On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 01:06:47PM -0000, simon_hibbs2 wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 05:01:36PM -0000, simon_hibbs2 wrote:
> > > Have a look at the 'levels of vicotry' table and decide whether
> > > a particular task might require a marginal, minor, major or
> > > complete victory.
> >
> > Personally I think this is a dubious practice. In HW, it's outright
> > buggy, in fact: it introduces all sorts of statistical anomalies,
> > as you're potentially relying on your opponent having to fail or
> > fumble, regardless of how well you do yourself. (In HQ, bump-downs
> > will largely fix this.)
>
> I suppose it depends on what you are trying to achieve. For
> example in my game, one character was trying to persuade a
> Troll acquantance to whom said troll had sold a valuable
> artifact. I ruled that since the transaction was made in
> confidence, he'd have to get a Complete Victory for the Troll
> to actualy give him name, address, etc of the person with the
> goods. Lesser levels of succes would give progressively more
> obscure levels of co-operation from the troll. The character
> achieved a Major Success, and the troll agreed to send a message
> to the owner of the artifact, who it turns out was easily
> followed by one of the adventurers.
OK, that sounds entirely reasonable. Please ignore previous
considerable overreaction. ;-) In similar wise, there's the
familiar example of Decipatate Foe. Obviously where a Major Victory
corresponds to 'merely' fatally nicking their carotid artery. <g>
Cheers,
Alex.