>From: Ra�l <eikinskialdi_at_...>
>
> > 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 suggest that the stakes of the contest be set depending on what's interesting to the players. Capture can be the appropriate stakes for the contest in the right circumstances. But if, in fact, you're working with plot immunity for the target characters, and capture means likely death for the capturee, it's not the right stakes. Assuming that it always is the right stakes for all combat is the problem.
>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.
That's probably the character's goal, sure. Here's the important point, however: stake setting isn't about the charcter's goals, it's about what's interesting to the players. This is the problem with much of the reasoning around here. Whether or not it's "realistic" or not to have characters want to kill each other when weapons are drawn is quite beside the point. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. What's key is what you, the player, want the resolution system to resolve. If the narrator decides that somebody has plot immunity, he's free to take any stakes off the table that he likes, including death (standard for the system), or any other stakes that might lead to character death like capture. Reserving such for, perhaps, Complete Victory only. If that.
>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.
Let's try to keep this to simple contests for simplicity, and to make the point more targetted. To whit, I rarely do combat as extended contests (I rarely do extended contests, period). And I think that this helps, actually, with avoiding "standardized stakes." But, that said, what I'm saying here applies to extended contests as well, in interpreting what the level of resolutuion means.
>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.
And, as I've said, if it's time to change the source of the conflict (to something like avoiding interruption or whatever), then great. But, again, that's based on player interests. Not on some "this is what really happens in this sort of situation" logic.
>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)
Not sure what you're asking here. If the mooks have been reduced to -1 AP? Then they're dead, and the "Gang of Mooks" has a -1 to fight you tomorrow when they show up with fewer numbers (or whatever). The archvillain gets a -1? He escapes with a flesh wound.
Without knowing the situation in-game, and, more importantly, what interests the players, you can't know what's appropriate for a -1. This is my point. There is no set standard for what must be resolved by any level of outcome in in-game terms. Only in terms of metagame needs. Player needs.
>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)
How is this any different than a Complete Victory result?
>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?
The loser's goal was to hurt his opponent. He's lost, and so he has to run off. So he didn't get his goal. He didn't change his goal, he failed to achieve it. And is now forced by the narrated resolution to run off.
Again think only simple contests in any example I give.
> > 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.
The stakes change. The player may have to also elude arrest, for instance, failure ending him in jail. The book explicitly says that there are no retries... except when there are (narrator's section). My best short-hand for this is that you can do a new contest so long as the goals have changed substantively. What you think is substantive is up to you. But to me, if the character is now risking incarceration, or being hit by a train or something, while redoubling his efforts to attack... that's a new contest.
>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)
The system mandates that something occur to effect the appropriate level of resolution. The narrator has in his power the right to create anything neccessary to do so. If the player complains, point to the dice. Rather, if they understand what I'm saying, they'll never complain. I make up outrageous co-incidences, and only get smiles.
>Very interesting idea, but this technique requires a big change of
>mind in our style of play
Everything that I've said requires a big change of mind from the traditional style of play, yes. I think that when Robin is saying that HQ is about dramatic logic, this is what he's saying. But, heck, that could just be my take. What I'm giving you here is just what's worked for me in hundreds of sessions of play. Do with it what you will.
>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%"
False dichotomy. Fear spells, for instance, take away the player's "right" to have his character stand firm. By agreeing to use the resolution system in the game, you agree to take whatever outcomes the system produces. If it says you run, you run.
Now, what's interesting in HQ, is that, the narrator is free to say that you do stand against the fear spell if you fail, if he can find another way for you to have failed the contest. That is, unlike other games which force you to accept outcomes that might actually make your character look like a schmuck, in HQ that'll only happen if the narrator acts in an abusive manner (which is something that the rules cannot address). Assuming a cool narrator, HQ gives them the freedom to make the outcome of every contest, win or lose, into something that the player will enjoy.
If you're ever unsure if a result you're choosing is fun for the player, ask them. If they say no, ask them to propose something more interesting that fits the victory level. That's a sure way to make sure that they like what happens.
>Anyway, Capturing&Executing villains is a bit annoying to me, but
>isn't a great problem that needs an immediate solution in our game
IMO, it's only a problem if you let it be, the system doesn't mandate it in any way. But, again, that's just my perspective, and how it works for me.
Mike
Powered by hypermail