- In HeroQuest-rules_at_yahoogroups.com, Chris Lemens
<chrislemens_at_y...> wrote:
> > From: "Alexander G. M. Smith"
> > Subject: Extended Contest - Argument Overridden
> >
> > I did an extended contest trial run with the
> > gamers, doing a simple scenario of two people
> > trying to cross a narrow bridge from opposite
> > ends. After figuring out that the healer
> > wouldn't stand up to the cavalry soldier, we
> > switched sample characters and had the cavalry
> > guy face the trooper. The contest to see who got
> > across first started out as a swearing contest.
> > Insults were traded merrily, with modifiers
> > for an intimidating horse not stopping the
> > trooper's Swear Like a Trooper ability, until the
> > foot soldier was ahead (33 AP to 8 AP), whereupon
> > the cavalry soldier charged with his horse.
> >
> > What should happen then? He runs down the soldier
> > but loses the argument? Runs past the trooper and
> > gets out of the contest before it is ended,
> > though running past makes him win the overall
> > bridge crossing situation? Should I have discarded
> > the contest and started another one? Or have the
> > horse injure the trooper, giving him a penalty to
> > his swearing (or would that be a bonus)? Or have
> > the trooper attempt to scare the horse when
> > it charges?
> >
> > It just seems odd doing a contest and then having a
> > preemptive strike make it all meaningless.
>
The issue here, for me, is - what if one of them is a player and the
other an NPC. ??
The player starts off with "ok this is a verbal thingy, its fun,
lets do it". He starts losing, and being a ex-D&D player decides
killing is the best answer (Violence is always an option?).
As a player he naturally thinks what he wants goes, so he charges
forward and tries to melee.
IN HQ however I think that you have to make a stand against your
players. They agreed to enter into an exchange for which the result
was 'who crosses the bridge first'. Even if they resort to melee and
say they are trying to kill the opponent, that is not the agreed
objective and as a GM I would insist on that.
So i this case the cavalry guy charges in and if he losses then you
announce that he faltered before the stinging tongue of his
opponent. If he wins then you say his charge scared the foot trooper
off and he yielded.
If the player is insistant on killing the trooper you now enter
ANOTHER contest, with that objective, and I would quite happily
reset APs but inflict a heavy follow on loss to the loser of the
previous contest.
HQ has a stronger narrative component to D&D, which I as GM have
slowly become more comfortable with. I now have no problems just
telling my players that "this is the result, lets move on". And
they are slowly coming to accept this as they are mainly interested
in getting to the "big scene" where they know I wont do this and it
will be their decisions that decide things...
Personally I would have done this as a simple contest...