Tim wrote:
>
> In some ways the picking of abilities could be a bit of a double
> whammy. If you could force an opponent to begin a contest on a low
> skill, not only did they stand less chance of making the roll, but
> they also had less AP's to bid/lose.
>
Yeah, I hated that. That's one of the reasons I'm talking about a hybrid
system. It was actually a triple whammy. Start with a low skill for a
bad roll, start with low AP, never be able to bid more AP than that
opening number.
>
> Under the new rules, you can still try to force an opponent to have to
> defend with a lower ranked skill to improve your chance of winning the
> round, but the number of points required to win the contest has been
> levelled.
>
Yes. That's one of the things I want to keep, since it is a vast
improvement.
>
> > (That's part of the "power to the player" mindset of HQ2 and I'm
> > not sure how much I miss it.)
>
> by which I guess you mean because everything is described in terms of
> the "player action" rather than taking it in turns to "attack" and
> "defend" (or maybe "Act" and "react" is less combat orientated). I
> think yu can still narrate the action so that the player is forced to
> "react" though (and assign bonuses or penalties to their skill
> depending on how it relates to the presented challenge).
>
Yes. As I said, I'm not sure I miss that part too much. It would be
nice if the examples in the HQ book dealt with something like that.
>
>
> In HQ1 it could sometimes seemed a bit "forced" to take in turns to be
> the active contestant (Which maybe means those contests shouldn't have
> been extended in the first place, of course).
>
Oh, agreed. The "I choose/you choose" thing didn't always work, although
especially in examples where you had a "two different approaches to
getting it done" situation, it worked splendidly. (The classic "I talk
him down before he squishes me" scene.)
>
>
> >
> > I do think that my issue with Extended contests is that while the
> > results are clearer, the process seems to have become duller.
> >
>
> One possible problem with HQ1 extended contests was they could become
> (mechanically) anti-climaxes, if rather than an epic back and forth
> struggle, the PC's opted to boost one character and have them make an
> "all or nothing" bid to take out the bad guy
>
Yes, but that was only possible in some situations. Since you had a
limit on what you could bid, if the AP value of the opponent was high
enough, even an all or nothing bid didn't get them a win without a
critical multiplier on top. But you're right of course, it was
definitely an occasional problem.
>
> (I know a "complete victory" can still end an extended contest
> straight away, but getting that lucky critical at the vital moment is
> something that becomes a memorable incident in its own right)
>
>
True, although any system that allows the "win the extended in a roll"
situation will sometimes end up with it happening. Just inevitable.
LC