Re: Studying an opponent and Omega Strikes

One place where I know that I, as a player, do *not* want
realism is in the handling of injury.  I know that recovery
from even small injuries is timeconsuming and painful and
may leave permanent impairments.  But I would rather, in this
respect, that games were like action movies.  And it's not very
confusing, because most people have plenty of experience with
the Hollywood conception of injury (in fact, many people have
more experience with it than with realistic conceptions of
injury, at least while they are young).

Realistic injury rules have been tried in various games
(Harn springs to mind) and some people enjoy them, but many
don't.  I think that for most players there are large areas
where they actively do not want realism, as well as other
areas where they need it badly.  One can hope for a group
with fairly compatible needs.

Saving the best attack for last would be borderline for me.
It's not a genre convention I've really internalized and
I would have to make a deliberate effort, though having
Hong Kong movies as a guide would help a lot.

Finding out, now and then, that a fight is too hard only
after I've gotten into it, on the other hand--that maps so
well to my real-life experiences that it doesn't strike
me as all that unrealistic.  Sometimes you just make
mistakes.  Two teenage muggers tackled the head of one of
Florida's aikido schools a while back.  (She re****ts that
after they got up and ran away, she wanted to shout after
them, "Come back!  I could do so much more than that!")

And in the kinds of situations that arise in games it
seems remarkable that your players can always avoid it.
Are they really capable of ensuring, every time, that there
are no unexpected reinforcements, no highly-capable
people travelling incognito, no treachery in their own
ranks, and no magical surprises?  Also, doesn't losing a PC
to an early lucky blow sometimes change a good-looking
fight into not-so-good?

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]