On Monday, October 27, 2003, at 03:24 PM, Paul Andrew King wrote:
> >wrote:
> >> >--- In HeroQuest-rules_at_yahoogroups.com, Paul Andrew King
> ><paul_at_m...>
> >
> >> > ...That kind of pre-judgement of the outcome would seriously
> >> >piss me off.
> >>
> >> As I say it should flow from the narrative. In a "real" game it
> >> would not be arbitrary (or it wouldn't happen).
> >
> >Ok, so limiting action is only justified if there are narative
> >(stated) reasons for it.
> > At the least they should be implicit. And in that case there should > be room for compromise if one of the parties disagrees. It's one of > the reasons I have problem with a contest like this where the stated > ability doesn't seem to be enough to produce the effects - but I'd > accept it if the players both insisted or I could be convinced.
I don't see why the stated ability doesn't seem enough to produce the effects. One guy started the contest using his "Swear Like A Soldier" to browbeat the other guy into letting him cross the bridge first. What ability would you use to browbeat someone?
> >> >Assumed by you, but not based on any specific statement of action
> >in
> >> >the contest.
> >>
> >> Since we don't have any, it's all assumptions.
> >
> >So you were assuming that there had been specific statements in the
> >narative to this effetct. Shame you didn't mention that earlier.
> > Not necessarily specific - but certainly some explanation of the > effects the swearing was supposed to produce - and I HAVE stated that > more than once.
It seemed pretty clear (to me, at least) that the swearing was supposed to browbeat, embarrass or otherwise cause the other person to allow him to cross first.
You know, a G (or maybe PG) version of a swearing contest can be found in the movie "Hook" where Peter and Rufio are having their contest of words around the dinner table. It degenerates into a food fight and at one point Rufio throws a coconut (or was it a melon?) at Peter. Peter deftly defends himself by slicing it in half in midair. There is no reason for this to be anything but one extended contest (too pivotal to be a simple contest, IMO).
> >> I don't agree that there needs to be a direct statement that the
> >> action should have a specific result in every case. Especially
> >when
> >> an action succeeds better than "expected". The result, should
> >follow
> >> from the stated action, and in this case there should be a
> >statement
> >> as to how the attack is supposed to work.
> >
> >Sop you reserve the right as narator to assert limitations even when
> >there is nothing in the narative to suggest that they are appropriate?
> > That is certainly not what I said. What I said was that there SHOULD > be something in the narrative to at least suggest that it is > appropriate. What I do not agree with that there should be a > specific statement to that effect. > > For instance: > If a Great Troll is walloping a Hero with a Maul, intending to crush > his skull and with an AP bid to match. > If the Hero defends with Close Combat, Sword and Shield > If the result is success vs success with the Hero losing half the AP > bid, leaving him just in the contest. > I would feel it reasonable to state that the Hero caught the blow on > his shield, but that now his shield arm is numb and possibly broken. > > Now there is no explicit statement that the Troll is trying to hurt > the Hero's shield arm but it IS reasonable given the narrative. > > That is the sort of thing I mean - no explicit statement, but the > result follows from the stated actions.
I couldn't agree more but I wouldn't state that the hero couldn't use his shield now. First of all, it's a marginal defeat so the effects should be, well, marginal. A -1 with the Hero's next action using his shield arm, perhaps. Second, while the result you give is reasonable for an effect once the contest is over, it's not for a contest that is still ongoing. The section "Narrating Contests" on pp 188-9 covers this very well.
Camo
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail