> Another approach. When the phone call comes through, you change your goal
> from 'Cook a meal' to 'Cook a meal AND fix my dad's computer.' You're now
> facing two opponents: the pan that wants to burn everything and legions of
> Microserfs. Every round in the EC, both of them act against you and they
> both have their own pool of APs. You suffer multiple opponent penalties.
> The actions being narrated may restrict the abilities you can use and the
> sizes of bids you can make.
Well, if one does it this way, it limits the abilites in another way, since you can only choose one to attack on your turn in most cases. (Unless an ability is applicable to both and then you get the multiple opponents penalties.)
> If you defeat both opponents, you achieve all your goal and have both a
> meal and a happy father. If you're defeated, the narrator has the option
> of narrating your defeat as you failing with one or the other parts of your
> goal. Or even, borrowing from Mike Holmes
> (<http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/HeroQuest-rules/message/21006> and
> <http://www.glorantha.com/support/na_defeat.html> Rule 3), you succeed at
> both but at the cost of damaging your relationship with your dad (you got
> snappy on the phone) or charring your best omlette pan.
>
> How does that sound?
That's not a bad solution, in terms of two separate goals like that. It is interesting... while nested contests are recommended not to happen, we DO have group vs group contests. Is there any good reason the "groups" couldn't be individuals?
(This may be my brain not working properly right now.)
LC
Powered by hypermail