> Well, for me, I use situational modifiers as they seem appropriate. And I
> create resistances as they seem appropriate.
I try to do this, too. I'm just not sure of the appropriate here.
> One mistake is to always base
> the resistance on some imagined ability that belongs to the target. Check
> out the sample resistances table, and you'll see that anybody can resist
> certain things with a level that's much higher than their implied ability
> levels would give them. For instance convincing people of things that
> they're vehemently against is a 5W2, if I recall correctly. You can either
> view this as some 5W ability with a +20 modifier for them to resist, or
> just as setting the TN appropriately, whatever. The point is that the
> resistance to something like this needs to be very high.
That's interesting. I should go look at that again. OK, I can't actually find that example, but there are plenty of other ones that support your view. I would view it (in my head) as a situational modifier to an ability they actually have but the point is a valid one that it is just "the resistance to accomplishing this".
> So just use the samples and examples, and come up with a TN that makes
> sense for the contest at hand. Do not imagine that just because it's all
> the same abilities being used, that the TN is the same for all things. The
> Romance section of the sample resistances shows distinctly how the
> escalation goes for these sorts of things.
Indeed it does, and to some degree that answers my question. Whether you want to view it as adding situational modifiers to an ability or not, the sample resistance table heavily implies that what happens is that the resistance changes - i.e. situational modifier.
> This is a tortured subject, becuse it seems to me that the rules say one
> thing, and the examples say another.
I think you are exactly right.
> That is, the rules seem to clearly say
> that victory means victory and that you get your goal, while the examples
> seem to imply that you need a certain level of victory to get certain
> effects. I personally choose to read the examples as having complex goal
> statements that make them examples of the first principle.
*nod* One way to phrase my example then would be something along the lines of "seduce her to betray her mistress" - thus how far along she helps can depend on success level.
> With that readong, success means you get your goal, no matter what level.
> The level of victory only affects how well you did it, and what the
> secondary effects might be. Did your contest result in a minor victory to
> seduce? Well then the target will be at -10% to resist such attempts in the
> future. If it were a major victory, then it's -50%. A Complete Victory, and
> they're yours, you never have to roll again.
I would rule it that way if the contest was to "seduce person" full stop. In that case I would go completely with the roll giving you a bonus against them for anything you try to ask them/get out of them.
> One thing I take advantage of is the statement that marginal victories tend
> to include negative effects (and marginal defeats have some positive
> effects).
Wait. Where does this come from? I don't see it in the rulebook.
> Now, that said, there's an implicit problem with this reasoning, which is
> that a player could state that his charcter's goal is to kill his opponent
> (pretty common, right), in which case you could argue that he should cause
> that death on a minor victory. Actually, to be technical, he can only get
> the guy to dying, he can't even kill him.
> Here's how I see this: it means that in no case can any goal statement mean
> "I remove the source of conflict permanently."
> This goes to the "hunting deer" example.
I thought that was where this was going. :)
> In fact, if you want to think
> about it mechanistically, you can think that for every such case that the
> character has, at some point in the past, rolled a complete victory.
> Getting dressed in the morning? The character got a complete victory on
> that when he was about 6 years old. And hasn't needed to roll since.
LOL!! That's a great example.
> Oh, and keep in mind that the healing resistance for a consequence of a
> Complete Defeat is only 20W:
Yes, that is true. And maybe a bit odd.
> "Ragnar goes hunting in the old wood. But something is different today.
> Normally he would have no problem bringing down any game. But the deer seem
> to know he's coming today. So you're going to have to roll to see if Ragnar
> can bring home dinner today...maybe those rumors about trollkin in the
> forest aren't so exaggerated?"
So someone made a roll against 20W to make the forest "not so easy to hunt in again".
> To say nothing of dead opponents haunting the character - death or any
> other result of a complete victory can simply be transformative, creating
> new sources of conflict. In fact, unless you're planning to end the story
> of this character, then it's good policy to transform most conquered
> sources of conflict.
Oh yes. This I agree with absolutely.
LC
Powered by hypermail