Re: Argument Overridden

From: Paul Andrew King <paul_at_...>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:47:49 +0000


>--- In HeroQuest-rules_at_yahoogroups.com, "Stephen McGinness"
><stephenmcg_at_b...> wrote:
>
>> > > You assume that the entanglement is
>> > >complete even though the contest is still under way.
>> >
>> > I've no idea where you get that from either.
>>
>> because you want me to escape using a game mechanic rather than
>simply
>> relying on the narrative. 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.
>
>I think there is a problem here that has not been adequately
>addressed.
>
>In the absence of a specific statement that the creature was
>ntangling this arm or that leg, I wouldn't impose any restrictions on
>a character that had ben partly entangled (just lost some APs).

I was thinking of a generally "entangled" state - some restrictions on mobility, a definite resistance to attempts to run away but no big penalties to using a particular limb.

>However suppose the creature (or the GM on it's behalf) had made a
>statement like this: "The creature flails a tentacle at your legs,
>trying to wrap round them and get a grip on you", and then the
>creature succeeded inflicting a significant AP loss. That presumably
>means the character's legs are at least partly entangled and it would
>be reasonable to impose some limitations as a result (perhaps a -5 on
>using a kick attack).

ANd it would be setting up for getting a tighter grip and pulling the character off his feet.

>
>This latter case isn't specificaly in the rules, but I would allow
>it. I see it as a reward for making specific statements of intent
>that add to the drama of the narative. I'd like to encourage
>characters to make statements that help construct a compelling story
>of what happens through the fight, and little extra side effects like
>this are IMHO a nice way to do it.

I agree with that.

>
>What Paul is saying is that all he needs to do is say "The creature
>attacks... success you lose 8 APs. Your character's legs are
>entangled."

I am ? I'm sorry but I don't remember saying anything like that at all.

> I don't like that at all. The main reason is that in this
>case there's nothing specific the character can do to stop his legs
>being entangled. For example he might assume the atack was a tentacle
>trying to bash him against a rock - in which case he might defend
>with a strength related ability to resist the impact. An entanging
>attack would be better defended against using an agility, or even
>tumbling ability to slip free of the attack.

I guess that's why I would SAY if the creature was trying to bash someone with a rock. I *might* "Schroedinger" NPC results a bit more on exceptionally good rolls (inflicting a 2x AP bid or worse) to explain the extra success, but that's all.

>
>I'm realy not fond of 'mystery meat' statements of intent - you don't
>know what was actualy happening untill after the dice are rolled.

Neither am I that's why I keep saying that actions should have more information on what the character is doing - how they are attempting to produce the intended results.

>The
>troll example is another case, we don't know it was trying to bash
>the character's sheild arm untill after the dice were rolled, so the
>character was potentialy deprived of the chance to use a specific
>defensive tactic to avoid that outcome.

That's because it wasn't trying to bash the shield. I specifically stated that the attack was an attempt to crush the character's skull (i.e. taking a head shot with a bid high enough to reduce the character to -31). Hitting the shield was the result of a defence - with sword-and-shield close combat - effective enough to reduce the AP loss to a point where the character was - barely - left in the contest (i.e. a 1/2 AP bid loss to the character).

> It makes it very hard to
>figure out what ability is most apropriate to the action being
>attempted, and what ability is most apropriate to defending against
>it.

In the example the character was using his sword-and-shield close combat. If he hadn't used his shield the result would have been explained differently.

>In summary, I have no objection to extra side effects of an attack,
>however those side effects must have been specificaly stated as goals
>in the statements of intent.

And as the troll example was meant to show there can be cases where it is the combination of attack, defence and dice that produce the situation where "extra" side effects may be appropriate.

-- 
--
"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