Re: Re: Fortress' Defenses in game rules

From: Mike Holmes <mike_c_holmes_at_...>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:06:53 -0600

>From: "L.Castellucci" <lightcastle_at_...>
>
> > Crits are far more common in HQ than people think. This is a feature,
>not a
> > bug.
>
>I've found them common enough to notice, but not overwhleming. I happen to
>like transfers, so I almost want to see them happen more often.

With a player willing to burn HP, these happen a lot. Give lots of HP. So they don't feel like using more than one on a EC is "wasting" them.

>I happen to like this idea a lot, but I still can't find it in the rule
>book.
>I personally will adopt it, it allows for all kinds of dramatic back and
>forth and especially with marginal successes so common it seems like a
>wonderful idea.

It's made marginal levels so popular that people don't automatically bump when they come up anymore. To be clear, I got the idea from other games that do this, and then checked the rules to see if it fit in. Again, I think it does under the idea that situation creates penalties, and that narration creates situation. It's simply a power of the narrrator, made plausible by the level of victory in question.

> > In point of fact, situational penalties will tend to be a lot larger
>than
> > the -1 from a marginal defeat. But they're only applied to contests that
> > are different than the one just attempte (usually have quite limited
> > scope).
>
>True. I really don't think the situational modifier earned from a marginal
>victory should outweigh the victory.

Well, again, they're very different animals. The penalty from a defeat applies to broad areas as defined by the narrator's description of the outcome. The situational modifier can be as precisely narrow as you like. So in this case I thought the "ruling" I was making in the example was justified.

It might be a mistake, in fact. Based on the size or breadth or something in terms of voiding the meaningfulness of the contest in question. That's for the group to decide. All I'm saying is that it's kosher by the rules.

>A side note - this seems to lean away from a discussion we had on the Forge
>about Unrelated actions being used to change abilities or situational
>modifiers. Here you are folding a situational modifier into a normal AP bid
>roll. (Or am I misremembering where you fell on that discussion?)

I was using an example that fits the rules as written (as I understand them). There are several small things that I might do differently, personally.

>I'm saying that on the first round the player can try to bid everything
>they
>have to beat the dungeon. "I charge into the depths, guessing right at
>every
>corridor and grab the treasure and escape".
>
>Essentially, as you've said in the past, it is a declaration to turn it
>into a
>simple contest.
>
>I see no real mechanical rule to stop this, just social contract and
>narrator
>fiat.

Oh. Well, see, I feel that doing any Extended Contest should be negotiated to some extent between the players and narrator. Even if it's something like:

Narrator: "How about doing it as an EC?" Players: "Uh, OK, sure."

If the players are buying into it as an EC, then why would they opt out this way? On the other hand, if, in fact, the players weren't negotiated with, and opt out this way, I think its a completely valid way of saying to the narrator that they didn't want to do an extended contest here anyhow. Consider it an explicit player power. I think that's a good thing.

This is yet another reason you don't want to "pre-prepare" an EC too much. The players might not be interested.

> > Heck, I allow everyone to make "desperation" bids if the circumstances
> > allow (which the rules do allow with a tangential comment about some
> > narrator characters being allowed to do it).
>
>So do I. I even allow them to be higher than the "original starting AP
>cost"
>if dramatically appropriate. (For awhile I limited them to the value of the
>stat used in the desperation bid, but decided I preferred the drama choice
>in
>the end.)

That's a rule I haven't altered yet. I'll have to think about it.

> > Now, AP is supposed to represent position and such, too. So the question
>of
> > when to allow situation to have an effect, and when to just allow the AP
>to
> > represent it is an open one. But in practice its not hard to answer that
> > question. If the player is sacrificing a round to alter the situation,
>then
> > give him the benefit of the doubt.
>
>*nod* That's where I thought you fell on the question. Note the rule book
>thing above. So it seems you are going for a little bit of a mixed approach
>here.

I think that the book doesn't say clearly here what is the case. I'm taking advantage of that ambiguity.

>(This does remind me that I meant to ask one day about the case where an
>act
>that puts one person at very little risk but should have huge consequences.
>i.e. - Flame demons attack and you want to knock over/open the water silo.
>The handle is on the wall, and you are a crack shot. You aren't really
>putting yourself at risk taking a shot at the handle.
>
>When this happened, I did it as an edge. (small bid/large AP shift)
>In retrospect, I think I could do it as an Unrelated action (no AP bid,
>massive mechenical effect on the demons if successful).)

Well, that works. But what you're not doing is discovering the opposition goal for that round. Yeah, they get one, too, really. With the water silo, maybe it might fall back on you instead! Or perhaps it's a question of how many shots it takes to hit it, meaning how far the demons get towards you before you succeed?

Truth be told, ECs are still rather rare in my games. I only use them when I'm sure we want this sort of mechanical detail. Maybe once in ten sessions on average.

Mike



Stay up-to-date with your friends through the Windows Live Spaces friends list.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk

Powered by hypermail