Re: Digest Number 162

From: Mikael Raaterova <ginijji_at_...>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 13:57:19 +0200


>
>> >Well, apart from the fact that Ranks are used in the calculation of
>> >edge, this is still different to the comment that the Actor can
>only
>> >ever lose his AP bid, never more (or less, I guess).
>>
>> Ranks are optional. Edges and handicaps aren't (though you don't
>have
>> to use them). Hence when you discuss edges you do not automatically
>> refer to ranks, or indeed at all. The comment that the Actor can
>only
>> ever lose no more than his bid is incorrect.
>
>Aha... so you never use Ranks? That clarifies things a bit.

Perhaps. But me never using Ranks doesn't change the meaning of the HW rules. So i don't know what is actually clarified here.

>Straining your definition then, if you DID use Ranks, or if you were
>in a game run by someone who did, and were asked the same question,
>would the Opponent use his weapon Rank against the Actor (and Actor
>use his armour Rank) if the Opponent won an exchange?

I think bog standard sit mods is far superior in usage to the clumsy Ranks mechanic. If an unarmed naked man attacks to hurt a plate-armoured guy wielding a greatsword, i'd simply give the naked man a handicap (getting past the armour ain't easy) and the Plate Guy an edge for his greatsword (for obvious reasons) if that is what he uses to defend against the unarmed attack. So, in a roundabout way, yes, the Actor's opponent gets the benefit of superior weapons used in the exchange should he win the exchange.

So, you can get the same results without bothering with the clumsy Ranks mechanic. Hence i don't use 'em.

>Personally I will always use Ranks, it seems inconceivable to me that
>unarmed combat does no more damage/AP loss than a poleax...

Damage _done_ has nothing to do with Ranks. If you miss with a poleax and hit with a punch, the punch does more damage. Edges are a _potential_ for 'damage', or, rather, potential for putting your opponent at a more severe disadvantage. Sometimes that means bleeding wounds, sometimes it don't. Hence, ranks are optional.

>While it
>would be nice living in a world where a sword in the face hurt no
>more than a pillow fight, I don't see it as being very heroic!

Assuming you have a pillow fight, is there any reason to even think of the consequences of negative AP in terms of _physical damage_? Sorry, but to me, that's just ludicrous. A sword fight can result in grievous bodily harm; a pillow fight can't (unless you choke someone with it). Hence swords hurt more than pillows.

This very argument causes me to reiterate an old point:

  1. You don't resolve a situation on the system level. The descriptions and the context determine how to resolve it; the mechanics for resolution must be modified and interpreted in terms of the situation.
  2. If a result seems inconceivable, you haven't paid attention to 1).

>And as
>to the argument that such differences are tied up in the CC ability,
>how come that stays the same for every weapon used? Still, tastes
>vary. I've tasted a sword (only just, thankfully, didn't lose any
>teeth), and I didn't like it.

As i said, use (your sense of) Gloranthan Reality to modify the resolution. Otherwise you end up with silly results.

And the argument that people use the beast armour and arms available to them, and that that equals opponents out, mod-wise, in the end, is a useful way to not bother with something that is not important to the/my story.

Robin said it very eloquently, re: superior equipment: Heroes should win fights with fighting abilities, not with superior abilities of scrounging, looting and shopping.

-- 
-
Mikael Raaterova        [.sig omitted on legal advice]

Powered by hypermail