This was a hot topic on the list some time ago... check the archives. In particular, I pointed out that the graduation of combat defeat levels was almost unnecessary, since any level of defeat renders the defeated helpless. I asked whether the lower defeat/victory levels instead indicates that neither side obtained their objective, but instead achieved a lesser objective. That is somewhat similar to what you are proposing. Roderick clearly stated that this interpretation of the rules was wrong*.
[*wrong, as in 'not what the author intended'; I doubt Roderick would argue that as a house rule it was inherently evil. Gygax doubleplus ungood]
> This is because you don't change your ap when
> you decide to flee.
According you my interpretation of the rules:
You do not change your AP, but you may change the ability you are using, and your opponent will probably have to change the ability they use to counter you when you are the 'actor', or suffer an improvisational modifier. By causing your opponent to switch to an inferior ability, you can 'win' (succeed in fleeing), even if you were outclassed in the original contest.
For example:
Ken the Carl: Spear&Shield 13, Run fast 9. Ngg the Chaos monster: Bite 2W, Run fast 6 (default).
Ken fights Ngg for a round, with the consequence that he is reduced to 6 AP and Ngg is at 22 AP. Ken decides to change his objective to running aware. The Narrator decides that Ngg can not use its Bite to counter an attempt to run aware, Ngg must switch to its poor running ability.
Ken: 6 AP, flee Ngg, with Run fast 9, against Run fast 6. Ngg: 22 AP, kill Ken, with Bite 2W, against Spear&Shield 13.
When Ngg is the actor, the abilities, ratings and odds are as before: Ken is likely to loose APs. But when Ken is the actor, the odds are in his favour, and Ngg is likely to loose APs. Ken will flee if his 9 v 6 actions are more successful than Ngg's 2W v 13 actions. Ken now has more of a chance; with a HP and a bold bid, he can escape (isn't that what HP's are for?).
To use this interpretation, the Narrator must be careful about deciding which abilities are applicable, and what improvisational modifiers to apply. The Narrator also has to underline that only when a contestant is the actor is progress towards their objective being determined: I would not normally allow a contestant to use their Close Combat ability to 'defend' against an attempt to run away, since Close Combat has nothing to do with quick pursuit.
This interpretation rewards planning and tactics. A mighty, but slow, swordsman must almost win in the first round. But if he corners his foe, so Run Fast is not an applicable ability for attempting to flee, it will only be a matter of time.
I think this interpretation of the rules is workable, enables fleeing, and can model with some subtlety.
Powered by hypermail