>Hey LC
Greetings!
>With the mugging I’d roll to intimidate because the original
>poster wanted a very zoomed in conflict.
Fair enough.
>In my usual group we’d probably go straight
>to the conflict mechanics the minute the mugging was announced. Mike
brought up
>the whole ‘mess with coolness’ thing, which is really a different
argument than
>the one about zoom.
Also true. I'd probably frame it somewhere closer to you as well. I do like that one can zoom to different resolutions with HQ2.
>My preference is that a defeated character gets to pick the
>way they are defeated. Problem is that the traits used can work
against it. I’ll
>give an example.
>
>Lets say Adam has the trait ‘mugging’
>
> Adam: Awesome I win my mugging roll.
>
>Bruno: Well my characters a coward I probably hand you the
>money shaking in my boots and sobbing and pleading with you not to
kill me.
>
>Adam: Awesome I win the mugging roll.
>
>Bruno: Well my characters a seasoned vet with his wits about
>him, he weights up all the options and realises he can’t go for his sword
>without you stabbing him first. ‘Better watch your back’ he growls as
he chucks
>over his purse.
*nod* I'm with you so far. I would say I do something like this, although it is often something of a joint call between player and narrator.
>On the whole marginal success to kill someone thing, yeah I’m
>totally ok with that. I just assume that everyone in the group is also
ok as
>well, if they’re not then presumably Bruno wouldn’t be selecting the
prize ‘I
>kill him’.
That seems backwards to me. It isn't Bruno selecting it as the prize that indicates the group is ok with it, it's Adam accepting it.
Of course, I'm the kind of person who often thinks PC vs PC shouldn't necessarily be based on unmodified abilities anyway. (i.e. - "I kill him" and "I drive him off with my sword" shouldn't necessarily face the same resistance.)
LC
Powered by hypermail