What has been faintly bothering me is the corollary -- that a pragmatic Hero should, according to this thinking, always bet 1SP against an Unimportant Flunky, to _ensure_ no slip ups. Similarly, should never use a simple contest resolution, which also makes his chances of winning marginally less. (If given the choice, or if able to Unduly Influence the GM in such a decision.)
However, I think there's a Fix to this. Merely bet what you estimate will be enough to just about kill said Flunky (or cause extreme distress to him, in a non-combat contest). If he has any regard for his own miserable skin, he'll attempt to "cut his losses" by reducing the amount of the bet, but taking penalties thereby, making it much more likely that he'll lose, but more "manageably" so. (To wit, not dead, social position not in smoldering ruins, etc.)
Obviously, not recommended against those inclined to suicide-attack tactics!
Does this seem workable to you HW types? Other comments?
Another small point. In an extended contest to resolve a combat, Herest the fanatic Uroxi is making extravagently bold and risky moves, betting oddles of SPs each time; Vatik the cautious Yelmalion is parrying each of his moves with elaborate care, making little offensive effort himself. (Betting 1SP per round.) Then, then both fail on one resolution, with Herest as the aggressor; _both_ loose equally large amounts of SPs. _What_ the heck happened there? Contrariwise if they both fail with Vatik's minimalist ante...
(Obviously this _could_ happen, but the circumstance seems slightly odd, in the typical such case.)
Slainte,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail