I think you have to consider whether rolling the dice is actually appropriate when you zoom in. In the example given we have this going on:
Adam: I want to rob you
Bruno: I’m prepared to kill you
Adam: Screw that, I run away.
Now it’s not immediately obvious that this should call for a roll. Look for conflicting interests, is Bruno really going to kill this robber who is now trying to flee?
If the answer is yes then you have to break the rules because technically a death can only occur on a complete victory, this is kind of lame for games where death is more common and I’d do the opposite. If Bruno wants to get Adam and he wins by even a marginal victory, then Adam is dead.
The one difficulty with this is that Adam might be kind of annoyed because technically he would get a roll first to see if the mugging succeeded. The whole area of escalation is one that Hero Quest doesn’t do well. If you wanted to be strict about it, HQ escalates by using consecutive dice rolls, so the actual sequence would be this.
Adam: I want to Rob Bruno (Now Adam knows Bruno has a sword so he’s trying to intimidate him into not drawing it right, so the first contest is that)
If Adam wins then Bruno is intimidated into not drawing (he can still otherwise struggle if the situation changes, all we have established so far is that he doesn’t draw)
If Adam looses then Bruno draws his sword and now maybe Adam wants to get away and Bruno has to decide whether he wants to prevent this and kill him.
From: L C <lightcastle_at_...>
Subject: Re: Re: Contest Questions
To: HeroQuest-rules_at_yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 30 September, 2009, 6:36 PM
Nikodemus,
I'm not sure that there is. I mean, there is a fair amount about stating
goals, but it mostly advises the zooming out you want to avoid.
I don't think there is much in the book on keeping it "narrow", as you
say. Basically, the only advice the book gives is closer to "if narrow
detail is important, then use an extended contest".
As I mentioned, the book doesn't explicitly state, but certainly seems
to imply, that lingering benefits and states of adversity are optional
on a given contest.
I'm not sure the book even discusses the "I make my goal to kill him"
idea, and whether or not that means a marginal victory = death. (I can't
remember.)
At the same time, I think the book does go into a bit on the "no repeat"
aspect meaning you can't try the same thing the same way - something
about the situation must be recast for the next contest.
Thus the "Cut his throat" vs "Roll under his sword" contest merely means
they cannot repeat that sequence, if you want to define it narrowly.
But since the book mostly suggests avoiding this kind of framing, I
don't think there are any good examples for you to follow in there. (I
may be recalling incorrectly. )
LC
nikodemus.siivola wrote:
>However, not to be curmudgeonly, but... I'm not asking for advice on
how to resolve these things based on Best Practices Today.
>I'm going after the pedantic stance here: is there something in the
book that
>I'm missing that talks about these issues.
Powered by hypermail