Contest Questions

From: nikodemus.siivola <nikodemus_at_...>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:41:13 -0000


While I'm very happy with HQ2, I'm unsure if I'm running it the way it is written.

Here's an example that illustrates most of my questions. IMO things change a bit if either Adam's or Bruno's character is an NPC (which is the common case in my games), but I used two player characters to keep parity. It could be dealt with as an extended contest as well, but let's assume that it's not. (If there is a reason why using a simple contest here is a clear mistake, though, I'll be glad to hear it.)

Furthermore, it could be dealt with by zooming out a bit, and framing it with as an encounter resolved with a single contest. In many cases this is the perfect solution, but not always: sometimes abandoning the immediacy of the fiction is too high a price for me.

Adam: "I lurk at the end of the narrow alley. When you approach, I brandish a dagger and demand your money."

Bruno: "I draw my sword and cut your throat."

Adam: "I jump back to avoid your cut."

QUESTION 1: Is this a valid contest? I would say not, because Adam's response doesn't change the situation in any real way. That plus the No Repeat Attempts rule leads to deep strangeness if Adam wins: Bruno isn't allowed to try again, and without escaping Adam remains just out of range at the end of the narrow alley. So I would rule it an "automatic tie" -- as follows:

GM: You make it, but are now almost at the end of the alley, and cannot retreat further.

Bruno: "Off with his head, chop!"

GM: Adam, you need to either fight back, escape, or come up with something really clever quick!

Adam: "I roll beneath his blow, to get behind him in order to escape."

GM: It's a Simple Contest: Adam's Dexterous vs Bruno's Swordsman.

...

Q2: What about inconclusive results? If Adam gains a marginal victory, does he escape? No Repeat Attempts means Bruno will no hit him again while he is running away, so unless Bruno changes tactics (eg. drops his sword to give chase) Adam is scotch free? This is my intrepretation, which has the nice benefit that escaping is generally easyish.

Q3: Must simple contests always result in States of Aversity and Lingering Benefits? The book seems to say so, but I cannot see any sensible results here should Adam get away without Bruno chasing. Sure, confidence can be boosted, and morale can be shattered -- but that seems far too vague. Should Bruno give chase, it is easy enough to rule that Adam's benefit is his lead to Bruno. Bruno's State of Adversity could be a twisted ankle, but that would mean there is little difference between an attempt to stab him in the face and an attempt to run away... I feel like I'm missing something here. My inclination is the ignore Adversity, and give Adam a Benefit for the chase, should one occur.

Q4: What about escalation after inconclusive results? If Bruno gains a marginal victory, he is nicked, and Bruno's benefit can be a positional advantage. What if Bruno really wants to murder Adam? Does he succeed automatically, because he won the previous contest and had Adam at his mercy? Is he not allowed to try, because it would be a repeat attempt? Will it be just another simple contest in the same vein? If Adam wasn't a player or a major NPC, I would let Bruno cut his throat. Since he is a player, however, I would keep calling for contests till the overall situation resolves itself.

Q5: Is No Repeat Attempts supposed to apply to conflicts between to active participants like this at all? Does it apply only to losers? One one hand, it seems to drive the situation nicely forward (Adam getting away unless Bruno switches tactics), but at points it also strains credibility (Bruno not being allowed to try cutting Adam's throat again.) I have no answers here.

That's it for Adam and Bruno. What follows is a house-rule I'm considering.

Q6: Risky Gambits in Simple Contests. Taking a Risky Gambit in a Simple Contest increases the level of victory by one should you win, and the level of defeat by two should you lose. This seems like a fairly obvious ruling to me: a way to escalate the stakes and avoid getting bogged down in inconclusive results -- and so the fact that it's not in the book makes me wonder if I'm missing something. Is this a bad idea?

Cheers,

Powered by hypermail