It doesn't always work that well, but can be ok. Mechanically, it doesn't fit with the rules as such. (Just because I say you took some blows to the head but did convince him doesn't change that one of you took a penalty and the other didn't.)
A rules tweak of somekind (or a clarification on how to handle it) would be nice. (I've debated allowing trading for this. i.e. - I get a marginal victory. I trade it to a minor victory by taking a hurt, or a major victory by taking a minor injury, etc. Sort of an erzatz hero-point bump. I've never implemented that in play, though.)
LC
On March 9, 2007 10:59 am, nichughes2001 wrote:
> It is something you are most likely to notice when the participants in
> the contest have different objectives - so for example a is trying to
> befriend b whilst in return b is trying to bash a's brains in.
>
> What a simple contest struggles to capture is the full range of
> possible outcomes. It can handle a beats b, b beats a and a tie but it
> struggles with the cases where both a and b achieve their aim or where
> a and b both fail. These can be narratively interesing outcomes so I'd
> like to know how we get to them - or if we need a system tweak which
> is my current assumption.
Powered by hypermail