Re: Digest Number 184

From: TheCam_at_...
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 13:51:34 EDT


Mikael:

>> >Being defeated in combat means that you didn't achieve your
>>>objective. If you want to avoid being captured or killed, i'd allow
>>>an attempt to that effect.
>>
>>But doesn't it mean that that the opponent *did* achieve their objective?
>
>Yes. Though in this particular case the winner had the objective to
>_kill_ the opponent. That is achieved with a complete victory. If the
>skeletons had the objective to capture the opponent, i'd let them
>achieve that with a marginal victory. This objective to me also means
>that if the skeletons had got a complete victory the opponent
>wouldn't be dead (rather counterproductive to capture, i think).

This ignores the rest of my e-mail. Again, what is the good of winning and where does it end? A solo adventure, like a skeleton, is an automaton. It does what it is programmed to do and nothing else. We're disagreeing about a point that was in a solo adventure written for another system. In a game with a live GM, it would (depending on the GM) work out much differently but in that particular solo adventure, the character would be dead since that's the way the adventure was written. There is no GM to take into account how clever the player might be since the book is the GM.

On a similar note, I have to agree with what many others have said about creatures that are not out of a combat until at -40 (or whatever). The scale is already set at the contest ending when 0 AP is reached so it makes more sense (to me) that when a skeleton reaches 0 AP, it has reached the point that it can no longer fight. It makes much more sense to me that automatons start with more AP (perhaps 1.5 times). Granted, it's mostly an aesthetic thing since they're still effectively being brought below 0 AP in the grand scheme of things.

Camo

Powered by hypermail