>Mike
>
> >Nowhere does it say that a loss
> >of AP must be narrated as a problem for the person doing the shooting.
>The
> >AP change, and you narrate something reasonable.
>
>True, but a loss of all AP *does* result in a problem for the archer.
>If I have 17 AP, wager them all for a killing shot, and lose them, I
>should be out of the contest, rather than my opponent getting the
>advantage on me.
If you wager 17 AP, and lose them, then the other guy gets his goal. If he was trying to run away, he runs away. If he was trying to attack me, he made it to me and did so. In a multiple contest, this only refers to me. So, let's say that character A is the archer, Character B is a Troll, and character C is some guy who just came out of the woodwork, and we're not sure who's side he's on. Character A wants to shoot the Troll. The Troll wants to eat Character C, and Character C wants to run from the troll. If A runs out of AP shooting at the dodging troll, it means that basically B and C succeed against him. So I'd narrate that the troll chased the guy off into the woods out of range of the archer (who could then start another contest to, say, track them).
You're not worried about the penalties associated with the failure, are you? In the example above, I'd probably assign something like a penalty to the archer's confidence in his archery skill, or a depression penalty, or whatever suited the situation.
Is there still some problem I'm not seeing? Again, in play where I've seen this a lot, I've never had a problem with it. The system says what happens in mechanical terms, and I think of a narration that fits the result. Works great every time.
Mike
Powered by hypermail