> 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.
Good point.
> It's made marginal levels so popular that people don't automatically bump
> when they come up anymore.
That's what I thought it might do. I love it.
> >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.
*nod* I think as long as the group knew that it could happen and went with it, I'd be cool.
> 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.
Fair enough.
> 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."
*grin*
> 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.
That's a good point. I have mostly negotiated my ECs, and it has been fine, but every so often someone who's still shaking the dust of a more "must win all contests" past off tends to start eyeing this as an option.
> This is yet another reason you don't want to "pre-prepare" an EC too much.
> The players might not be interested.
An excellent point.
> That's a rule I haven't altered yet. I'll have to think about it.
It hasn't come up often enough to really be a bother, but once when someone was caught off guard with a low stat we found that not being allowed to bid more than 8 was really limiting. (Especially since he was able to switch to a more appropriate stat the next round.)
> I think that the book doesn't say clearly here what is the case. I'm taking
> advantage of that ambiguity.
Oh, I know it doesn't state clearly. But I try to hold to a clearer line, because sometimes yes/sometimes no can be frustrating.
> 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?
That would be another way to do it.
> 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.
Closer to 1 in 3/4 for me. (But then I haven't had much chance to play since
the move and job hunt.)
LC
Powered by hypermail