Re: Group simple contests

From: Henrix <henrix_at_...>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:05:55 +0200

On Fri, 09 Jun 2000, Benedict Adamson wrote:
> What is the 'lowest roll' to which the +3s for failure are added, in
> the case when some of the contestants have a mastery?

That would, I take it, be the lowest roll, no matter if it's a crit, success or failure.

> What if one roll is a crit and there are many failures? with you
> proposal, the failures have no effect, because the crit remains.

uhm, yep, you're right.
The rule is a bit unclear on what happens if, even with no masteries involved, one side rolls a crit, a success and a failure. In a strict reading (providing not all the opponents failed) you then take the lowest roll, add 3 for the failure, and "compare these modified results on the simple contest chart:" Now, the simple contest chart will yield an input error as it does not take that sort of arguments. It compares crits, successes, failures and fumbles. Perhaps we should consider a -3 to the total for each crit rolled?

> Yes, I would do the same. And this works OK when everyone has the
> same level of mastery. That is why I specifically asked what happens
> when members of one side have different levels of mastery.

Why would it not work if you have different levels of mastery? If the contestants have 3w2, 15w, 12w2 and 17w3, just reduce them to 3w, 15, 12w and 17w2. You will possibly end up with crits on both sides, at which point the GM (sorry, Narrator) decides, probably to use another way to solve the conflict :-)

An alternative could be to add upp all masteries on both sides, and subtract the lower total, and allow them to bump rolls no matter who made them. Par example, if:
Geo (12w) and Merina (17w2) debate with Agnar (13w) and Eorn (17). Geo & Merina would end up with (1+2-1=) 2 masteries, and Agnar & Eorn with none. The rationale being that those with more masteries could help the others. I am not certain if it would really work that well, anyway.

> A Group simple contests is probably a poor mechanic for that
> particular example. Some form of AP lending or augmentation might be
> better.

Oh, absolutely. But. on the other hand, I don't want to make the lifting of a log an extended contest, so no AP lending, as for Geo, the guy who doesn't have any strength-related abilities, his chances for giving an augmentation is pretty slim (6 vs a resistance of 5, for a possible +1).

On Fri, 09 Jun 2000, Alex Ferguson wrote:
> I have a very simple fix for this: don't use 'GSC's.

This might, sadly, be the best alternative. Or at least, be very sparse with them, and avoid them if multiple masteries are involved.

desperately trying to save a rule obviously not very well thought through.

Powered by hypermail