>Although I think the idea of trading APs for flaws is great, the
>biggest 2 problems I have with the rules as you have written them
>are:
>
>(1) Adding a new term to the rules ("Result Points") and
>
>(2) Giving the *loser* of the AP contest the choice of whether to
>lose AP or take a wound.
>
>I would simply continue to use APs as the extended contest currency,
>and ensure that losing APs means that you have either lost ground or
>lost ground AND taken a wound.
The reason for the terminological change and methods are that what's happening in this system is that you're building to a goal. If you don't have something like this, they you can't have the total AP at the end mean one big trade in for a new Ability or Flaw. Remember that this system is supposed to represent not only "tearing down" contests like combat, but aslo just as much "building up" contests like making a freind of someone.
>My take is that if you have stated as the goal of your contest "kill
>or wound my opponent" that wounding will result as part of the
>losing AP process. Rather than making this a choice of the loser,
>simply state than any AP loss of 7 or more (optionally 10 or more)
>results in a the loser gaining a flaw/wound equal to the AP loss, as
>described by the GM. Whether or not a wound is inflicted, the AP
>loss occurs. That is, it does not matter whether you have taken a
>wound or not -- an AP loss is always an AP loss.
But as an end result this is still possible. That's what the RP total is for at the end. At the point they lose, it's up to the winner to decide what happens with that total. So, if they loser has taken any wounds along the way, these are "unrelated" to the big wound that they're going to get as the overall result.
>To be operfectly clear:
>An AP loss of 1-6 is is simply an AP loss, reflecting gaining a
>better position, maneuvering, etc.
>An AP loss of 7+ is an AP loss PLUS a flaw/wound as described by the
>GM.
That's a viable system, don't get me wrong. It just doesn't accomplish any of the design goals that I've set for the system I want to see.
>I like the idea of gaining an ability as a result of a transfer of
>AP to another player. For example, a transfer of 13 APs from
>opponent 1 to opponent 2 would result in Opponent 1 taking a
>flaw/wound and losing the APs, while opponent 2 would gain, for
>example, an Outmaneuver And Wound opponent ability of 13, which he
>could choose to cement after the content for 1 Hero Point. In the
>current battle, he'd get the +1 bonus for his fight if it applied,
>and later on (if it was cemented), the ability could be used as a +1
>augment to all his or her deadly battles.
So you see this only as sensible in the case of Transfers, and not in any other circumstances? I'm a bit confused as to where your objection lies.
>The final results of AP loss would work as they do in the current
>rules for the loser, but wounds on either side would continue until
>they healed over time or were magically treated.
My current rules, or the current real rules?
>I didn't really understand the Conflict Results of the draft rules
>you wrote. Couldn't this be simpler and just use the straight AP
>loss or gain to determine the flaw/wound or the new (temporary or
>permanent) ability?
Simpler yes, but problematic in that the total achievable becomes a bit too high. If I have a 5W ability, and drive you from 1AP to -24, I can then take a parting shot, and drive you further down to -29. Or, using RP accounting 49 more points than your resistance. That's over two masteries, and not particularly difficult if the target has a low resistance. It would mean that I could target a 12 TN resistance for a project, and come up with a 1w3 result reliably. With my system a 12 TN is limited to a 7W result. Much more reasonable.
>As far as the Simple Contest use of APs, I like the idea if the
>resolution can be determined after one roll of the dice. I would
>think the option of doing it without APs should be available if it
>doesn't add anything to the narrative.
>From one POV, that's sorta how it works now. If I have more AP than you, and
bid everything in the first round, then it's a Simple Contest in effect,
anyhow, right? You'll note that the multiples for larger loss will tend to
correspond with the breakpoints for larger losses. So it's pretty unified as
written. All I've done is to make the outcomes the same for all uses.
In any case, if you do a simple contest, the result will end up being a Hurt -1 for somebody in the normal system. So theoretically there's still recordkeeping to do, as much as my system has. Instead of Hurt -1, in my system you write Beaten Up 13, or whatever. Now, sometimes using the normal Simple Contest rules, I don't bother recording it, because the NPC opposition isn't going to come back anyhow. I'd assume that, likewise with my system, if it wasn't important, that you'd just narrate the win and ignore the result.
So I'm not seeing any need to use the normal system every using these rules. At the point that "it doesn't add anything to the narrative" the systems function identically. Or is it the bid that bothers you? I see that as important because, as the stake gambled, the downside is always important to the narrative. I really do want to know just how the character is wounded, and precisely to what extent. That's the point of the whole system.
Mike
Powered by hypermail