Nothing like coming to the party a couple of days late, however being an egomaniac I thought I'd throw my thoughts in.
The contest Nikodemus is trying to capture looks like Adam trying to mug Bruno and Bruno trying to drive him off with extreme predjudice. It'll work either way - as a simple or extended contest - and the consequences are going to be largely the same in both cases.
I'd be tempted to make it an extended contest as contests between player controlled characters tend to be pivotal moments in the game. You're guarenteed to have to the undivided attention of at least two of your players both of whom have got a certain amount invested in what happens. On the other hand one of them might say "eff you sea kay this, don't care what happens provided my character is alive, let's do this quickly" in which case use a simple contest.
So to answer Question 1...
It is a contest. Both sides have something to loose or gain - Adam gains wealth/takes a severe dent and Bruno gains confidence/looses wealth. The bit about running away is only relevant if you're doing an extended contest and Adam tries to disengage or if you're doing a follow up contest - Bruno wins and decides that he's going to hunt down Adam for the temerity of having a go at him.
Question 2...
Don't understand the question - you had a nice contest framed in the first place that would save you the effort of the restated contest. Both players had said what they wanted to happen, don't fanny about, they've decided what they want, give it to them - roll the dice and then say what happened!
[Forgetting the questions at the mo, you're describing this a bit like I'd run a 4th edition D&D game, it's all describing actions and then working out if they succeeded. HeroQuest works better if you work out what the desired outcomes are, roll the dice then use the results to work out how the desired outcomes were achieved.]
Ah, got the question now. If Adam even gets a marginal victory on the second contest you outline (Adam wants to get away from Bruno/ Bruno wants to kill Adam) then Adam's as free as a bird.
Question 3...
Contest should always end up with consequences and benefits. The results of a contest are one way players get to modify their characters in the short time, let 'em.
Or to put it another way - if a contest doesn't appear to provide interesting consequences bin it and find another.
Question 4...
Use extended contests, they handle escalation really well, simple contests don't. If you're a point away from defeat in a simple contest you can always change ability and tactics to get what you want - at the risk of upping the ante somewhat. Drawing a sword or summoning Quark the Undying Cheese in a debating chamber makes everything suddenly a bit more tense.
Question 5....
No repeated attempts is really what it says. If Adam takes a marginal defeat then he hasn't mugged Bruno and takes a minor wound for his troubles. If Bruno wants to do more violence to him it's another conflict - presumably involving finding Adam first.
Question 6...
You need no steenking house rule - either use an extended contest and let the players manipulate the risk through the options in the book or use a simple contest and let one side go for a pyrrhic victory(Page 82, pyrrhic victories).
Cheers,
Ash
> 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,
>
> -- Nikodemus
Powered by hypermail