Nic
On March 9, 2007 11:47 am, nichughes2001 wrote:
> I agree that it can be fudged but given that we have an opportunity to
> ask I am asking for either
> a. Clear guidance on how to make that fudge slick and good for the
> game and a natural consequence of the intents and contest result.
> b. A rules tweak so the outcome of the contest gives us more guidance
> on how to narrate the result.
> I'm not bothered which.
Oh, I agree. It certainly goes on my list of "please give us some guidance on how to resolve/narrate".
The more examples (and ALTERNATIVE examples) of what a given resolution means, the better. I'd love a "same contest, same dice rolls, different narrator options that make sense within the rules" example.
> I just want my suicide-bots to be able to pile in with no intent but
> to infect characters with their gene-toxins regardless of how smashed
> they end up. I want the system indicate if they are smashed and/or if
> the characters are infected. If I wanted a system where the narrator
> just makes up the outcome in most cases - and in my experience most
> simple contests are fairly inconclusive - I'd start by throwing the
> dice away.
And therein lies the rub. Right now, the system will not tell you if they are smashed and/or the characters are infected in and of yourself. But I find I often decide that on the fly. (Many of the published adventures have this, where they list what a given outcome means.) I'll often sketch what the results will be given the intent and conflict framed. i.e, in this one, it would depend on whether or not I was framing it from the bots point of view or the characters. Assuming the bots, I'd decide in advance whether Complete success meant all the characters were infected and lower success was fewer or if complete success determined how destroyed the robots were (none on complete, almost completely on marginal).
Admittedly, the system doesn't tell you which you should use. I'm not sure it CAN, to be honest.
LC
Powered by hypermail