Some simple contest combat questions

[Mike Holmes]

Sure.

But there are good short counterexamples. Big guy comes charging in and somebody just shouts "Stop!" in so commanding and audacious a manner as it stops the guy in his tracks (followed immediately by another contest, sure, but...)

I completely agree that it has everything to do with what the group is comfortable with. Again, that's plausibility in a nutshell. Anything is plausible if everyone is willing to suspend their disbelief for whatever reason. So in all cases what "works" will be local to the game played.

My point continues to be that you can push that envelop in HQ without negative consequence. It's mostly tradition that prevents people from doing so.

Mike

[soru]

Sure.

But there are good short counterexamples. Big guy comes charging in and somebody just shouts "Stop!" in so commanding and audacious a manner as it stops the guy in his tracks (followed immediately by another contest, sure, but...)

Is the 'but' that you have dropped back to AD&D-style 'task-resolution', rather than the default HQ 'conflict-resolution'? At this point, you have not resolved the conflict, you have just determed that the task of getting the big guy to stop was successful, pretty much the same as using the intimidate skill in AD&D.

Of course, if this works for you, it works for you, but the problem I might predict would be a loss of control over pacing of the scene, as you can no longer predict and control how long it will take. Instead of the steady net decline of AP totals, it's just a sequence of independant contests until somone rolls a 'good enough' success.

soru

[Donald]

Note that given the method of resolution, I personally don't find it particularly "plausible" that people can just extricate themselves from arguments by becoming violent. What I mean is that this assumes that the person putting the argument out in the first place can't control the responses of his opponent to some extent - which is exactly what the ability to argue entails. The counterexample would be to say that I can get out of a swordfight by arguing, which doesn't seem any less plausible than the first case. To me this is really a case of RPG player conditioning. Players are indoctrinated that when someone declares combat, that play is altered, time starts getting counted, and the conflict "really counts." Because in those systems, indeed the mechanics make it so that it is all that really counts.

Not so in HQ, where all contests are mechanically equal. So the narrator has a choice. Allow the traditional predilection with combat to privilege it, or break free from that paradigm by using one of the other two methods - either having attempts to do something lock the target into doing something "appropriate" to resist, or allowing anything to be appropriate.

Surely the missing factor in this debate is the circumstances of the combat. If the two people are stuck out in the wilds somewhere then the guy who resorts to violence is risking little and may well kill his opponent. If it's a village in Sartar then depending who the individuals are someone might well intervene to stop a physical attack. If it's on the street in Glamour there's a pretty good chance of someone calling the authorities. Not only is this a modifier to the contest but it affects the results - a failure by the fighter doesn't only mean they fail to kill or injure the debater but that witnesses regard the fighter as a thug and some will testify against him as a troublemaker. The narrator may even rule that a victory has this effect even though the debater is injured.

As an example think of the assassination of Julius Caeser - the plotters achieved their aim yet were forced to flee to escape the wrath of the senate

[simon_hibbs]

But there are good short counterexamples. Big guy comes charging in and somebody just shouts "Stop!" in so commanding and audacious a manner as it stops the guy in his tracks (followed immediately by another contest, sure, but...)

I completely agree that it has everything to do with what the group is comfortable with. Again, that's plausibility in a nutshell.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I think you're right on the money, just chucking in some alternatives depending on the situation.

The above would be perfectly suitable if the guy says "I shout 'STOP' and use my charisma to command his attention" as soon as the guy walks into the room lookign angry, with intent to cause trouble. IMHO it's just a matter of the dramatic sequence of events and the kinds of outcomes you think might be apropriate in the given soituation. I don't think the rules realy allow for simultaneous simple contests, but I can imagine situations in which I might use them.


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

Is the 'but' that you have dropped back to AD&D-style 'task-resolution', rather than the default HQ 'conflict-resolution'? At this point, you have not resolved the conflict, you have just determed that the task of getting the big guy to stop was successful, pretty much the same as using the intimidate skill in AD&D.

Nope. Nothing I wrote implies a change back to task resolution. You may want to revisit the definitions. What you're thinking of is scale, not scope. Conflicts can be as "small" as tasks.

Of course, if this works for you, it works for you, but the problem I might predict would be a loss of control over pacing of the scene, as you can no longer predict and control how long it will take. Instead of the steady net decline of AP totals, it's just a sequence of independant contests until somone rolls a 'good enough' success.

"Pacing?" I don't use the mechanics at all to control these things. Contests occur when they occur, based on the existence of conflicts per the definition of conflict resolution. Sometimes I wouldn't even roll at all for the example above. It all depends on situation.

Mike

[buserian]

Not so in HQ, where all contests are mechanically equal. So the narrator has a choice. Allow the traditional predilection with combat to privilege it, or break free from that paradigm by using one of the other two methods - either having attempts to do something lock the target into doing something "appropriate" to resist, or allowing anything to be appropriate.

Note that the latter proposition doesn't seem at all "awkward" to me. Given the nature of HQ resolution, you can always narrate a victory in these cases. If the debater beats the swordsman, then I just say that he spewed out his argument so quickly and convincingly that they swordsman stopped his blow just before it got to him or something. That is, what's "appropriate" depends largely on whether you see the system as a task based resolution system or a conflict based resolution system. If you go with the conflict resolution model, then you'll find that a much larger cross-section of conflicts are plausible in the HQ contest system.

In a seminar one time, someone (Greg Stafford?) talked about a barbarian warrior attacking a Kralori master of the Tea Ceremony. The barbarian attacked with Close Combat, the Kralori master used his high rating in Tea Ceremony as his defense. The justification here was that the master's skill and grace were so high that he could do this effectively -- as the barbarian swung his sword, the Tea Master just happened to be bowing at that point in the ceremony, and so the barbarian missed. The Tea Master could eventually win, because his skill allowed him to use his ability both defensively and perhaps even offensively, to disarm or trip the barbarian.

Now, the Tea Master might get an improv penalty, but if he can justify his use of the ability, he ought to be able to use it. Allow imagination.

buserian

[simon_hibbs]

In a seminar one time, someone (Greg Stafford?) talked about a barbarian warrior attacking a Kralori master of the Tea Ceremony.

A very good example it is too, but we need to be very careful with examples like this.

Tea Ceremony is a wonderful ability for achieving the goal of performing a great Tea Ceremony. In fact it's the best ability in the world for that, but it's almost completely useless for achieving any other goal. Therefore if said Master was performing a Tea ceremony and was attacked, I'd allow this so long as the Master is just performing the Ceremony - he's trying to complete the ceremony despite the attack, so what other ability would you use? The problem is that some people incorrectly deduce from this that if you're wantering down a path and get ambushed by a Troll, you can use Tea Ceremony for defence. You can't, because you're not doing a Tea Ceremony.

All IMHO.


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

Yeah, that's going to have to remain opinion. Because in my game I would allow the guy with Tea Ceremony to use it to defend against the troll with the description that Buserian gave. I mean, if the player said, "I use the grace that I learned in the tea ceremony to perform some maneuvers from it in order to dodge the vile creature's attacks." I'd probably allow it. Actually I don't often even give improv mods in a situation like this (or ever). The only time I give improv mods is if the player throws the ability at me "cold" without saying something like the above, and just expects me to understand what he's trying to do. It all depends on how easily I can envision it. And with even a slight help from the player, I can usually envision anything.

Right now the idea of the tea ceremony guy doing his "moves" in order to dodge the troll is going through my mind. And I'm loving it.

But that's just my opinion. My point is that I don't think there's any "danger" here, but that it just has to suit the players playing. Examples like this are a good thing, IMO, because they allow players to realize what the potential for this is like overall - so they can stretch out to their own group's limits, whatever those should turn out to be.

The people I tend to play with? They don't have much in the way of limits like this at all, as it happens. As long as the resulting narration is cool, they're down with comparing any apple to any orange.

Mike

[NickHollingsworth]

The GM should never tell the player that his character cant defend with a specific ability - even tea ceremony. If the GM refused to allow the tea ceremony as a defense he would be starting down a slippery slope where he is effectively deciding what the character does rather than the player getting to decide.

Rather the GM should (as Mikes description shows) get the player to first explain what he is doing, and then agree what this means in terms of abilities and improvisational/situaltional modifiers - but only rejecting abilities if they dont relate to what was described.

By getting the description first everything else follows since the player has just established the connection.

What I find quite difficult is when a player just says 'I will augment with Navigate By The Stars (say) for +4' with no explanation of how this would play out. I am then forced to ask why its relevant, get an explanation from the player and have to argue about whether its right etc. All of which spoils the flow by making us focus on rules and leaves an unpleasant taste of GM pickyness in my mouth. When the player establishes what hes doing first and then adds 'thats my Navigate By Starts by the way which should be a +4' I can just grunt 'yea' most of the time and theres is (subjectively at least) less sordid bean counting.

In fact - I've only just realised - Sordid Bean Counting (tm) is the common factor for those aspects of HQ that I am struggling with. For example


* an unseemly scrabble to name check every skill on the sheet for an augment bonus


* naming a (high ranking) skill and ability number rather than describing the characters action

All that said though, personally I would give a modifier against using tea ceremony as a combat defense if the player were arguing that his grace at tea ceremony would allow him to dodge and trap the aggressor. From the example the barbarians attack appears to be a given and the player is arguing that tea ceremony is inately about having good coordination under pressure, fast reactions, skill at predicting another, etc etc. To me it is blatently not principly about these things. If the player were instead arguing that grace and coordination were an aspect of tea ceremony I would be willing to go with it - but that implies a modifier to me.

So Simon Hibbs is IMO oversimplifying thing to say

The problem is that some people incorrectly deduce from this that if you're wantering down a path and get ambushed by a Troll, you can use Tea Ceremony for defence. You can't, because you're not doing a Tea Ceremony.

It would be better to say 'you can - but as far as the narrative has established you are not doing a tea ceremony so there is a situational modifier if you want to launch into one now and tea ceremony is not directly applicable itself rather you are arguing that because of knowing tea ceremony you also probably know some other related skills - so thats an improvisational modifier too.  Do you still want to use it'.
I am not suggesting the GM heap punative modifiers on the use of tea ceremony to stop the player using it just because the GM doesn't like it; I am suggesting going with what the player has managed to describe and telling them the odds up front so they know where they stand and perhaps can improve on the initial suggestion.

[Mike Holmes]

The GM should never tell the player that his character cant defend with a specific ability - even tea ceremony. If the GM refused to allow the tea ceremony as a defense he would be starting down a slippery slope where he is effectively deciding what the character does rather than the player getting to decide.

Well, Improv mods sorta do the same thing. To be clear, my point is that these things have to make sense to everybody playing. Saying no, or using an improv mod might be a way to communicate that. But so is just asking, "what does that look like?" or even just, 'Huh?"

Rather the GM should (as Mikes description shows) get the player to first explain what he is doing, and then agree what this means in terms of abilities and improvisational/situaltional modifiers - but only rejecting abilities if they dont relate to what was described.

Simon wasn't saying anything different - he's just got a different standard about what you can "relate" to what. A more stringent standard. That's his prerogative.

In fact - I've only just realised - Sordid Bean Counting (tm) is the common factor for those aspects of HQ that I am struggling with. For example


* an unseemly scrabble to name check every skill on the sheet for an augment bonus


* naming a (high ranking) skill and ability number rather than describing the characters action

All you're saying here is that you have to have a common set of standards for the group that prohibit this. There are lots of ways to establish this. "No," and Improv mods are one tool. As long as you're consistent, players will get the idea.

To be clear, what I'm saying is that the group will have to establish a standard. That starts with the players testing the limits, and the GM pushing back until everyone is comfortable. This is a normal part of play, and has been pretty painless IME. Even fun in some ways. If you have a player trying to "abuse" the system, use the tools given to try to bring them back in line with the group standard. If their standards can't be made to match yours, even after talking about it, then you need to think about separating with that player.

All that said though, personally I would give a modifier against using tea ceremony as a combat defense if the player were arguing that his grace at tea ceremony would allow him to dodge and trap the aggressor. From the example the barbarians attack appears to be a given and the player is arguing that tea ceremony is inately about having good coordination under pressure, fast reactions, skill at predicting another, etc etc. To me it is blatently not principly about these things. If the player were instead arguing that grace and coordination were an aspect of tea ceremony I would be willing to go with it - but that implies a modifier to me.

Again, this is just your set of standards, as you'll apply them in play. Which is good to have in mind. But which can only be your standard.

Mike