Re: Argument overridden

From: miker19036 <miker_at_...>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:36:33 -0000


Andrew, there are some flaws to your logic, however. You're talking about basing the limits on the AP differential. What about when you start contests with significantly different AP values? Like one person starting off against a ruffian and his 3 buddies, and they're being run as a group with a single AP value? Does he start off automatically limited?

Yes, there is narative flow, but keep in mind that one thing that HQ was specifically designed to avoid was the "death spiral". I agree with Roderick: when you're losing is the exact time that you're going to change your approach.

Also, if you want to model someone getting beat down BEFORE the conclusion of the contest, and having a tougher time of it, start issuing wounds (-1 modifiers). I don't remember if these stayed in (I don't have my HQ book handy), but the way they worked is that the winner of an exchange could exchange the first 7 APs lost by his opponent for a -1 Hurt.

None the less, the mechanics are intended to model classic heroic conflicts. The extended contest mechanism does reflect this very well. Imposing arbitrary (and yes, they're arbitrary as there is no concrete guideline for them) limits on a hero in a contest, especially because he's losing, goes counter to this.

I don't see how two men standing on opposite sides of a bridge stating oaths as to what they will do if they get to the other side first (or what they'll do to the other if he doesn't let him pass) prevents one of them from resorting to hurling insults or even saying "to the Underworld with this," drawing his sword and charging.

Mike Ryan

Powered by hypermail