Re: Digest Number 1942

From: Michael Jason Teegarden <mjteegarden_at_...>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 14:04:27 -0800 (PST)


Hi, all,

I don't know if this has been brought up yet or not. However, in the example below, I would assign an abstract party (call it "Status Quo") as being the opposition. The Trade Houses are not actively resisting his persuasions, but they can be represented by the abstract, unseen, and invisible party "status quo." I would assign the Trade Houses their Status Quo value, and have it oppose the merchant player character. Anything that can effect the individual members of the Trade Houses (magics, bribes, whatever augments your player can bring to bear) is applied to the Status Quo representation. From there, the contest should be fairly straight forward. This is represented in game just like the suit for the princess: one round of challenge with the die roll (or your roleplay method, if chosen), and then narrated and roleplayed throughout the hours of the game session as per the contest round results.

Thus, you can adequately show the passive resistance in your game, and not just the active resistance.

Michael Teegarden        

> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 18:08:03 -0500
> From: Lightcastle <light_castle_at_...>
> Subject: Fwd: Unable to deliver your message
>
> As long as we are talking about extended contests, I
> have a question about
> neutral parties.
>
> �I love the idea of "slow-burn" extended contests,
> where you make maybe one
> move a session, used as a way to track something.
>
> The example given in the book is the courtship of a
> princess, IIRC. Before the
> Karse game withered on the vine, I had started just
> such a slow burn contest
> involved in one of my players trying to convince the
> Trade Houses to follow
> his strategies for dealing with the Lunars.
>
> Here's the question. He is trying to show them he
> should be in charge, and so
> his bids are based on actions and arguments that he
> presents. They can resist
> with something like "Stuck in their ways", "Greedy",
> "Political cowards",
> whatever.
>
> But on their turn, what do they bid with? They
> aren't actively resisting him,
> they are just reluctant to be convinced or stick
> their neck out. I'd do it as
> a simple contest, but the whole "making or losing
> headway" aspect of an
> extended contest felt right here.
>
> I suppose I could give him an opponent arguing a
> different course of action,
> but the only person who fit dramatically was
> actually arguing a third option.
> (So there was my Merchant arguing option A, another
> arguing option B, and the
> council which mostly wanted to do C - �preserve the
> status quo.) In that case
> I could just make it a fight between A and B,
> although they for the most part
> aren't trying to attack each other, but convince the
> council. (This has
> always been a bit of a question I have concerning
> "debates" as extended
> contests. If you aren't trying to convince each
> other, who is resisting what
> with what?)
>
> LC
                         



Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com

Powered by hypermail