From:	"David M. Girardot" <GIRARDOT@*********.EDU>
Subject:	RE: deadly (it just won't stop)
Date:	Tue, 6 Apr 93 00:31:56 CET

No I do not think I missed your point. As I pointed out in my last message,
you are refusing to see where I am coming from. The first thing to bear
in mind is that it is, after all, the way I intend to run my game. My
players like it as well. It makes combats deadly, but not ungodly deadly
like you implay -- and IMHO that's just the way it should be.

You say that "it's just not necessary" to make a game that deadly. Fine,
that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. But I thought the point
of this little discussion was to mention our own solutions to the
staging-past-deadly, etc. question and NOT to pick apart the logic of
other people's campaigns. Scott was a little rude in his list-wide flame
but there was some truth to what he was saying. It's terribly annoying
to have your views, which are after all being offered as opinion, get
picked apart by some know-it-all who refuses to see that there's no
point in "convincing" the right and wrong of someone's opinion.

But enuf soapboxing, back to our discussion. Heh, heh, heh. :) You also
mention that FASA did not encorporate damage mods for resistance tests
into the game. So what if they chose not to? They work fine in my game.
I even told you *why* they work fine. Take em or leave em, I don't care.

Your only real argument, as I see it, is survivability. And I can tell
you that this isn't really a problem. We've been playing srun this way
all year without any survivability problems. As I mentioned, I talked to
my players about doing away with this house rule and they said no, keep
it. They like the realism, and they especially like the way it makes
combat go faster. Since they like the rule mod., and I like the rule mod.,
it stays in.

Finally, on to gripe #2, rolling versus attacker's skill instead of
weapon's power. I'm not sure how to convince you here. Maybe we should
just agree to disagree. I demonstrated that my logic here was that
this way just makes more sense to me. I wouldn't say, though, that it
prevents the unskilled from taking out someone with a lucky shot. Please
remember that ties always go in the attacker's favor. So if attacker
(the unskilled lucky dog) gets 3 successess, the defender has to get
four to get a clean miss. Granted, unless the lesser skilled combatant
has planning and situtational modifiers on his side, he'll tend to miss
a lot -- but that's the way it is in real life, no?

Cheers,

--David
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Girardot@*********.edu Girardot@********.bitnet
dmgirard@***.cs.du.edu
-*-
Prognosticator * Gamer * Scribbler * Reader * Consultant * Sorta Apple Rep