Possibly the only reason to get involved in one of these endless discussions! :-) Apart from the self-aggrandisement of course. :-)
> No, I'd want some sort of description of how the character is going
> to get out of the tentacles. Hacking at the tentacles to cut them or
> make them let go would be a good choice for close combat. The issue
> isn't so much *which* skill so much as *how* the skill used is going
> to produce the result.
But we started with you arguing that the cavalry trooper would not be able to decide on a physical action without first psyching himself up to it. The previous contest had shown him to be losing the verbal argument about who should stand aside and let the other pass - obviously not able to hold his own when throwing insults he decides to simply move across the bridge. If the player had simply said that the insults he had recieved had made him angry and so he was going to simply charge his horse over the bridge you'd have allowed it?? That is a narrative explanation...
> Well that's another reason for having the escape as a separate
> action. If the abilities required are too different it makes more
> sense to do it as 2 actions, (just like jumping over the hedge and
> attacking being resolved as 2 actions on p189).
Or simply use an escape skill if you want to change your goal to escape rather than kill the tentacled thing and close combat if you want to continue with the same goal...
The example on p189 is simply the GM saying that she thought the most relevant skill for what was described was jumping rather than combat. No penalties imposed, no indication that the beast wouldn't be killed if the dice meant that its AP were reduced to the necessary level by appropriate dice rolls...
>>The narrative escape from the tentacles was there in the first clause,
>>'I slip free from the tentacles...'
>
> You mean the player dictating the result instead of using an action
> and rolling the dice ? That's what it looks like.
Well statements before the dice indicate what the player attempts. The dice determine whether that becomes part of the narrative. If the dice indicate a success then AP move and the action moves on. A successful player dictates the narrative results - the dice dictate the AP results - the GM is there to ensure that the AP bid reflects the desired level of success.
> attempting to do. The escape happens the same way as getting
> entangled did - it's a narrative event produced by a combination of
> the actions and the results of the dice rolls. So the player has to
> choose an action which is appropriate to producing the result of
> escaping, just as the thing had to use an action which is appropriate
> to producing the result of partially entangling the Hero.
What I mean is that I disagree with the GM imposing a game mechanic requirement to certain actions based on narrative events. If all you want is a narrative explanation then I think you should work with the player to allow that rather than just imposing a penalty because they haven't been facile enough with their narrative description.
>>If I bid to escape you might require a certain
>>level of AP bid but if you are restricting my actions based on a
>>narrative enclosure then I have to assume I _am_ actually entangled -
>>not possibly entangled.
>
> That's because your character *is* actually entangled. It would be
> very confusing to have all sorts of "possible" results within a
> contest.
OK. This is where we trip up all the time.
Being entangled is a definite result that I would require a contest for. An exchange within a contest does not provide such a definite result.
In the abstract place where contests take place, the character being entangled is a narrative description that seems to be the case but is easily shrugged off by the next successful exchange by the character.
No penalties on skills result as the narrative within the contest is characterised by the uncertainty we both agreed upon. Otherwise every time there was a decent change in AP you'd have to impose penalties which would take us back towards the hit/parry/damage of Runequest.
If that is what you want - that's fine but its not HeroQuest, IMO obviously, though apparently also the opinion of everyone else disputing with you.
> Well as far as I can see it is definitely NOT the case that the rules
> are designed to work that way. The reference on p68 I quoted
> referred specifically to wounds, the section on p188 talks about
> avoiding "permanent" effects and again wounds are the examples. I
> can't see anything which states that circumstances which can be
> changed by actions within the contest come under that rule.
There is also nothing that says that large AP losses result in penalties to skills within a contest. I'd have thought that they'd have been keen to put an example of that in the text if that was the intent of the rules. Especially as the book has so many good examples of play to help us through the rules.
>>Obviously it is within your remit to change the way they
>>work in your game but I think you have to concede that it _is_ a
>>house rule rather than the game design.
>
> I certainly don't have to concede that my reading of the rules is a
> "house rule". So far as I can tell it is your version that is the
> "house rule".
I knew that would be controversial! :-) I'm not going to get into an orthodoxy argument, so we'll leave it there, yes?
>>There are no effects from AP bids beyond the loss/gain of APs
>>that reflect the actions that take place in the narrative but
>>not the abilities of the participants.
>
> That is not clear to me. Certainly AP are used to reflect things
> that - from a narrative perspective - ought to have some effect.
They do have some effect, they demand a narrative response but not a game mechanical one.
> While I am not suggesting that the effect should primarily be game
> mechanical penalties to abilities it can't be ruled out.
Like I say, it is certainly within your remit to introduce it to your game but its not laid out in the rules and *could* be seen as arbitrary by players.
>>If I am in a double nelson then "I slip from his double
>>nelson and do a reverse scissors leg-lock on him". That
>>reflects the flow of the narrative. You agree the bid
>>and roll the dice.
>
> What about the other examples ?
If his insults have made me mad then "I'm going to charge my horse into him". That reflects the flow of the narrative. You agree the bid and roll the dice.
If the crimson bat has scared me in a previous contest then "My fear of the Crimson Bat is strong but my comrades need help, I charge in". That reflects the flow of the narrative. You agree the relevant skill and the AP bid and roll the dice.
>>Not completely ignore but if the player simply says that he rolls to
>>his feet and throws a dagger at the troll that knocked him over then
>>I'd allow him to use his dagger throwing skill at full value. He has
>>narratively dealt with the narratively imposed disadvantage - no game
>>mechanics necessary.
>
> I can't think of anything I've said which would make you think I'd
> rule differently - unless there were narrative circumstances that
> made such an action difficult or impossible.
because I haven't used a skill to regain my feet - the dagger skill isn't one I'd use to acrobatic type things. What you have said before leads me to believe you'd either penalise my dagger skill due to being prone or because I was getting to my feet or else require me to get to my feet using Agile or something. That's what your arguments lead me to believe.
>>If you had bought the knockdown with the 7AP method then I'd
>>impose game mechanical penalties.
>
> Well that's the rules - unless you mean penalties beyond the -1 hurt
> lasting for the contest (and beyond ?)
Nope, nothing beyond the -1 hurt, though, like I indicated before i might be persuaded to exchange the -1 hurt for a more specific penalty to an opponent...which *would* be a house rule.
> From my point of view the circumstances of the contest always matter
> and AP changes produce changes in those circumstances. Bigger
> changes in AP produce bigger shifts in the circumstances. I can't
> find anything in the rules that contradicts this.
No, but like Simon said, the shifts in circumstances are reflected in the change in AP totals. In the game mechanics nothing else is required to reflect those changes - you don't need to add in additional penalties.
Stephen
Powered by hypermail