One resolves a "contest" between the crafter, and an abstraction of the difficulty of the task. Not unlike target numbers in Pendragon (and Certain Other Systems).
Jane Williams remarks:
> OTOH, in a "real" fight you can get an advantage over your opponent by pure
> intimidation, and I don't mean spells. RQ doesn't allow for that. Does HW?
As it happens, Intimidation was one of the notable abilities of one of the HW demo game characters. And indeed, the scenario contrived a "staring down contest" as one of the means of playing out (and of course, teaching) extended contest resolution. Though since there's no real distinction between magical and non-magical abilities anyway...
Simon Hibbs says of HW:
> None of the criticisms I have seen are unfixable.
As Daniel Fahey remarked to me by email (_argumentum ad praxian_), isn't that the whole _point_ of having demo games, and discussion of the system while it's still Under Construction?
> Furthermore I don't realy see what this discussion is gaining anybody.
I live in hope that it'll lose us that table, quite apart from anything it might gain anybody. ;-)
and elsewhere:
> If I have 50 action points and you only have
> 15, but our success rolls are similar, then I'm at an advantage, but
> it's nowehere near as much as you seem to be suggesting. All it takes is
> for me to bet 20 points on a roll and lose [...]
This is the sort of situation where staking low, and perhaps even reducing the size of ones opponent's stake (which incurs a penalty) would seem to be the way to go...
> Action points are not carried over between conflicts, which is evidently
> the case here if waves of warriors are being sent in. Each time they
> would be reset to their starting totals.
This is a bit of a vague area in my own understanding of the rules. Exactly how does one determine a "separate conflict" for these purposes? One can certainly use the SP total gained in doing-down one person in a multi-participant extended contest -- as you'll recall from my rather impressively large SP total in the playtest game, Simon. ;-)
Phil Hibbs: -- arg, another one! ;-)
> Can we keep this list Gloranthan, please? If Robin wanted to set up a Hero
> Wars discussion list, it would be easy enough to do. He hasn't.
He hasn't, so I'm afraid this is the most appropriate list available. A separate list sounds like a good plan to me, but I don't think it's reasonable to simply try and (re)define a discussion out of existance.
Slainte,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail