Re: Implicit and explicit factors in Extended Contests

From: Benedict Adamson <yahoo_at_...>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:05:02 +0000


Paul Andrew King wrote:
...
> The problem I have is that this doesn't seem to leave room for
> cautious bids based on improving the chance to win, without directly
> contributing to winning.

Either an action contributes towards winnning (perhaps only a little), or it doesn't, so that statement makes no sense to me. Or do you have a hang up about 'indirect' contributions? Are you focusing on the tasks being done rather than the objective, perhaps?

To kill an opponent in a combat, a PC does NOT need to attack using Close Combat. They can perofrm actions that render the oponent helpless, giving a Complete Defeat, and have the description of the Complete Defeat involve a sword blow.

What about augmentations? They can be said to indirectly contribute to victory.

> Fixing a problem improves the character's
> position by depriving the opponent of an advantage.
...

The HQ contest resolution is zero-sum (your Major Victory is their Major Defeat), so there is no rules difference between removing their advantage and giving them a disadvantage.

Powered by hypermail