>I've been gorlicked. The Vulcan nerve pinch of superior argument by one
>of my gamers. Now I'm thinking that it makes sense to start a new extended
>contest when the action type changes too much. The trooper still has a
>final shot to win the old swearing contest (and shame the cavalry soldier
>into letting him pass). But after that, it's a new type of combat (weapons
>rather than words) so a new extended contest makes more sense.
That is an incredibly bad idea, for a number of reasons.
- Why would anyone losing a contest not change tactic? That way they get
to start again with a clean slate. Okay, you're talking of allowing a
"final shot" but that's only one dice roll - if I'm willing to spend a hero
point, chances are I'll survive that, which wouldn't be true if the contest
carries on.
- What constitutes "changes too much"? If swearing escalates to violence
is too big a change (despite the fact that this would seem a pretty natural
escalation) what else would count? If I'm failing to seduce a girl with my
"Cheesy Chat Up Lines" and change to throwing my money around (use
"Wealth") - is that too big a change? What if I start name dropping
celebrities?
- How do you apply consequences? Normally, long term consequences only
happen after an extended contest ends. But if you don't finish the contest,
what then? A big fight scene ends with one side running away, but since
that's a new contest, the Uroxi heroes don't get any chance of damaging the
broo they've been fighting for half an hour?
- (The big one to my mind.) What has "action type" got to do with a
contest anyway? They're about resolving conflicting *GOALS* not *actions*.
So what if someone has changed actions, if they're still pursuing the same
goal, they're in the same contest. The foot and mounted soldiers are still
trying to cross the bridge first - what's changed? Even if *one* side
changes goals, the contest may remain the same - the classic example is
going from "Kill Other"/"Kill Other" to "Kill Other"/"Run Away". A contest
should only end early if one side allows the other to achieve their goal -
not likely for a combat, or much else of any interest.
A little further thought on this. In the example, the contest has the goal
of "cross the bridge first". Which kind of makes it look like I'm saying
that the cavalry guy could allow the foot soldier to cross (surrendering
that contest) *then* attack him. He can't - in this case, because the story
ends when someone gets across - its an artificial example. But in general,
the foot soldier has some reason he wants to cross. Something that goes
beyond his immediate goal. If the cavalry guy is immediately attempting to
stop him doing achieving that goal (in this case it might be "...and live
to tell the tale...") then its the same contest.
>You could do a whole adventure as a single extended contest. Would that
>make sense?
Issaries obviously think so. It's how they suggest running The Battle of
Iceland.
Cheers,
GRaham