Climactic scene victory level

[Gregory M]

HQ:G p84 says:

Quote

As is appropriate to a climactic confrontation, victories in this system skew toward greater decisiveness: the winner never scores less than a Minor Victory.

Is that correct ? Because the table just above that text clearly shows that a "marginal" victory level does exist...

[Steve]

1 minute ago, Gregory M said:

HQ:G p84 says:

Is that correct ? Because the table just above that text clearly shows that a "marginal" victory level does exist...

I've queried this before, but I don't recall getting an official answer.

[jajagappa]

10 minutes ago, Gregory M said:

Because the table just above that text clearly shows that a "marginal" victory level does exist...

The odds of the second-worst result for the loser being "Hurt" is very low, particularly as the number of foes/results increase. 

I'm not sure the table is the best for determining overall Climactic results, though.  In a combat, you really want a better sense across the groups.  Perhaps it would be good to factor out all like results, and then determine differences between the remainder?  I do feel that a climax could result in a Pyrrhic Victory.

[Ian Cooper]

It's not very clear is it.

I believe the situation is this. To lose, you must have had 5RPs scored against you. If you are on the losing side, you will have an extra RP lodged against you. So for any defeated adversity the lowest number of RP scored against them is 6. If 6 RPs are scored against you, then you are Impaired, which means a Minor Victory to your opponent. So the math does seem to make that statement true.

Overall I think this is something we need to simplify with the SRD, so as to make it easier to figure out the consequences of defeat and benefits of victory for each side.

I don't actually like the separation that exists today between states of adversity and consequences of defeat. They should be the same thing. So that means that really we could just record the consequence of defeat that you experience and pick the second worse. Then we can just describe the consequence of defeat as a state of adversity.

 But, as written, it is disjointed.

 

[jajagappa]

4 hours ago, Ian Cooper said:

I believe the situation is this. To lose, you must have had 5RPs scored against you. If you are on the losing side, you will have an extra RP lodged against you. So for any defeated adversity the lowest number of RP scored against them is 6. If 6 RPs are scored against you, then you are Impaired, which means a Minor Victory to your opponent. So the math does seem to make that statement true.

Overall I think this is something we need to simplify with the SRD, so as to make it easier to figure out the consequences of defeat and benefits of victory for each side.

Whereas the Rising Action table includes information to calculate both individual and group results, the Climactic Action table does not - it only has the individual results.  Think this is a good addition for your Bring Out the Dead thread.

[Gregory M]

23 hours ago, Ian Cooper said:

I don't actually like the separation that exists today between states of adversity and consequences of defeat. They should be the same thing.

Good point !

Thanks for clarification.