Hi all

I ran a HQ demo (a blood opera type game) and there was this bit where in a meeting with several npc's and pc's talking. one of the pc A attacked another pc B. Pc A's stated aim was to run pc B through, pc B just wanted to block. They both rolled the same score on the die and bumped to a critical success. The rules say that nothing happens under this eventuality, but in this situation pc B has actually achieved stated aim, not being hit. To move to another roll would have been really grating and clunky. What to do? I just ruled that they just had to roll the damn thing again and have their Heropoints back. Player of pc A was a real asshole about it, but the group agreed that it was just best they rolled again. In case that sort of thing happens again, does anyone think they have a better solution to this sort of thing?

Regards
Rob

Lamorak33 wrote:
Hi all

I ran a HQ demo (a blood opera type game) and there was this bit where in a meeting with several npc's and pc's talking. one of the pc A attacked another pc B. Pc A's stated aim was to run pc B through, pc B just wanted to block. They both rolled the same score on the die and bumped to a critical success. The rules say that nothing happens under this eventuality, but in this situation pc B has actually achieved stated aim, not being hit. To move to another roll would have been really grating and clunky. What to do? I just ruled that they just had to roll the damn thing again and have their Heropoints back. Player of pc A was a real asshole about it, but the group agreed that it was just best they rolled again. In case that sort of thing happens again, does anyone think they have a better solution to this sort of thing?

Regards
Rob

This is a general problem with the system. That is, it says that the system always resolves conflicts, and then it allows for ties. Actually I'm not against ties, but they have to mean one of a few things in terms of the narration:

1. Both parties get their goal.
2. No party gets their goal.
3. Each party gets part of their goal.

The important part is to realize that the conflict must be resolved by this, meaning no further attempts by either side. The only way that these work is if the character's goals are not mutually exclusive. That is, a goal in play can't be simple negation of somebody else's goal.

So here's the key. When asking for goals, if a player says, "Just stop him" ask them, "And?" Think of it this way, if you can't think of a mechanical repercussion for the negative guy winning to impart on the positive guy, you need more direction. That said, often you can come up with some on your own, without expanding. Or be suggestive.

"If you win, how about he's afraid of you, then, which explains why he stops attacking?"

Suddenly with two goals, ties become very fun. If you assume that the goal is to make the opponent too afraid to attack, then:

1. The player gets picturesquely grazed (for no mechanical effect), but the character who did it was impressed by the other character taking it so well that he's too afraid to continue (for no mechanical effect). Or if you don't like to omit mechanical effects, then give them both -1 or something (perhaps -1 for matched fumbles, -10% for matched failures, -50% for matched successes, and Complete Victory for matched criticals. Or some such).
2. Neither gets what they want. Sure the player was stopped from running the other through, but at least he's not afraid of the other as well.
3. Pretty much like some version of 1. Or, better, make something completely new up.

Number 2 is really the canonical approach. Again, the key is to make sure that there are stakes on each side. The attacker has to be risking something for it to be a contest. And, again, working it out with the player is good, but sometimes you can just extrapolate. If the other guy is running away as his defense, then perhaps the chasing guy is risking getting hurt by tripping and such.

Or you can simply rule that negation is "easier" and simply gets the benefit of the doubt on ties. That is there's some unspecified bad thing that might have happened to the attacker had the defender won the contest that didn't in this case.

2, though it seems problematic, is really the way to go. Everyone gets that "but if it's not over, I'd attack again!" feeling. You simply have to use the same sort of logic you use when the attacker is trying to kill the opponent but is not allowed to do so. Something happens that makes this not possible. With ties, this is really cool, because the conflict in question really isn't even resolved a little, meaning that the next time it happens, there's more tension.

And it should happen again. Completely new contest, and probably not right away. And players may select new abilities (they may even have new abilities - see "trained by master Kung Fu film montage" technique). But eventually you should try to work it back in. Might be months or years later, but payback is too fun to miss out on.

So that's the key, assume that there are stakes on both sides, and that ties mean that neither character gets their goal. If that looks like one character "won" well so be it.

The other way to go is simply to do the "dramatic pause" thing. That is, require narration about the conflict so far that comes up without a resolution, and then roll again. Like a little mini extended contest. I do this when I really don't want there to be a delay in the resolution (often because the contest isn't important enough to merit a buildup to a second go). This is a great opportunity to add details to the narration that cast a new light on the conflict.

"As you fight to defend yourself so you can protect the girl, you note that she's secretly rooting for your opponent."

You could even have a contest in between rolls of the original contest or something to change the situation.

Lastly, if all this is too hard, and you don't want to employ any of these tricks, then simply rule that tie rolls have to be rerolled. If you rule this before hand, then ties are simply a tad inelegant when they come up.

But, generally I cherish my ties as opportunities to have the sytem resolve in a way different than the normal way expected. This variation is fun in play. To that extent, you probably want to use all of these techniques. Presented thoughtfully when it happens, everybody enjoys any of these techniques.

Mike

James wrote:

I'm really confused -- you're posting this today, as far as my computer can see, but this incident actually happened in the HQ game you ran at SteveCon over a year ago. If there's something up with my system and I'm necro'ing, I'm really sorry.

My suggestion, though, is "don't play with guys who are pushy jerks."