Re: Implicit and explicit factors in Extended Contests

From: simon_hibbs2 <simon.hibbs_at_...>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:40:44 -0000

 "I [fix the
> problem] and [do a suitable action]" both fixes the problem, *and*
advances
> me towards my goal. If the narrator wants me to make a larger bid,
or take a
> penalty, or specify how I'm fixing the problem that's okay. But
saying "You
> can't do Y until you do X" was not my intention when working on the
rules.

That was exactly my intent with the "wrestle my way free, and tie up the creature with it's own tentacles" example. I think you can sue Close Combat to get free of the tentacles and hit the creature, but that clearly isn't as appropriate to the situation as wrestling is. Therefore you get a marginal penalty (-2 perhaps, since close combat is pretty close, just not as appropriate as wrestling) for that particular action.

In practice I'd probably not impose a penalty, since it's a marginal case and a bit nit picky, but on considered reflection I think the above is justified.

I kind of agree with Paul's counter with the "jumping over the wall" (or was it hedge?) example from the book, I would allow the player to make a statement like "I jump over the hedge and try to land on the bad guy". That clearly allows for hurting the bad guy, but it's also partly an attack (for which a Jump ability is not appropriate), so I'd penalise the player for a -5 but with no limit on the AP bid. If he just wanted to jump over the hedge there's be no penalty, but I'd mandate a low AP bid for such a 'safe' statement of intent.

Close Combat is clearly no use for jumping hedges, so I'd probably assign a -10 penalty for using it in that way. If the guy has a "Flying Kick" ability, all would be good.

Simon Hibbs

Powered by hypermail