It's late, and I am having my own problems with the system, but in the interest of hopefully us both learning, I'll wrestle with these.
>While I'm very happy with HQ2, I'm unsure if I'm running it the way it
is written.
Fair enough.
>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.
Good to know. It does change from PC to NPC I think.
>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.
OK.
Exactly how to carry over tightly-clumped simple contests is an
interesting question to me, as well. Sometimes abandoning the immediacy
of the fiction bugs me as well.
>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.
Hmm... right here is where I think you and I would part ways - sort of. I get you don't want to lose the narrative, but I think at this point I would want some goals and think about zooming out. Certainly goals and stakes need to be set according to the rules. HQ doesn't easily do "I take this action, does it succeed?" - it goes right for "I try to accomplish this goal, does it succeed" and the actions flesh out how you are trying to do that.
Are the goals now,
Bruno: I try to stab Adam.
Adam: I try to avoid being killed?
This isn't really a valid contest, IMO, because I don't think Bruno's goal is thought through enough. (Also, Adam's narration doesn't mean if he wins he stays perpetually out of range.) Rather, Bruno tries to cut Adam's throat with an appropriate ability and Adam defends with one.
However, I would likely do a sort of "automatic tie" if I didn't want to go right into the goal setting. The sword came out, the blade didn't get him, but he's trapped... now what are their goals (no need to roll for the mundane task, instead we've set the scene for the upcoming contest.)
>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."
At this point, we're in "what are your goals" land for sure, in my opinion. Otherwise, we're just resolving tasks.
>GM: It's a Simple Contest: Adam's Dexterous vs Bruno's Swordsman.
So on one level, I would play this the same way, but I think I think about it differently. No contest for the first because it is setting scene, and then setting contest 2 to something. It sounds like it could be "Kill vs escape". But I could see myself at move 1 asking for goals.
If it is, indeed, "Kill vs Escape" and 2 PCs, I can't see why it
wouldn't be an extended contest.
If Bruno's goal is just to "hit" Adam... I think it is a weak goal.
(What is he trying to accomplish?)
What if Bruno's goal is to "Show he is too dangerous to be robbed"? What
does that change?
...
>Q2: What about inconclusive results?
Always a good question.
>If Adam gains a marginal victory, does he escape?
Yes.
>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.
My interpretation to.
Actually, if I set the goal as "Kill vs escape" (with escape meaning get
all the way away) then Bruno is just out of luck. If I set the goal as
"Chop you in head" vs "Get past him so I'm not trapped in the alley
anymore" then Bruno can change to other attacks. Or give chase. I would
say Adam's margin of victory affects how hard it is for Bruno to re-engage.
>Q3: Must simple contests always result in States of Aversity and
Lingering Benefits?
I'm pretty sure no.
>The book seems to say so, but I cannot see any sensible results here
should Adam get away without Bruno chasing.
I actually think the book doesn't seem to say so. It certainly makes Lingering Benefits conditional on Narrator approval, and I think "may" is used for States of Adversity as well. (May result in...) For instance, the Quicksand example used elsewhere in the book seems to make the loss by the jungle scout result in his being trapped in quicksand, no State of Adversity listed.
>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.
Probably what I would do. Of course, not an issue in a PC/NPC situation. Also, adversity could be applied as Adam's lead if giving chase.
This does bring up that, unlike HQ1, the penalty for losing and the bonus for winning are NOT symmetrical. That alone makes me think there is discretion in applying them.
>Q4: What about escalation after inconclusive results?
Another common and important question, I think.
>If Bruno gains a marginal victory, he is nicked, and Bruno's benefit
can be a positional advantage.
Adam is nicked?
>What if Bruno really wants to murder Adam? Does he succeed
automatically, because he won the previous contest and had Adam at his
mercy?
Isn't there a whole discussion about this in the book?
>Is he not allowed to try, because it would be a repeat attempt?
If you framed it "kill vs escape", one could say any victory was the goal of "kill". I'd never do that PC/PC, though. If the goal was something else, he gets it, but only marginal benefit or penalty.
> 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.
If Bruno really wanted him dead? Me too.
> Since he is a player, however, I would keep calling for contests till
the overall situation resolves itself.
Why not an extended contest? I know there are people who just do chained simple. I've never quite understood how they decide a contest is over in those cases. Do you chain simples - adding bonuses and the like until someone gets a complete victory? Or until the narration makes it seem it really resolves? (I can actually see how that works, but it seems to not be the smoothest application of the system.)
>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.
I think you are stuck on the "goal" being "cutting Adam's throat". That's a means to some other goal. It's a task, is all. Switching focus should clear it up.
>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?
I've also considered allowing something like that. (Also Pyrrihic victories for simple and Self-assists.)
I think the idea is that if you are that invested in the simple contest to manipulate it, it should probably be an extended one.
Also, you can get you extra one if you win with a Hero Point. Another thought is that the game is *designed* to produce mostly marginal and minor victories. I suspect that's a design choice seen to be a feature and not a bug, so your Gambit hack would mitigate against that,
Best,
LC
Cheers,
Powered by hypermail