Re: House Rule for extended contests

From: Mike Holmes <homeydont_at_...>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 09:41:22 -0500


>From: "bankuei" <bankuei_at_...>
>
>Hi folks,
>
>The other day I ran a simple ship to ship, pirates vs. navy
>swashbuckling sort of affair using the new HQ rules. I found that
>typically, a player is going to stick to their top 2 or 3 skills
>throughout the contest, which while realistic on some levels,
>also meant some important, "just a couple points shy" skills got
>left out...reducing the action to mere color, and almost devolving
>into "I go, you go" syndrome.

Consider first that in most systems, you'd only use one skill for the whole contest. Likely swordsmanship or somesuch. HQ gives you the advantage of a system that, at least to an extent, promotes the idea of using other abilities. So, even the top two or three is more interesting a variety than most games provide.

That said, I understand what you're saying, and would like to get more Abilities involved as well. First, and foremost, I like what the other poster had to say about "surprise moves". Rather than increase your own skill, do something that will reduce the opponents resistance. Reminds me a bit of how things work out in Amber. If your opponent has a higher score, the only way to beat him is to change the venue of the fight to another where your score is higher than his. Further, it seems pretty realistic. If you're the underdog in a sword v sword duel, change the rules if you want to be most effective.

Anyhow, that leaves the problem of the PC having the upper hand, however. What incentive is there for the PC with the higher Ability to not try to keep the venue of conflict on that Ability? Well, there is the idea that doing the same thing repeatedly is predictable, not to mention not very dramatic. So I think Laws Law regarding repeated declarations of action applies here. If the player can't come up with a creative use for the Ability, then his opponent gets a bonus for resistance (ostensibly for being predictable).

If it's not in the rules already somewhere, I suggest a cumulative bonus to the defender ranging from three to five per addition depending on how mundane the description is. So, if my player says, "I swing at him" for a second time (and maybe even on the first time if I'm feeling my oats), I can assign his opponent a +4 bonus (I'll save +5 for, "I do it again" sorts of descriptions). Do it yet again, and it'll go to a +8, etc.

Now, I can extend this and say that simply using the same Ability repeatedly becomes easier to adapt to for the defender. So even just using the same thing twice in the same conflict, even with some nifty description of the action to make it less predictable and more dramatic, means a +1 (or maybe +2). If the defender plays cagey enough with low bids, he may prolong things to the point where the attacker will want to use a different Ability (I also like that this can provide a counter tactic to the current ones regarding the statistical probablilities as they relate to outcomes; the guy in front at some point may feel like he should press his advantage before it runs out). So this would work to get more Abilities to show in extended contests, and might help with incentivizing description as well.

I'll suggest trying it at my upcoming game this weekend.

Mike



Get MSN 8 and enjoy automatic e-mail virus protection. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Powered by hypermail