>I do always apply consequences as a result of a contest.
Always mathematical consequences? (Just want to make sure we're talking the same thing here.)
>One thing about Heroquest is that the narrative is so closely tied the
mechanics that the more cross over you get between the two the better.
Penalties are good as it ups the drama in future contests (which is
>partly balanced by the decrease in difficulty of the next contest -
but that's a whole different story). Bonuses are great as it gives the
players additional narrative hooks to use. It's like having a bunch of
decent >augments kicking around in HQ 1 but (and this is the really cool
bit) the players don't have to think about where the augment's coming
from - everyone at the table knows as they saw an in game what led to
>this bonus.
Fair enough, and I do like the reasoning there.
>Quick "real world example": In my current game one of the adventurers
has a consequence on his character sheet: "Wizards are easy to nail +9"
as in the first adventure he got a complete defeat against a >wizard
trying to kill him. All the player has to do is say in character is
"Wizards are easy to nail" and we all know exactly why the character
thinks that and what the bonus is.
Until such time as the bonus goes away.
But, for example, the quicksand example. Guy fails, falls in quicksand. You would apply a penalty to say, all actions involved in getting himself out of quicksand? Something, anyway, just to push that linkage. Am I getting you?
>Incidentally, the character sheet in the back of the rule book is a
bit crap. BUT it has one redeeming feature, plenty of space for
consequences, almost as much as for abilities. I'm not sure if that was
a >pointer as to the relative importance of abilities and consequences
but I'm taking it as one until someone punctures my bubble.
^_^ Fair enough.
Re: Escalation
>When a player changes the ability his or character is using in an
extended contest (but hasn't changed what he or she is after, i.e. what
their goals are) then you can still consider changing the consequences of
>the contest. So if a contest starts as an attempt by two parties to
verbally humiliate each other and it escalates into a punch up halfway
through feel free to apply physical penalties against the looser rather
>than social ones - especially if they were the ones that escalated
what's going on. The change of ability can also help generate
interesting consequences of victory: "I back up what I say with my fists
+3" for >example.
Intriguing. So escalating does nothing to the contest mechanically, but can be a sign to shift the consequences involved. (Even broaden them. If it is a debate, then I escalate to fisticuffs as I lose and STILL lose, I can take a hit on the social consequences of the debate AND the physical injury. - Price I pay for upping the ante.)
>Going slightly further off the diving board you can even apply this
when one of the characters is behind in an extended contest - or having
to use exceptional means to stay in the game, i.e. a hero point.
>However you let the player change his or her character's goal.
>
>If Adam's loosing out to Bruno badly then I'd be perfectly willing to
let Adam switch his goal to "Run away!!!" and continue the contest
rather than say "Oh dear, new stakes, new contest!" If Adam turns >thing
around and wins the contest he doesn't get to grab any cash, he's got
away with his hide intact. If Bruno wins, well, no change.
>
>I hope that clarifies what I was wittering on about a bit,
A bit.
Of course, given HQ2, that is a problematic example, as it strikes me as
case of disengaging from a contest rather than goal-changing.
LC
Cheers,
Ash
Powered by hypermail