The Forge Archives

I almost put these at the end of another thread, but figured they might better be served as their own thread.

Finally got a chance to play, running a couple of guys in a tweaked DnD adventure to test out actually playing the system in theory.

The sheer amount of rethinking you have to do from years of task-based resolution mentality is impressive, and it will take a while to smooth it all out. At the same time, it became evident just how much the system lends itself to setting up OTHER kinds of contests, which excited everyone.

We're working on putting together a HeroQuest game proper now, and I think that will go well.

But a few more questions came up in how to frame contests. For instance, we had the PCs run across a knight trying to run down a peasant who was fleeing towards them.  Now, I understand that the contest is "Stop the knight from doing that", but I ended up unsure about how to resolve it.

Should everyone (4PCs) get a shot at stopping the knight? It seems odd when you have 4 PCs each trying to stop the same consequence for each to roll against the same resistance.  Should I have them each pitch what they are going to do, see who has the highest total, and augment him with everyone else?

I get that a contest to stop him makes sense, then reframe a NEW contest in light of the new situation. (Stringing simple contests make sense when each contest is a new situation. Contests don't need to end scenes.) But even in the general case of a single foe against the group, I'm not sure if a series of individual simple contests make sense.

Another thing I ended up being unsure on how to handle was someone trying to figure out if someone was lying. I like the idea of keeping all rolls above board and in front, but I wasn't sure if that made sense in such a scenario. I ended up rolling in front, but not stating what the resistance was, doing the calculation in my head and just revealing the information. They couldn't then be sure what they were getting, although they were free to interpret the results with the limited info they had. (That seemed to work well.)

I also think years of rolling for everything resulted in far too many rolls, many of them trivial, that I should have just let them succeed at as heroes. (Part of that was me, some was them just not feeling right if they hadn't rolled for it -- probably a hold over of years of DnD).

I'm rambling a bit, it's late. But especially the combat question I'd be curious to see people's takes on. (I ended up running it as 4 consecutive simple contests, all won by the Horseman. He had good abilities for this kind of thing, and a distinct distance advantage. I wanted it to be hard to save the villager, but if they got lucky that would have been fine.)

Two ideas come to mind:

A group simple contest (HQ p65)

Having three of the player heroes augment the fourth.

Hi,

I'd do the group contest, allowing the player with either the most active action("I grab his leg and unseat him!") or else the highest score("I have Wrestling 19!") be the primary with the other folks augmenting him or her.

An important mental shift regarding the goals in play need be taken into account...If the goal is to stop the knight before he runs down the poor fellow, failure means the person gets trampled, and you can still narrate that the heroes capture or kill him after the fact without making a second contest.  

This allows you to save time with only one contest, and also gives the players a chance to make a meaningful decision and show you how their heroes react to the situation, regardless of success or failure.  Also, the "wounds" taken by the heroes probably won't be phsysical, but more psychological from failing to save an innocent.

As far as the issue regarding lying, the question you need to ask is, "How do I want to run my game?"  Your current answer works well if you absolutely do not want to have a rift between player and character knowledge.  If you don't mind it, you can simply give a resistance, and on a failure, say, "You're not sure", which is true.  You could also out and out tell the players the true facts, roll, and if they fail, let them create what their characters believe("Wouldn't it be more fun if Joseph thinks she's cheating on him?").

This depends on how you want to run your game.

Chris

Mostly what Chris said.

Consider that HQ probably best supports a mode where the players should know things that their PCs don't. Well, that could just be the local bias talking, but I and others hereabouts feel that the HQ rules do certain things that separate the player from the character anyhow. As such, there's little reason not to go with that flow. This means that the player thinks of himself more as an author of the character than "being" the character - what we call Author Stance, as opposed to Actor Stance.

For example, the "no repeat attempts" rule is classic here. It tells the players that the idea is not to think of the outcome of some event in terms of the task succeeding or failing, but in terms of the character meeting or failing at achieving their goal. Which means that the player is being encouraged to step outside the character, and see him as a character in a story and say, "hmmm, yeah, I guess it makes sense for Ragnar to be done chasing that guy who I just failed to catch." As opposed to, "I'm the character, I can choose to keep chasing him."

HQ is full of stuff like this. So, in order for it all to work together best (or at least in one coherent fashion) the players should think of the characters as something that they're helping to author. As an author, if you know that somebody is lying, you don't act on that knowledge, you separate what you know from what the character knows, and have the character do what makes sense for the character.

This is potentially controversial, BTW. Some would argue that a much better mode is to keep player and character knowledge aligned. If you really want to go that way, then there's an entirely different set of help that we should be giving to you. It's somewhat complicated to explain, but rather important.

On the group contest, think in terms of "sides." That is how many "sides" were there in the contest. Each one gets a roll. So if the PCs are all working together, they get one roll. Now, in this particular example, I wouldn't have done a group thing. I can't think of any way that makes sense for most of the PCs to augment the other. Oh, maybe they could shout encouragement to the horseman. But instead consider framing things like so: this is obviously the horseman's strong suit, so make the contest just him against the knight in terms of getting there in time. If the other players can augment, they will. But if the other PCs are on foot or just known to be slower, highlight the single character. Win or lose, the other PCs come trotting up just after the conclusion of the contest.

If they don't like that, if they want to get there first to save the peasant, then, Voila! They're in competition with the other guy to get there, and are another side. The contest becomes "be the first to get to the peasant."

Also, there are no combat contests. There are no combat contests. There are no combat contests. The sooner you get out of the combat/other mindset, the sooner your play will really take off.

Oh, and:

QuoteI wanted it to be hard to save the villager, but if they got lucky that would have been fine.

This shows promise. One of the great things about HQ is that neither success nor failure has the tendency that it does in other games to end conflict. Let's say that the peasant has some crucial information about some crime that the knight committed. You had thougth that it might make a good mystery to wonder why the knight cut down the peasant. Well, if the PCs find out, then now they have to deal with the knight. Meaning that instead of the plot being about the mystery, now it's about surviving what the knight throws at them. They defeat the knight? Then have him get away or something to find a way to plague the heroes from afar. Or have them kill him, and then have his big brother come after them. Etc, etc. As long as you always think of every resolution as opening the door to other contests, you'll do fine.

Lastly, not sure wether to roll for something? Ask the player(s) in question. "Want to roll for X, or should we just say you get it and move on?" When you're sure, call for the roll. Otherwise ask. Basically, only roll if somebody is interested.

Mike

Hi LC,

QuoteBut a few more questions came up in how to frame contests. For instance, we had the PCs run across a knight trying to run down a peasant who was fleeing towards them. Now, I understand that the contest is "Stop the knight from doing that", but I ended up unsure about how to resolve it.

Should everyone (4PCs) get a shot at stopping the knight? It seems odd when you have 4 PCs each trying to stop the same consequence for each to roll against the same resistance. Should I have them each pitch what they are going to do, see who has the highest total, and augment him with everyone else?

I think the answer to this depends on the heroes. They only have a few seconds to act.

If they take a couple of seconds to come up with a plan, then yeah, have one player make the roll and the others support him.

If they don't make a plan, or don't have time to, but just each start doing something, making it a group simple contest works well if all of the PCs have about the same goal: "What a cowardly villein, I'm going to attack him with my sword!" "Yeah, I'll blast him with my Lightning Bolt." "I'll try to kill his horse to stop him." They all have the same goal, but are not working together, and so a group simple contest might work best.

If the heroes are new to each other, and don't even seem to talk to each other, or if it best serves the drama of the scene, run four separate simple contests, with the knight having to defeat each of the heroes in turn. As he brushes each of them aside or skewers them (thus teaching them the value of teamwork in the future), narrate the increased look of terror in the peasant's eyes, hwo mcuh more labored his breathing his, how he is running a bit slower, or maybe looks behind him when one of the PCs screams in agony and so he trips, and has to get up again.

In other words, as with ALL contests in HQ, the key is not the circumstance of the contest, but the drama, that determines how you should run it. In this case, it is not the difference between a simple contest and an extended contest that holds the drama, it is whether there is one contest or four that is important.

Think about the old Cradle scenario -- you CAN run it is a single extended contest from the time the Lunars knock out the magical defenses until Garrath Sharpsword defends it from Harrek. But it is more dramatic to have each "station" be a separate contest, simple or extendd.

buserian

Not wanting to derail this thread, but I've been reading this as it is the kind of situation that would cause me to stop and think, and 'crash' (just like windows )

I had a similar 'crash' during the first session I ran of the Ranson escort scenario and couldn't work out how to treat the ambush using javelins.

My question relates to group contests in respect of having an effective leader, or everyone doing their own thing.

Anyway, my question, is this.

Imagine we have two groups; A & B.  

Group A is a bunch of disorganised Stormbulls.  A collection of individuals with no cohesion.

Group B is a trained Lunar comando unit with a Leader and works as a team.  

Given similar levels of ability, how would you reflect an advantage for Group B?  

My instinct is that an organised unit with a leader of a similar ability should defeat a disorganised unit.  

Would discipline and teamwork become a Work Together ability to use as an Augment?

Any comments appreciated.

The Lunars will all be footsoldiers with Mass Combat Tactics abilities (see the keyword). The Heortlings will be warriors without such an ability. Also you might allow the Lunar leader to use his "Lead Soldiers" ability as the primary ability, while the Storm Bull will no doubt be using his combat ability to inspire his troops.

It could be argued that this simple +2 per soldier for the mass combat tactics  is why the Lunars win a lot in the early history. :-)

This is just one way to do this, BTW. If the groups are large enough then actually you should use the mass combat rules in the book. Meaning that the Primary ability on the Lunar side is Mass Combat Tactics. Whereas in the Heortling side it'll probably be their normal combat ability perhaps with an improv modifier for this not being solo combat. Then leadership for each leader augments the group.

Or you can use the community support rules to augment your character's Leader ability. There are a number of ways to run this. See also the section on hordes for ideas. Once you know a couple of the methods a good one will always suggest itself to get the feel that you want for the contest.

Mike

Thanks Mike.

Good suggestions.

Hi everybody. Sorry I bailed on the thread after starting it, I was travelling for work.

I'll try to go through these in order. This is gonna be long. :)

Quote from: BankueiAn important mental shift regarding the goals in play need be taken into account...If the goal is to stop the knight before he runs down the poor fellow, failure means the person gets trampled, and you can still narrate that the heroes capture or kill him after the fact without making a second contest.

I get that. Although in this case, the knight fled after killing the peasant, they tried to stop the knight from fleeing, and failed. This was very much a "present the mystery of what is going on" thing here. While in my head it played more dramatic to have the knight succeed in killing and then fleeing, it made NO difference to the story if they stopped him or caught him, because either way the mystery is launched and how they wanted to look into it was up to them.

Quote from: BankueiYou could also out and out tell the players the true facts, roll, and if they fail, let them create what their characters believe("Wouldn't it be more fun if Joseph thinks she's cheating on him?").

That's just funny, I love that. :)  But I think these particular players would prefer to not have too far a rift between player knowledge and character knowledge. They're comfortable with knowing some stuff their players don't know, but not too much. They're slowly getting used to a more Author stance, but it is still a bit of unfamiliar ground for them.

Quote from: Mike HolmesThis is potentially controversial, BTW. Some would argue that a much better mode is to keep player and character knowledge aligned. If you really want to go that way, then there's an entirely different set of help that we should be giving to you. It's somewhat complicated to explain, but rather important.

I think this was particularly blatant in this case because this was more a mystery, and not particularly Narrativist, it was just a chance to work out with the system, since I was all theory, no practice until now.  That seemed to make it harder for me to let character and player knowledge get too far apart.  Since the actual game, once started, will not be so strictly a "find out what's going on" story (I intend to be FAR more Narrativist in constructing it, although that's a whole other kettle of fish on how well I'll manage it... ) I think it will be easier for them to be in Author stance. (And I will be encouraging it.)

Quote from: Mike HolmesOn the group contest, think in terms of "sides." That is how many "sides" were there in the contest. Each one gets a roll. So if the PCs are all working together, they get one roll.

That lends itself to the "pick a leader and augment" approach. In this case,you had someone trying to use a spell to entangle the knight, two people using missle weapons to wound/slow him down, and a horseman trying to beat the knight to the peasant. I'm not sure who I would have picked to be central (I could have let the players do it or defaulted to highest ability) but I can see them all helping since they are trying to do one thing.  

Quote from: Mike HolmesAlso, there are no combat contests. There are no combat contests. There are no combat contests. The sooner you get out of the combat/other mindset, the sooner your play will really take off.

Explain please, oh my Yoda. :-)  (I think I know what you're getting at, but don't want to put words in your mouth.) [/quote]

Quote from: Mike HolmesAs long as you always think of every resolution as opening the door to other contests, you'll do fine.

Absolutely, and it is what I intend to do with the full game I am starting.

Quote from: Mike HolmesLastly, not sure wether to roll for something? Ask the player(s) in question. "Want to roll for X, or should we just say you get it and move on?" When you're sure, call for the roll. Otherwise ask. Basically, only roll if somebody is interested.

Always good advice.

Quote from: buserianIf they take a couple of seconds to come up with a plan, then yeah, have one player make the roll and the others support him.

If they don't make a plan, or don't have time to, but just each start doing something, making it a group simple contest works well if all of the PCs have about the same goal: "What a cowardly villein, I'm going to attack him with my sword!" "Yeah, I'll blast him with my Lightning Bolt." "I'll try to kill his horse to stop him." They all have the same goal, but are not working together, and so a group simple contest might work best.

If the heroes are new to each other, and don't even seem to talk to each other, or if it best serves the drama of the scene, run four separate simple contests, with the knight having to defeat each of the heroes in turn. As he brushes each of them aside or skewers them (thus teaching them the value of teamwork in the future), narrate the increased look of terror in the peasant's eyes, hwo mcuh more labored his breathing his, how he is running a bit slower, or maybe looks behind him when one of the PCs screams in agony and so he trips, and has to get up again.

OK, I'm not sure how the third option is any different from the Group Simple Contest. They still all roll one at a time vs the Knight.  Are you just suggesting that they would each frame different goals in the third case?

And another thing pops into mind.. does the Multiple Opponents rule ever come into play here?

Quote from: lightcastleI think this was particularly blatant in this case because this was more a mystery, and not particularly Narrativist, it was just a chance to work out with the system, since I was all theory, no practice until now.  That seemed to make it harder for me to let character and player knowledge get too far apart.  Since the actual game, once started, will not be so strictly a "find out what's going on" story (I intend to be FAR more Narrativist in constructing it, although that's a whole other kettle of fish on how well I'll manage it... ) I think it will be easier for them to be in Author stance. (And I will be encouraging it.)

Again, there's nothing wrong with surprises and mystery. Do that stuff as well. The point is that, in some situations it's going to work out that it's better if the players know something that their characters do not. Just be ready to address the players OOC when these cases present themselves. As long as you know that you can do this, and think about it, then you'll make the right decisions.

Quote

Quote from: Mike HolmesOn the group contest, think in terms of "sides." That is how many "sides" were there in the contest. Each one gets a roll. So if the PCs are all working together, they get one roll.

That lends itself to the "pick a leader and augment" approach. In this case,you had someone trying to use a spell to entangle the knight, two people using missle weapons to wound/slow him down, and a horseman trying to beat the knight to the peasant. I'm not sure who I would have picked to be central (I could have let the players do it or defaulted to highest ability) but I can see them all helping since they are trying to do one thing.  

Oops, I forgot part of my process. When I start a contest, and there are potentially many sides, I ask everyone "who wants to roll, and who wants to join somebody else?" Basically, everyone who wants to roll is a "side". Those who don't indicate they want to roll must either join up with someone else, or become their own side, or not participate in the contest.

Basically, let the player decide how to organize it. Often they'll realize that their best shot is to rally around a leader. But if they want to "compete" to accomplish the goal first, that's a valid player desire as well.

Quote

Quote from: Mike HolmesAlso, there are no combat contests. There are no combat contests. There are no combat contests. The sooner you get out of the combat/other mindset, the sooner your play will really take off.

Explain please, oh my Yoda. :-)  (I think I know what you're getting at, but don't want to put words in your mouth.)

[/quote]Were I continue to obfuscate, I'd ask if there were painting contests? Are there target practice contests? Are there contests to get from A to B before another character?

The problem is that the traditional player sees two opposing characters in a potentially violent situation, and they start thinking "combat." The problem is that this carries all sorts of implications regarding things like character goals. So you have to reject that thinking. The contest is never framed until you know what the goals are.

So, let's say that Character A, armed to the teeth hates character B, also armed to the teeth, and they meet alone on a field. Combat ensues, right? Wrong. You discover the goals for each character. The player of A says, "I want to get him to denounce his evil religion and join with me."

Whoa. That never happend in D&D. :-)

So the characters instead engage in a contest of philosophy, augmenting with their relationships, etc. Or maybe the player of B says, "I'm going to use my sword to shut him up." So you end up with this cool contest where A is parrying off blows, and trying to convince B, while B goes for the throat.

Don't get me wrong. Violence is still a fun, viable, and common option. But it doesn't get precedence. Consider the above performed as a simple contest. No back and forth, just one guy trying to convince the other, while the other tries to kill him. The abilities have to be compared directly. Some would say, "How can words stop a sword?" If B goes to that, doesn't that trump A? No, it doesn't. What you have to do in this case is discover why it makes sense. Like I've said, perhaps in this situation it's just A coming up with the argument that makes sense as B closes the distance between. Or maybe A dodges while he explains.

Or, maybe you find this all implausible (some argue that). In this case, however, you have to find a way to allow for the philosophy ability to be "equal" to the swordfighting one in metagame terms. That means, basically, that if A says he's trying to convince B, that he gets a roll before B gets to change the situation with his declaration of murderous intent.

See what I'm getting at? Don't privilege combat. When a character has a violent intent, look at the goal involved and go with that. But never assume that one character's violence means that violence is the only viable response. No "combat." Instead you have one character trying to kill another while that character tries to get away. Or one trying to injure another while he tries to daze his opponent in return. Or one tryint to scar his opponent, while the other tries to dodge until the first character tires.

Here's a good example from this forum. Two characters were sparring. The narrator assumed that this was a combat, and had them roll, and one character ended up injuring the other. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The goal of sparring isn't to injure each other, but precisely the opposite - it's to learn something about combat by simulating it in as safe a way as is practicable. Instead, they should have rolled against some resistance that depended on how important the lesson was, and thus how difficult it was to learn, with failure, not sucess, indicating that somebody got injured. They could each roll individually, or one could augment the other.

The rules as presented, unfortunately make combat seem like it's some sort of default contest. But as soon as you completely reject that idea, as soon as combat is just another of the infinite forms of contest available, the sooner you'll start seeing things that you never thought you'd see in RPGs. Things that you only saw in literature, movies, or your imagination previously.

QuoteAnd another thing pops into mind.. does the Multiple Opponents rule ever come into play here?

Sure does. Remember that for every one guy you have, you cancel out one of theirs. So, if it's your three guys against four, you're group's roll is penalized -3.

Note that for really large groups, you want to use the mass rules instead. In that case there's a bonus based on how many multiples of them there are of you. Otherwise 150 vs 100, the side with 100 would have a -150 on their roll.

Mike

Mike, I do so love picking your brain. :)

Quote from: Mike HolmesOops, I forgot part of my process. When I start a contest, and there are potentially many sides, I ask everyone "who wants to roll, and who wants to join somebody else?" Basically, everyone who wants to roll is a "side". Those who don't indicate they want to roll must either join up with someone else, or become their own side, or not participate in the contest.

Basically, let the player decide how to organize it. Often they'll realize that their best shot is to rally around a leader. But if they want to "compete" to accomplish the goal first, that's a valid player desire as well.

Ahh... of course. As always, give more power to the players. :) Makes perfect sense, I like it.

Quote from: Mike HolmesThe problem is that this carries all sorts of implications regarding things like character goals. So you have to reject that thinking. The contest is never framed until you know what the goals are.

That's sort of what I thought you were going for.

QuoteOr, maybe you find this all implausible (some argue that).

Just the opposite. In the DnD campaign I'm playing in right now, I have a half-orc who was raised by humans, has tried to reject his orcish heritage, and is a bard. But we kept him multiclass barbarian to reflect his inability to get rid of his orcish rage. So he can flip out in certain situations (usually over the threatening of the innocent), when he flips out, he doesn't calm down at the end of combat. It's the whole Hulk thing. We ended up making up rules for how to calm him down, because it immediately led to a very cool scene the DnD rules don't handle well... his friends trying to fend him off without hurting him while talking him down from his rage.

When I first encountered HQ it immediately struck me that that scene plays out very easily in HQ, in fact, the system is designed to allow you to do things like that.

QuoteNo "combat." Instead you have one character trying to kill another while that character tries to get away. Or one trying to injure another while he tries to daze his opponent in return. Or one tryint to scar his opponent, while the other tries to dodge until the first character tires.

Gotcha. And this appeals to me greatly, although it will take some time for both me and my players to kick off the rust of old habits. But that's ok. :)

QuoteHere's a good example from this forum. Two characters were sparring. The narrator assumed that this was a combat, and had them roll, and one character ended up injuring the other. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The goal of sparring isn't to injure each other, but precisely the opposite - it's to learn something about combat by simulating it in as safe a way as is practicable. Instead, they should have rolled against some resistance that depended on how important the lesson was, and thus how difficult it was to learn, with failure, not sucess, indicating that somebody got injured. They could each roll individually, or one could augment the other.

Actually, I think in that case, I might even make each roll individually, augmented by the other. You learn what you learn, aided by the quality of the person trying to help you teach yourself. (This would depend on how dramatic this lesson was and what it was they were trying to learn, methinks.)

QuoteSure does. Remember that for every one guy you have, you cancel out one of theirs. So, if it's your three guys against four, you're group's roll is penalized -3.

To go back to your "sides" thing earlier, would you go by numbers or by sides?  There were 4 people trying to stop the knight. Does this mean I should across the board give the knight a -9? If the heroes split into two groups of 2, each with one person trying to stop him and another augmenting, does that mean only a -3?  My reading of the rules is that the knight gets -9 no matter what is going on with the players as long as all 4 people are trying to affect him. Is that right?

Quote from: Mike HolmesDon't get me wrong. Violence is still a fun, viable, and common option. But it doesn't get precedence. Consider the above performed as a simple contest. No back and forth, just one guy trying to convince the other, while the other tries to kill him. The abilities have to be compared directly. Some would say, "How can words stop a sword?" If B goes to that, doesn't that trump A? No, it doesn't. What you have to do in this case is discover why it makes sense. Like I've said, perhaps in this situation it's just A coming up with the argument that makes sense as B closes the distance between. Or maybe A dodges while he explains.

Simple Contests are awkward for this kind of disjoint contest, but extended contests handle them very well because A gets to ward off B's blows with a combat ability while B gets to use apropriate mental or social abilities to resist A's powers of persuasion.

Since each character has very different goals it might be appropriate to model this as two consecutive simple contests. One combat contest with B as the initiator, followed immediately by a persuasion contest with A as the active player. You might even rule that the contests realy are simultaneous.


Simon Hibbs

It's a matter of POV, Simon. Basically what I'm saying is that we're conditioned to think that if one person it attacking, then the whole contest has become combat, no matter what the goals of the other participant are. It becomes a question of escallation. Player A says that they want to convince B. B says that, basically as a defense, they want to attack back. The idea being that combat trumps discussion, and therefor that means that they have to do combat.

Consider the opposite case. If somebody attacks, and then I say that I want to defend with an argument, you say that that's just inappropriate, and that I have to come up with something more appropriate, or take a massive Improv penalty (or that we have to do your simultaneous method - we'll assume for now that nobody wants to do an extended contest here). The point is that combat is getting privileged. To make combat equal, then if you resist an attempt to persuade by saying that you're trying to cut me down, then my persuasion should go first, with your ability being dissallowed, or getting a massive improv mod.

Do you see where the potential inequality is? It's in assuming that if a player declares an escallation to combat, that this pre-empts all ofher contests. This is very much against the spirit of the rules. The "no repeat attempts" rule implies that the framing of a contest makes it self-contained against attempts to manipulate it into something that it's not. Like some sort of extended contest, or, in this case I'd argue, into another sort of contest entirely.

The argument that I hear is that "it just makes sense." That combat is more "telling" or something, and therefore that means that a player who goes to it is somehow allowed to void the normal process. But that ignores the fact that nowhere in the Simple contest rules does it say that the defender is allowed to change the scope of the contest. I mean, if you argue that my allowing the players in question to use the abilities directly against each other is a violation of those rules because of the idea of the first character being the primary actor, and the target having to "resist" the attempt, then you have to agree with me. My use of the incongruous abilities in conflict are to allow a violent response to a debate, or somesuch. By a strict interpretation as you have it, if I declare a debate, then my opponent cannot draw his sword in response, because that wouldn't be an appropriate response to the debate.

This is the basic "problem" with Simple contests. One of three things has to happen. Either you limit the resistance response to only those actions that would indicate the use of an "appropriate" ability, or you allow any ability to be "appropriate", or you allow declared resistance actions to alter the nature of the conflict by whatever sense of plausibility that the players have.

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.

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.

But you've always been a proponent of the idea that HQ can be used to represent in-game causality in a more "crunchy" fashion. So, of course you're POV is that "inappropriate" is much more narrowly construed. I'm not surprised one bit. For me, I can look at the abilites as simply ratings that determine which character gets the advantage in any comparison, needing no in-game link to the abilities in question.

Now, to clarify, I'm not saying that absolutely any ability can be used to resist any other ability. I agree that there has to be some level of plausibility for the described in-game action. But basically when I play, it comes down to the resisting player giving me an idea of how what they're saying could work from a dramatic standpoint. If the player were to say, "I parry his sword with my words," (even if playing in Glorantha where "everything is magic") I'd still disallow this as implausible. But if the player says, I want to use my debate to get him to relent before he gets to me, then I'll probably allow it, assuming that our shared imaginings make this plausible. If they were described as already touching, then I'd need a different explanation. Given the time a good argument takes, I might put an improv penalty if the attacking resister is close. Whatever it takes to make it make sense to the people playing.

Also, the result of the debate attempt is soley to put a modifier on the potential combatant. That is, if the debater's goal is to get the swordsman to stop attacking him, then we know that the swordsman attacked first. Meaning that he's been defeated in this for the nonce. But if I was trying to convince you of something (I dunno, my god is better than your god), and your resistance was to attack, and I scored a -10% result, then my success doesn't mean that you can't immediately declare an attack on me. The narrator may or may not choose to apply the -10%, but that doesn't mean that this isn't a different contest. You resisting my argument with violence is certainly different from you attacking me to kill me. So there's no violation of the "no repeat attempts" rule, and your logic about "chaining" simple contests applies here.

Obviously I have no problem with players responding "appropriately," meaning using the most obviously pertinent ability. What I find is that the games I play in, usually the resistance to a sword will be with a combat ability. Even if the player in question has a really large debate ability, they won't use it. Not because they don't think that I'll allow it, neccesarily, but because they don't want to have to go through the mental gymnastics to do it. Which is fine, it's just an option. But often I sense that the plausibility clause is used to club creative players over the head because there's some sense that they're "getting away" with something. That they're just using their best ability in all cases. But, again, that doesn't happen, even when I allow it. Because players aren't trying to win contests as much as they're trying to make their characters look interesting in them. That means that losing isn't a big deal, and that they don't just look for the best ability on the sheet every time. Instead, even if they have the inferior combat abilty, they'll pull it out, because, dammit, their character isn't afraid to back down from a fight. Or for whatever reason.

Allowing disparate abilies to be used against each other, simply means that when players have differing goals for a simple contest, that each of them can pursue them. Like they can explicitly in extended contests. So that, on the rare occasion where something like this should happen, it can be played out with a simple contest.

Now, I have no problem with the other approach, where only the instigator can have his goal met or resisted. But, for me, that means that the debator can't have his contest changed on him. If a contest is called, and it's obvious that it started as a debate, then I'll allow the debate to occur in it's entirity to occur before anybody can declare a new combat contest (which can follow on immediately if neccessary). Because to decide otherwise, that escallation to combat makes combat the contest, is to privilege combat in a way that the game doesn't intend, and is bad for play, IMO. Because it informs players that there's an inherent advantage to combat. At which point why wouldn't you play a combat monster?

Mike

Actually, this just strikes me as augment heaven. The burly Orlanthi wants to attack the Lunar diplomat. The Lunar tries to talk him out of it.  So our Orlanthi gets his combat skill as his roll, and the Lunar uses his debte as his resistance. But the Lunar (assuming this isn't a case of convincing him before the first strike, but rather getting him to stop) can use his own combat skill as an augment, as he parries and dodges to try and buy himself time to be heard. The Orlanthi can throw in his Hates Lunars of course, but also his Hot-headed since that would imply he doesn't listen to reasoned arguments and such.  

Narrate that blow and counter argument, bring it to a good pitch (last desperate revelation/argument/etc from the Lunar) then roll.

Win on the Orlanthi side, he beats the Lunar down and hurts him to some degree. Win on the Lunar side, the attack stops... but what do I apply those consequences to?

Quote
we'll assume for now that nobody wants to do an extended contest here

Personally, I would say this is not a straightforward contest, and so you really have to bend the rules of narrative to try to handle it as a simple contest.

Look at films/TV - scenes where someone tries to talk somone out of violence after it has started (e.g Buffy S6 finale, Return of the Jedi) are just about always climactic and dramatic. I honestly can't think of a throwaway example, equivalent to the one or two shot 'round kicks vampire, stakes vampire'  that for me signal combat simple contests.

Theres a reason for this, those are all complicated scenes, with multiple points to establish. They have to convey more information than 'Buffy is badass' , 'Jedi mind tricks are useful', or  'empire military > rebel military', so they need more screentime (or gametime, by analogy).

RoTJ wouldn't have made any sense if Luke had just walked into the throne room, there had been a 10 second shot of light sabre dueling, and then he had walked out again with the emperor dead and vader repentant but dieing. Audience says: WTF?

Similarly, given normally critical players, a complex result such as 'he showed he could beat you in a fight, wounded you slightly, but you managed to persuade him that you are too important to the clan to kill' can't be simply pulled out of the bag as an end result, it has to emerge out of the structure of an extended contest.

Of course, if you think the same way as your players in the first place, make the same set of assumptions, you can get away with squeezing more and more complex conflicts into simple contests without having to stop to establish that shared understanding. For example, 'there was prophecy and the Scoobies researched it and a monster got summoned from the Hellmouth and Buffy killed it' gets about 2 minutes of screen time in the Buffy episode 'The Zeppo', because by then thats all in the shared understanding of the audience, and the session can focus on exactly what happens to Xander when he goes to get the donuts.

soru