On 6 Aug 2010, at 10:26, orlanthumathi wrote:
>> An extended contest goes into detail. "Conan grabs for a vine -- but it breaks. He breaks his fall on a ledge. 2 RP against him." (rinse & repeat)
>
> I think there is a potential problem with this approach, as it is taking the standard Conflict Resolution mechanic of HQ and then breaking it into a number of Task Based resolutions. It is exactly this that turns me off of the example in the book.
>
> To resolve a conflict in HQ you take two opposing interests and decide to what degree those interests are met, but if you break this down into a sequence of "I try to hit him again" or "I try and climb a bit higher" you loose visibility of the greater conflict through concentrating on the smaller scale, which then potentially means that the overall conflict is no longer resolving the conflicting interests, just the actions seeking to achieve them.
>
> Indeed on a theoretical level I think it may be meaningless to divide a conflict up into tasks.
So you think the idea of playing at two levels of detail can't work?
Or is there a different way to break a conflict into sub-conflicts?
David Dunham
Glorantha/HQ/RQ page: www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html
Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein