> Here's an example that illustrates most of my questions.
...
> 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; I'm inclined to agree.
>
> 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'd say yes. Adam's initial statement is essentially scene-setting, but after that we have clearly stated goals that clash with each other: Bruno's goal is to kill Adam, Adam's is to avoid being hit. (One might argue that Adam's goal isn't very well thought out here, since it doesn't really resolve anything much, but I don't think that makes the contest invalid).
> 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,
I think, if we're going for the immediacy here, that isn't an issue. If Adam succeeds, the situation has changed, if not radically, and Bruno is now at a disadvantage if he wants to attack Adam again (he's further away). If we were trying to resolve the entire exchange as a single contest, *then* the No Repeat Attempts rule would apply - Adam has got away, so Bruno can't continue attacking him.
> 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.
The problem with that, from my perspective, is that it means Bruno has automatically failed in his stated goal (to cut Adam's throat), and there's no obvious reason why he shouldn't be able to succeed. Effectively, the GM is just deferring the action here, and asking for clearer statements of intent, and that's obviously a valid option, but I see nothing wrong with the alternative myself. It depends how much you want to focus on the details of the action, I guess.
Of course, if you really want to focus on the details, then an extended contest might be a better way of doing that - but it might also be that it's overly long for what you're trying to achieve. In short, there's several, equally "valid" ways of resolving this; yours is certainly one of them.
>
> 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.
Yeah, if the goal is to escape, if Adam succeeds, I'd say that that's what happens. You might rule that, because it was only a marginal victory, he's easier for Bruno to track down. Similarly, if Bruno gets a marginal victory, perhaps he gives Adam a nick on his arm, but Adam escapes after that.
>
> 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.
If Bruno doesn't chase him, then whatever adversity or benefit anyone is suffering probably doesn't make any difference, so there's no need to work out what it would be.
> 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?
If this were an extended contest, he could try a Parting Shot. As it isn't, I'd say "no repeat attempts" applies. A marginal victory for Bruno means that Adam has escaped, but was injured in the process. Bruno could use his benefit to try something else (say, following the trail of blood), but otherwise, contest over.
> Q5: Is No Repeat Attempts supposed to apply to conflicts between two
> active participants like this at all? Does it apply only to losers?
I think it must apply to "winners" to, since otherwise you can try to get a better level of success, which is really no different than trying to change a failure to a victory.
> 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.)
Nah, he can't try it again because Adam got away - just with an injury. At least, that's how I'd do it; there's not necessarily a single right answer.
-- Trotsky Gamer and Skeptic ------------------------------------------------------ Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ Not a Dead Communist: http://jrevell.blogspot.com/
Powered by hypermail