Jump to content

Tartarosso

Members
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Tartarosso

  • Rank
    Newbie

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    D&D, Dylan Dog rpg, cyberpunk 2020, gurps, primetime adventures, archipelago II, esoterrorists, heroquest, the pool, shock: social science fiction
  • Current games
    The Pool
  • Blurb
    King time player

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well, for this situations I have another house rule (yes probably I have too many house rules) similar to what says @soltakss . Obviously it's a good house rule for the kind of play I aim to. I want to make the playing characters (the protagonists) to explore some themes and to have an interesting adventure (like in novels). So having a protagonist dying at random (in the worst case) but also in an important but no climatic scene it's something negative to me. The house rule I introduced is that the life of the protagonists can be the price for a conflict only if they agree. When the life of the protagonists is not involved I frame the outcome of the adversaries as the handbook suggests. Yes the threat of death is not always present but there are so many other things that can go wrong in the outcome of a conflict that the story is always interesting. And in years I use this rules in many rpgs with a contest resolution similar to Heroquest, I have been always happy with this solution.
  2. Hello @Telen666gard probably you are right. Anyway I find the expression Confusing to me. Moreover an old topic in which Laws answered directly, confused me more because I didn't remembered it well. In fact the topic was about a particular situation. Here the link to Laws answer https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/heroquest-hacking-each-other-to-bits.464819/page-5 It was about a conflict between the conflict goal and the consequence chart. On this topic, In my games, when someone is trying to kill someone else I use a different approach. I distinguish between protagonists, main Npcs, and minor Npcs, mooks. But I'm from mobile and I can't describe it well. With the one in my previous post, I've now described all the house rules I use. For the rest I play raw. I have to say I find more clear the phrasing yes/yes but/etc. Here a topic in which @Ian Cooper Proposed it. Excuse me for the poor formatting.
  3. I think that the rules as intended by the author Robin d laws, are that you don't obtain the price of the contest unless you have a major victory. And this is stated in other threads here on BRP Central an from the same words of Laws on rpg.net. If I interpreted the words correctly (I'm not a native English speaker). Now I'm writing from mobile phone so it is difficult to link those threads. That said, in my games I use the "no but, no, yes, yes but etc." result table. And for making the extended contests intersting, I use a personal reworked version of the chained contest rule. Being from mobile I can't describe it in details, anyway at every turn I use a lot the lesson from apocalypse world: fictional positioning and using the result of the single contest to create intersting situations.
×
×
  • Create New...