>From: "neil_wimp" <neil_at_...>
>
>Except that the reasoning in the HQ book is that a hero as a state
>of health, and the state of health determines any penalties imposed.
>Now, the thing about states is that you are in exactly one of them
>at a time: you're always in one of them, and never in two or more.
That can't be true. As LC points out, let's say that I have a contest in which I get a penalty as a result of embarrassment that's a -10%. After having gotten a physical penalty for -50% earlier. You're saying...what? That the -50% goes away, replaced by the -10%? Or that the -10% for his embarrassment doesn't have any effect? As opposed to...
>That's why the exception for Hurts is made: you can be Hurt more
>than once.
OK, so if I get that -10% it goes away, but if I get a lesser penalty of -1 it stays? That's not making any sense.
Worse, this is all predicated on the idea that you can tell a "physical" from "social" penalty. What if the result is both, like a cut to the face that's making it both hard to see and fight well, and should make it hard to make an diplomatic deal because of the distraction? By my reading of the rules it says pretty clearly that "combat" and "physical" types of damages are simply examples, and not some separate category. Which means that all consequences have to be considered separately to see if they're "appropriate."
In addition, the rules never state that you can be in only one state of health at a time, if I'm not mistaken. There's a difference between discrete and mutually exclusive. I think the states are the former, and not the latter.
Now, if you're saying that characters can have several "states" related to different complications, but simply that they don't add...that would be a reasonable interpretation. Perhaps you only take the worst outcome, and apply that penalty, ignoring the others temporarily (until such time as they become pertinent to a contest, but not the larger ones). This functions mechanically, at least.
>Of course, if you want to change things in your game so that
>penalties do accumulate, that sounds like a perfectly fine idea.
>I'm just trying to point out that this would be a change.
I think that the rules are missing a part, but just the one that explains how these things are handled in conjunction. Again, I'm sure I've see clarification on this previously, so I'm also just as sure that the rules as written are simply ommitting this part.
In any case, this has gotten to the point where perhaps some author intent might be good to hear about. Greg, Robin? Or whoever wrote that section? What's the intent here?
Mike
Powered by hypermail