Re: Extended Advocacy

From: giangero <giangero_at_...>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 09:45:52 -0000

> But the bottom line is play it how you want to play it. Personally,
> I prefer killing to be something you need to do up close and
> personal, because if heroes can kill at range more easily, so can
> the enemies.
> Mark

Probably my perplexities are slightly broader than this sniping example is able to convey.

I try to change the perspective of my objection, to see if it is commonly shared by those who contribute to the list (and to further help the advocacy versus the detractors of the extended contest system):

A simple contest is much more limited in representing the difference in skill between a master and a henchman than an extended contest is. Not only because the simple contest ignores edges and APs, but also because it reduces the control of the outcome from the narrator's and the players' hands, and it tends to lower the probability of an eclatant outcome like a complete victory.

I mean that if the actor of a contest is a two/three masteries hero, it is "in his interest" that the contest should be resolved as an extended contest rather than a simple one. *Unless* the narrator ignores the plane outcomes of the simple contest table and boosts them to represent the might of the hero vs is unskilled opposition.

I wonder if this issue could be represented in a more-rulesy-less- arbitrary way, like for example saying that a several-masteries advantage bumps up the actor's success as far as critical and _then_ bumps down the resistance's success as far as fumble.

Example:
3W3 crossbowman vs 14 target-hoplite
the Xbowman rolls a 10 and the hoplite a 11 simple contest results: failure bi-bumped to critical vs. success, outcome is a minor victory (hoplite is hurt) if the remaining mastery of advantage by the Xbowman de-bumps the hoplite, then his success becomes a failure and the outcome becomes an injury.

It could be a feasible house rule, I think.

Ciao,
Gian