Re: Chained simple example

From: L.Castellucci <lightcastle_at_...>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 08:39:52 -0400


On September 24, 2007 04:07 am, Jane Williams wrote:
>
> Yes, that's right. With no auto-heal between them.

Auto-heal? Since when is there auto-heal? Now I'm feeling very Bear of Little Brain.

> > Which is fine, and something I do now. But it seems
> > it stops in terms of
> > "achieving a goal" when someone gets a complete
> > victory.
>
> No, it stops whenever the participants decide it
> should stop. You're achieving little bits of your
> overall goal (or not) at every step, you decide when
> you've got as far as you want to. Fred could have
> given up at the point where he got injured, not
> wanting to make a bad situation any worse.

*nod*

> > I do use this. I
> > thought your "chained simple contest" had more...
> > chaining to it.
>
> Well, that's what I do. Others may do something more
> complicated (see previous comments about bears of
> little brain). The chaining comes in when you're
> trying to use an ability that's been "injured" in a
> previous round. This is particularly obvious in
> combat, or anything else where you're taking minuses
> to "all physical" due to physical injury.

Hmm... I must be doing something different in how I play then, since previous "injuries" always count in my games anyway.

LC

Powered by hypermail