> From: ryan.caveney_at_...
>Yes. On the other hand, according to the rules officially, you can't
>just try the same thing over and over until you get it right -- the
>one contest you roll out includes *all* your attempts to do the same
>thing -- so according to an "orthodox" interpretation of the rules, if
>you choose to resolve archery by a simple contest, you get exactly one
>roll, no matter how many shots you take, so your success vs. the
>target's failure means you shot every arrow you own at him, and still
>you only scored one tiny Hurt. Doing away with this restriction seems
>necessary if you want to use simple contests with archery. Using a
>pure ability test helps a little -- you still need to roll a critical
>to kill the target, but the target doesn't get to roll at all. Some
>will say the proper answer is that this is one of those things that
>"no self-respecting hero would ever fail at", so the narrator should
>just say, "He's helpless, you kill him." I don't find this a very
>satisfying answer, personally.
This is an over-narrow and over-literal interpretation of the rules (in
several ways). If you choose this interpretation, I think you'd have to
treat levels of defeat like in an extended contest. So marginal victory
produces a dazed and defeated foe.
The rules state (from memory) that simple contests can be reapplied if the
goal changes or the circumstances change (as in any contest against a
dynamic opponent).
Each attack could legitimately be to defeat an opponent. Opponents can be
hurt in many different ways "I'll cut his head off", "Kick him in the n*ds"
etc. For ranged combat I'd be even more lenient (each contest is a separate
arrow etc.), but I'd personally use extended contests where possible.
I would allow a player to use multiple simple contests to open a door if
they can come up with different methods (bash it down, pick the lock*, melt
the lock). (My criterion would be "can they describe in a narrative that
incorporates some new approach").
Thom