Re: Starting a new contest

From: Roderick and Ellen Robertson <rjremr_at_...>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 10:54:02 -0800


> Okay, how about a poker game, where one of the players is playing to lose,
but
> making sure that the wimpy looking guy wins, so that he can mug him
afterwards.
> Okay, in this instance, the winner will have a chance to make a sly exit,
so
> the mugging would become a separate scene, so that avoids the problem. I'm
sure
> there are other examples where one might happily lose a contest that you
don't
> care about the outcome of.

> What about delberately losing a contest, in order to lull the opposition
into a
> false sense of security? That's what is happening in the example above.
One
> could say that this would have to be achieved by winning a contest using a
> "deceive" ability against the opponent's best "spot deception" ability,
but
> this way the opposition (who may be a PC) gets to know that they are being
> deceived.

In Game Reality, the mark wouldn't know what ability is being used against him. The *Player* may know that the other player is using Deception, or Cheat, or whatever, and it is hard to seperate Player-knowledge from Character-knowledge no matter how good a player you are. As a narrator, I'd probably let the player take me aside or drop me a note telling me what he's up to, then let him lie about which skill he's using. Unfortunately, the player of the mark will spot the problem when his opponent wins and says "well, it looks like you take the pot..."

Player-Player interactions are difficult in any system when one player is using a cheat/lie/steal type skill, because he usually has to make a statement of intent - letting the other players what's going on, and unless there is a *lot* of note-passing going on, passing a note to the narrator just lets the other players know that he is "up to something" and making them paranoid, taking extra precautions based on Player, instead of Character knowledge.

> Someone asked earlier about the "I know his gun isn't loaded" situation,
and I
> don't think this was resolved adequately. Let's say the other guy is
trying to
> win an "Intimmidation" contest, augmented with his "I've got a gun"
ability. He
> really thinks he has got a loaded gun, but I know he hasn't. The
intimmidation
> ends with both of us thinking we have won, but I know I'm right. I can
then
> choose to poke his eye out, which he won't expect, or to let him carry on
> thinking he won. If he doesn't try to use the gun during the subsequent
fight,
> say I snatch it from his hand, he may never realise that he lost. I can't
think
> of a way to cover this kind of situation.

You could give the player who knows the gun isn't loaded an edge to resist the intimidation - and unless he pretends to be intimidated, the thug will know that he hasn't intimidated him.

And of course, it depends on who is on which side of the gun - if a player character knows the gun is empty, there might be no need for a contest at all - you just say "I throw up my hands (and look for an opportunity to punch him)". If it a Narrator character who knows, then the narrator can fudge the rolls, "throwing" the contest (so that the player doesn't get suspicious that "the guy gave up to easily".

> Sub-question: How could I use the fact that I have a gun as an
augmentation to
> intimmidation? I think either using a "gunfighting" ability or a "bluff",
> "deceive", or "acting" type ability would do.

You could even give the thug a bonus or edge just because he has a gun, with no roll needed (probably only against an unarmed opponent). If he pulls a Dirty Harry schtick: "This is a .357 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and it can take your head clean off..." then I'd allow a roll on an applicable ability to get an additional augmentation.

Roderick

Powered by hypermail