The player (or narrator) has the chance to fiddle the statistics, though. The AP mechanics allow you to have more control over how long the contest runs (for good or ill to your character). The player has to answer that age-old question "Do you feel lucky, punk?" (oaky, so its only a few decades old). Players are allowed to ask "how many AP does he have left?" - allowing them to tailor their wager to single-AP precision (justification for this: after a couple passes at arms you'll figure out how good your opponent is, and how tired he seems to be, and your chances of beating him (good chance, bid low; bad chance, bet for a lucky hit)).
As any statistician will tell you, just because you've flipped 99 heads in a row, the odds of flipping tails still remain 50-50. While the randomness flattens out over an extended series of rolls, each *individual* roll can still give you a Critical (or Fumble).
If Extended contest are dragging on, the rules suggest that the Narrator just bid big for the NPCs to end it - one way or another. Don't feel constrained by the need to play out every blow if the players are getting tired/bored. If they don't like what you're doing, finish it up and get on with what they *do* like.
> Ergo, I've always seen the obviousness of the philosophy of the extended
> contest put forth on the list. Characters with a higher skill to start
> would always want to minimum bid the situation (to increase the number of
> rolls in a given contest) while low-skill are much better served by the
> hail-mary bidding. I think it makes sense.
This is even pointed out in a boxed text in the book.
> But I like the quick & dirty combat previously described. People should
> just understand that simpler combat resolution will result in more
> pencil-necked geeks beating up conan, statistically speaking.
Good if you're playing a PNG, not so good if you are playing Conan :-)
Roderick
Powered by hypermail