Not if the player pulled it out of thin air. If that had been the way things were tending then maybe - but even then making the other party angry and more determined to win sounds like a fail at a social skill, but here it is supposedly the result of a string of successes.
>
>> 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.
"..use your jumping first. Make it, you can hack next turn". Seems pretty clear that the actual attack was being put off until the next action.
> No
>penalties imposed,
There wouldn't be if I was running it,
> 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...
There wouldn't be if I were running it. Especially if the action was
too low an AP bid for that to be possible (the maximum loss for the
monster is 18 AP)
>
>>>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.
The problem is what you've described is a result, not an action. Giving the intended result of an action is often helpful but it isn't the action itself.
>
>> 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.
What penalty are you talking about ?
>
>>>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.
It is a temporary event within the contest. Becoming completely entangled and helpless is the end of the contest. Goign back to the "jump and hack" example we see a definite result of Hangal getting knocked into the hedge.
>
>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.
If the character chooses an action likely to have that effect and the AP change is big enough then the character escapes.
>
>No penalties on skills result as the narrative within the contest is
>characterised by the uncertainty we both agreed upon.
The uncertainty we AGREE on is whether the character has acquired lasting wounds or similar penalties. I don't believe that that is the same thing as you are talking about.
> 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.
Well I'm not automatically imposing penalties. The penalties - if any - will depend on the action, the skill used and how it fits into the narrative.
>
>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.
My reading is rather different.
>
>> 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.
There's also nothing saying that the narrative effects of AP changes should be ignored.
>
>>>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?
Well as far as I can see the point is to avoid backtracking. Effects which can be undone by winning an exchange with enough AP are not an issue - the effect is just part of the ebb-and-flow of the contest.
>
>>>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.
Isn't that what I've been talking about ?
>
>> 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.
Well the actual penalties weren't even my suggestion.
>
>>>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.
Well it might or it might not reflect the flow of the narrative, as discussed above.
>
>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.
Again, has it been established that the character has a strong feeling for his comrades ? What if previous events indicated otherwise ?
You see what I object to is actions coming out of thin air against the flow of the narrative. These actions might or might not be appropriate.
>
>>>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.
If there isn't any significant opposition then that shouldn't matter, should it ? Getting to your feet is usually an automatic success, right ?
> 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.
Then you're missing my central point. The narrative is what matters. You want to take an action that is an automatic success and reasonably quick ? Then do it. But if the narrative says that there is opposition - for instance if the surface is very slippery then we have a situation like the "jumping over the hedge" scenario.
>
>>>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.
As I've said my concerns are mainly narrative - actions have to take the circumstances into account.
-- -- "The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala Guide to Taoism_ Paul K.
Powered by hypermail