<mike_c_holmes_at_...> wrote:
> This problem occurs because of pro-forma setting of stakes in
> contests. That is, one assumes that, if the stated goal is to
> capture the opponent, that this occurs even on a marginal victory.
> And, once captured, then any successive contests will be ones
> that "no self-respecting hero would fail at" (Automatic Success
> on cutting throats).
I don't understand you completely, what do you suggest as result with a marginal defeat?
I assume that the goal in a combat is to neutralize(by injuring or temporarily incapacitating him) your opponents. Any victory can then temporarily incapacitate an opponent leaving ready to capturing him.
> The problem here is that what's happening is that, by allowing
> these goals to indicate these specific results, you're allowing
> the players to circumvent the stakes that the rules indicate.
> That is, what's the difference between capture and subsequent
> summary killing, and simply killing the opponent in the combat
> on a marginal victory?
I'd not allow killing the opponent in the combat on a marginal victory, the player should do a "parting shot" reducing AP to complete defeat. Difference between capture & execution and a killing blow is than Capture&Execution requires several ingredients: a helpless prisoner, nobody around that could provide some distraction/interruption, etc.
In middle of a combat a killing blow can only be possible on a Complete Defeat because there are several factors what can distract from your goal: Opponent resist actively (even in a parting shot), others opponents, witnesses...
> Don't get me wrong, I actually advocate allowing death on a
> marginal victory in the right cases.
I agree :)
> On a marginal, you may have gotten some shorter-term goal, but you
> don't usually get to eliminate the fun opposition. Just some
> element of it. You injure your opponent. Or you destroy five of
> his mook guards. But this leaves the opponent intact to deal with
> yet again.
How do you treat with this?
Opposition has been reduced to -1 AP, do you start a new contest
again? This's a Chained Contest I suppose, but we run Extended
Contests (or some times Simple Contests)
> There is functionally no difference in terms of elimination of the
> dramatic opposition via death in combat, and capture. These are
> exactly the same circumstances. Put it this way, if you do allow
> capture on a marginal victory, then the opponent should be allowed
> to put up some resistance against the capturer with only a -1
> penalty, as that's all that's been delivered. Does that make any
> sense?
But the contest is already finished, opponent has been incapacitated
or knocked out, although only for a few seconds due his marginal
defeat.
At this interval opponents can be dispatched (tied or murdered)
without resistance if there isn't any interruption
> On any less level of victory, you have to
> narrate some reason why the opponent is not eliminated. There
> are several ways to do this. The first is simple escape. The
> opponent simply runs off. For major villains, invent an "escape
> rout" that they've thought of previously. This is a classic
> convention Note that you can have subsequent contests to catch
> up with the oppnent, and more fights potentially, etc, etc.
> So long as it's dramatic.
As I see, to run off is a change of goal in middle of a Extended Contest. Ok, opponent can see being in problems and decide to run off, but if the contest is yet finished(reduced to 0 AP), it's too late to change goals, isn“t it?
> Similarly, there's the Interruption. The authorities come along
> and break up the fight (this one is fun, because you can allow
> a retry now, given that it's a new circumstance with new
> consequences).
mmm, I'd treat this Interruption as same contest anyway, no retry.
> Or you've given him a scratch for -1, but he falls
> into the river and is swept away (call this the Aragorn Escape).
> Or the characters are physically separated - in a modern
> case, they're fighting on the tracks, and then a train comes
> between them.
hehehe I like these resources, I've used any of them some times, but I'm afraid they can be seen as forced situations ("Eh, you didn't say anything about a river!" ¬_¬U)
> There's another, more subtle technique, too, that involves player
> complicity. That is, I ask my players, "Do you want them to get
> away? Or you can capture them, understanding that your characters
> are, for some reason, not going to kill them?" The players have
> to abide by the outcome of the contest.
Very interesting idea, but this technique requires a big change of mind in our style of play
> Yes, the villain is captured. But now there must be some new
> contest to kill him. The book mentions this method. Perhaps the
> contest to kill him is now a roll against the character's own
> piety level, or some resistance representing his moral compass
> that tells him that killing in cold blood is bad. As Jane
> mentions, complete victory overcoming an impediment to kill
> then results in the player never having to roll to overcome
> that resistance again... in other words, the player has become
> somewhat sociopathic (compare to Unknown Armies "Madness Meters").
I've used any of these before, independently from victory or defeat
in these contest I allow players killing in cold blow instead
restircting their actions, but if they were defeated in the "moral
contest" they must assume consequences of their act with some kind
of "mental wound"...
Personality traits as "Cruel", "bloodthirsty", "insensible" are
sometimes increased because these moral defeats, but then these
traits are later used as main abilities to overcome these "moral
contest" (such as UA "madness meters" you said)
> There are some players who avoid this sort of drama like the
> plague, wanting really to just have a power fantasy where they
> don't want to have to deal with such issues - their characters
> are beyond issues of whether or not they're capable of killing
> (I think this should be reserved for only veteran characters,
> but that's another issue). Call this Chuck Norris style of play.
I think I'm used to play with Chuck Norris style players (even I could one of them...;) ), therefore I see as a natural style of play than players can take any sort of action (of course, they must face consequences later), they are their characters, they are their decisions; such as "Ok, you's got a mayor defeat in your Brave contest, anyway you can defy to the Dragon in singular combat, but you're terrified, your arms and legs trembling, you're at -50%"
> Used to other games where contests cannot be about whether a
> character can decide to take a particular sort of action, they
> want to simply make all such decisions themselves. That's fine,
> but for these players, that simply means that, if you're deciding
> as narrator that a villain has plot immunity, that anything less
> than a Complete Victory means villain escape or interruption, etc.
> Not capture. For that final fight, it's "To the Death!"
> Cater to the player's desires here.
Some nice ideas here, thanks ;)
Anyway, Capturing&Executing villains is a bit annoying to me, but isn't a great problem that needs an immediate solution in our game
Raul
Powered by hypermail