Re: Combat & Simple Contests

From: Thom Baguley <t.s.baguley_at_...>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:53:24 +0100

> From: "Tim Ellis" <tim_at_...>
>The reverse is more true, that in a simple contest you generally
>require a complete victory for a permanent effect (which sort of
>leads back to Thom and Nick - yes, an unlucky roll *can* kill a
>character in a simple contest - but only if they fumble and their
>oppononent criticals. With a mastery advantage (or by spending a HP)
>you can guarantee not fumbling. OK if every player goes down to a
>major defeat it might be tricky justifying not killing them in some
>circumstances - but then they can loose big time in an extended
>contest too...

In the context of the first session of a game it would feel odd (to me) to use a simple contest to resolve a life-or-death fight (even with trollkin).

As a general principle using simple-contests is bad for life-or-death contests is bad. If you it often there is a good chance someone will die after a few sessions. (I'm not saying you should never do it).

An alternative to simple contests is probably the ability test. Assuming a pathetic cowering trollkin slave I'd let a hero defeat it with just a successful ability test. A warrior trollkin deserves an extended contest (with only 11 or 12 AP it will be fairly quick!).

Thom