>Hi all,
>
>I've been reading around on this list and wondering how everyone has
>been handling multiple actions within an Extended Contest - there
>seems to be a fair degree of personal choice in how you do this.
>
>The example I'm thinking of comes from Dear Old Archery: you have 2
>sides, one with bows and one with swords and on horses. The goals
>work out as follows:
>
>Side A: wants to keep its distance and defeat the horsemen with arrows
>Side B: wants to charge the archers to close the distance and defeat
>them with melee weapons at close quarters
>
>How many contests is this? I can reasonably argue at least 2, maybe
>3 cases, as follows:
>
>Case 1: It's two contests
>First, you have an extended contest where Side A is trying to shoot
>arrows at the horsemen from a distance, and Side B is trying to close
>that distance. Side A acts with Archery, resisted by Side B's Ride /
>Dodge on Horseback / etc; then Side B acts with Ride, resisted by
>Side A's Keep Distance / Know Local Terrain / Run /etc. If Side A
>wins the contest, Side B are peppered with arrows and still at a
>distance; if Side B wins, the distance has been closed, and a new,
>second contest can begin, where Side B gets to use melee weapons and
>the archers have to start a new defense.
>
>Case 2: It's one contest
>To begin with, Side A is shooting arrows, Side B is trying to close.
>In the first round of an Extended Contest, Side A acts with Archery,
>Side B resists with Ride / etc; then Side B acts with Ride / Close
>Distance / etc, and Side A resists with Keep Distance / Know Local
>Terrain / etc.
>Now, here's the difference: if Side B wins that first round, reducing
>Side A's APs even just a little bit, that means that the Close
>Distance attempt has succeeded, and the contest must now switch to a
>close combat contest, with Side B able to use their melee weapons and
>do physical damage to Side A. Side A are therefore forced to switch
>their active and resistance abilities appropriately.
>
>So, two separate approaches to the same situation, with two very
>different results: in the first contest, if Side B wins then the
>distance has been closed and close combat can now begin; in the
>second, if Side B wins then the distance has been closed AND Side A
>has been defeated in close combat.
>
>I guess it's a matter of preference. I'm starting to incline towards
>Case 2 as it provides a much more dynamic narrative, and the
>individual rounds of the Extended Contest "mean" something very
>concrete in both game and narrative terms, and may be less inclined
>to bog down into a succession of die-rolling contests. It does seem
>to me however that the two cases represent very different views of
>what an Extended Contest actually is - in some ways Case 2 might tend
>to become essentially a series of Simple Contests monitored by AP
>exchange.
>
>Just wondered what everyone thought...
>
>Sarah
I would certainly lean towards 'Cavalry routing archers once they've got into melee range' being a 'Task no self respecting hero would fail at'.
Therefore the only contest is for the Cavalry to get in close vs the Archers intent to evade or hold them off.
Admittedly I'd be unlikely to run a game in which the battle was the major event of the session.
Powered by hypermail