Re: Contest minutiae.

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 00:51:52 +0100 (BST)

> Let's consider some hypothetical situations:
>
> 1) A is firing missiles at B, B is just trying to get the hell out of
> there. A bases AP on Ranged Combat, B on whatever ability he's using to
> escape.
>
> 2) A is firing missiles at B, B is closing to melee range. A as before. B
> resists the ranged attack with whatever seems appropriate, but AP are
> based on Close Combat since the stated intention as the contest starts is
> "I want to fight him up close".
>
> 3) A fires missiles at B from an ambush, B is totally surprised. A as
> before. B gets AP based on Tough or whatever else he can come up with to
> resist a surprise attack, and is stuck with that for the remainder of the
> contest even if he manages to switch to a better ability.
>
>
> I'm fairly certain that 1) and 3) are in accordance with the rules, it's
> 2) I'm not sure about.

I agree that 1 and 3 are in accordance with the rules; it's accordance with common sense I'm more worried about, though. I'd suggest it was perfectly 'legitimate' to run 2 and 3 with the 'wrong' ability, just so long as your group has seem reasonable understanding of what's kosher. It's a narrative game, ferhevnsakes: what sense does it make to apply wargame-like cheese-paring rules analysis to tell one what the 'correct' approach to a story situation is?

> >these days? If you bump into 'Johan' Hughes, tell him I said 'hi!',
>
> Who?

A fellow Göteborger, and probably lapsed Gloranfan -- hey, it isn't _that_ big a place!

Cheers,
Alex.

Powered by hypermail