Modelling human responses to threats (combat rules)
kaladorn@xxxxxx
(26 Apr 2020 19:53 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Modelling human responses to threats (combat rules)
Phil Pugliese
(26 Apr 2020 23:13 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Modelling human responses to threats (combat rules)
Jeffrey Schwartz
(27 Apr 2020 01:31 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Modelling human responses to threats (combat rules)
Timothy Collinson
(27 Apr 2020 08:30 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Modelling human responses to threats (combat rules)
Phil Pugliese
(27 Apr 2020 18:45 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Modelling human responses to threats (combat rules) Rupert Boleyn (28 Apr 2020 00:44 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Modelling human responses to threats (combat rules)
kaladorn@xxxxxx
(28 Apr 2020 01:15 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Modelling human responses to threats (combat rules)
Rupert Boleyn
(28 Apr 2020 02:00 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Modelling human responses to threats (combat rules) Rupert Boleyn 28 Apr 2020 00:44 UTC
On 28Apr2020 0644, Phil Pugliese - philpugliese at yahoo.com (via tml list) wrote: > I forgot to specify that the discussion was here on the TML & the GDW > rep, which I now recall, was LorenW, & also, as best I recall, most > of us TML'ers were critical of the way the TNE combat system could > instantly incapacitate PC's w/o actually doing much damage. I was always in favour of that, and saw it as a feature - it lets the PCs lose without dying horribly all the time. What annoyed me were all the people who claimed it made people too tough because "they could keep fighting after taking a plasma bolt to the head", which was wrong on so many levels (the most obvious being that the head had very few hit points, and head hits KO'd you on serious rather than critical wounds), and showed that they hadn't actually read the rules, or hadn't paid any attention when they had. -- Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>