>I've detoriated the "must-have" quality by allowing
>a broader range of abilities for carrying on:
Sounds entirely reasonable. How does it work in play? I can imagine that it would tend to lead to more serious consequences, so as long as the players are prepared to accept this...
I'm very much in favour of enforcing partial victories. In most RPGs, a win is nearly always an outright win. The side that wins has the power of life and death over the losing side, or at least some of them. I'm not sure that this is entirely realistic, and KoDP seems to agree with me. It's really difficult to capture people in raids, and even if someone raids you, and you try to take captives, and you defeat them with many fatalities and casualties, you frequently get no captives. My interpretation of this in Hero Wars is that you reduced them to below 0 APs, but didn't persecute them beyond -20, or didn't bid enough APs, and therefore didn't take the risks involved in trying to drag people off while their comrades, though defeated and retreating, were still capable of defending their fallen. Saying "But we're winning, we want to keep hitting them" doesn't represent the complexities of battle, which Hero Wars abstracts as "level of victory". If you want to get the result that you want, then you have to bid lots of APs and win. If you bid small, then you might not get your own way, and it's no use carrying on because the opportunities have been missed. Describing this to the satisfaction of the players, though, can be tricky, because it's a new and unfamiliar way of doing things.
Philip Hibbs http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/ Opinions expressed may not even be my own, let alone those of any organisations, nations, species, or schools of thought to which I may be affiliated.
Powered by hypermail