've persuaded me on the issue of keeping each Impairment seperate. It's marginaly more book keeping but as you say it reduces the tendency to just want to inflict Impairments all the time.

I think it's important to always remember that Impairments are not actualy new abilities for the character suffering from them, They are much more like posessing or integrated spirits and should be treated as independent entities, for the purposes of healing and such.

One area I'm not sure about is determining the consequences of a Complete Defeat. My instincts tell me that such consequences should be absolute, and can't realy be expressed by a rating. e.g. In a combat a Completely Defeated character is most likely dead, not merely wounded.

Simon Hibbs