>I suppose the term "losing APs" or "loser" leads one to
>believe that the person or thing that has been overcome is suffering
>a negative consequence. While in combat, that is definitely the
>case, if you are imbuing a sword with a magical ability, for
>example, the "losing" sword can gain an ability when its opponent
>overcomes it and forces it to "lose" APs. In essence, I am saying
>that the loss of APs can be a flaw or an ability depending on the
>type of contest. In your building a house example, the loss of APs
>could be traded for abilities or qualities of the house. The final
>negative outcome would determine final quality of the house as
>determined by final negative APs.
I get what you're saying, but this seems to be purchasing with the same points twice. Further, as other people have said, it mandates that "wounds" occur at certain points. That is, if you bid more than 7 points, you'll get a wound with your method. That makes it an attractive break point because you get an extra effect for your efforts. With my method, you can still wound sombody if you like, it just takes an unrelated action. This keeps the whole system unified, and makes it a choice. This means that any sort of outcome is possible, and the players have a lot of power in determining the nature of the outcome.
I understand that this might tend to discourage the use of the "wounding" rules just as people have been saying that the current "7AP for Hurt" rules don't get used. But I've already posted a long post about why I don't think that's problematic, which nobody has responded to. The mechanic would get used, even if mostly by GMs. Further, by allowing a defender to take a wound at points, I think it'll get used regularly.
>My take is that the wounds inflicted during the contest would be
>counted over and above the final result of the contest.
Again, my system allows for all of this. It just doesn't require these extra effects as a result.
>The winning of the contest happens the same way it does in the
>normal rules, by driving the opponent to negative APs -- wounds are
>simply an added effect than can produce a flaw (or in the case of
>the sword or house, an ability). The added benefit of sticking to
>APs is that you don't have to add a rule for the number of times the
>loser can take the flaw during a contest. The contest ends the way
>it would using the normal rules, and both the winner and loser can
>end up with wounds.
Note that if the attacker applies a wound, that can happen as many times as he likes. The limit is only on the defender's ability to change one loss from a normal AP loss (RP accumulation), to a Flaw of equal level. You can drop that rule entirely if you like, and wounds can still occur by attackers taking unrelated actions to inflict them.
> > 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.
>
>I don't have an objection to the addition of abilities via APs at
>all -- I think it works beautifully; I just don't think a new
>currency (RPs) is needed to express it.
Again, the RP thing is just to make it clear what's going on. Basically it seems more intuitive to build up a pool on something and then cash that pool in for an Ability. Instead of saying that the character is losing points from a pool, and then gets a flaw equal to the amount of the pool that they lost. Basically the accounting is simpler. Instead of:
Starting AP - AP total at end = Flaw
I do:
RP total at end = Flaw
(simplified, of course by dropping out the "above starting point" division which applies to both)
Either way works, however. The other reason for the change is so that when discussing it we get less confused. :-)
>I don't see a problem with a person being driven to -29 APs (even
>with the parting shot) and using that to determine the final outcome
>of the contest. In a battle, that person would be Injured (-50%
>modification) and may have a number of wounds as a result of large
>AP loss during the battle.
I'm trying to eliminate these effects entirely. The -50% Injury thing is a separate effect. I want the only outcome of the system to be either A) a Trait, or B) a "permenant total effect" for higher than -30 AP (Abilty + 30 RP). That's why I started down the road I did in the first place, to move to a system that does nothing but work with the currenct (hence the title). I only acceeded to point B above because of necesity of balance, and wouldn't have had even that if I could have done it all with Abilities.
>In the case of the sword or house, How about reversing the results
>of the Contest Consequence Table? So here the sword house would
>receive up to +50% of the "losing" resistance, or the total APs
>lost, whichever is lower. If the house were to have been driven to -
>29 APs and its target number was 12, the best quality/ability it
>could gain would be 18, no matter how far into negatives it was
>driven. The only addition here would be for Dying, which would be
>+100% of the "losing" resistance. The house could have an ability
>of 4w.
I considered that option previously, or something like it. If I did this, then to allow for small effects (lets say that I only want to add a Ornate Door 15 to the 5W house) is to enter a one round contest and bid 15 points. So, now I have three types of contest, Extended, Simple, and one round contests, each with a separate way of determining results. With my system you have only two systems which are, essentially, the same thing except for one you only go one round. That's the only difference. It makes it all so clean, IMO.
>I can definitely see uses for bidding AP for a simple contest. How
>hard do you want to try to pick the lock? Do you want to be
>cautious, or throw everything you have into it? I just would like a
>way that picking a lock didn't become an extended contest. In the
>case of assigning an ability or flaw to something, it certainly
>makes sense, however.
To be clear, the Ability inflicted is representative of the success. That is, even if I bid only one AP, and I win, I still get through the lock. Just not in a way impressive enough to give an Ability to represent that event that's worth anything. Technically I'd have "Picked Lock Alpha 1" as an Ability, or the door would get "Picked By Mike 1", but that's not worth anything at all itself. I would still have picked the lock, however. So you never have to do an extended contest to get anything done. In fact, the results are the same as well - given a good result in a simple contest on a big bid, you get the max Abilty result possible. Again, the only real difference is that simple is one round, and extended is more rounds (during which other simple contests can be injected).
I'd agree that your method is probably less of a departure for players who are familar with the current rules.
>I like that your system requires 1 Hero
>Point to cement an ability at 13. Would an ability at 6w require 2
>HPs?
Again, I see these as all ephemeral Abilities. Explains wounds well, IMO, and means that you can't abuse the system. Also allows for automatic mechanical enumeration of things that were previously left up to the GM. For example, ever wonder what bonus to give to a character who climbs some stairs in the middle of combat to gain an advantage? Just base it as an Ability that's the result of the character's bid in an unrelated contest (to gain said height advantage). Again, this all balances because of the risks that they player takes making the roll. They should feel free to hang themselves with as much rope is available ("Fumbled on the 25 bid to climb the stairs? Oops, you slip on the mossy stairs and smash your head into the ground. That's a Lump on Forehead 17w. Next round you'll be defending with -4. And your opponent will have +4 for Down Opponent 17w. Hmm. I sense a large bid coming...")
The question of cost is important, but exactly what I'm trying to figure out in my other thread "Inanimate Relations". So I'd prefer to discuss it there. I did some interesting reading last night...
Mike
To Post a message, send it to: HeroQuest-rules_at_... To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: HeroQuest-rules-unsubscribe_at_... To Complain constructively please email me at steve_at_....
To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HeroQuest-rules/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HeroQuest-rules-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
Powered by hypermail