>Frinstance, if you want to convince your former ally that you were not >responsible for the death of his wife, you can use physical, social or >mental abilities to achieve your goal even though your opponent uses combat >abilities to achieve *his* goal (namely, kill you) in the contest.
And how is that any different from backing away, parrying like a good 'un, and making lots and lots of Fast Talk/Orate rolls? [if you're up against a irate NPC, in character rapid justification if you're a PC]
Example from my own Sartarite RQ campaign:-
[Player"BigMouth" trips over his own tongue in the presence of PC's
"Brother" and "Sister"]
"I didnt mean that your sister WAS a horse, just like she looked . . ."
<SMACK>
"OW! Loook i didnt mean it!"
<failed dodge role>
<SMACK>
"OK!OK! shes really good looking! I apologise! Stophitting me
pleeeeassssse!"
"Very Well, Apology Accepted. Stop bleeding on the straw."
(I suspect PC "Brother" is tending toward Humankt.....)
I much prefer this too:-
"Oh Sh*t he's rumbled me!"
"He draws his sword and advances"
"Make a 'convice him cos we're old mates role'"
<rattle>
"Ok you've convinced him"
Of course RQ doesnt have to look like the first one and HW like the second. It's all down to GM and Player Role Playing. I think that happens DESPITE any system not because of it.......
I doubt ANY body on this post would go through the second...but the 'munchkins' will. If they put down their Vampire rule books long enuf to play it (Use Dominate Level 15zillion to make the pathetic mortal forget he saw us together.......then suck all her blood out!)
In HindSite (isnt 20/20 vision glorious?) I probably shouldnt have been so down on HW as I was in my last post. But I still have grave misgivings about a 'Story Telling' system.
DT
Powered by hypermail