There are at least two cases for this and you addressed one: the case of Oscar using R Wit against a troll in a debate and the troll responding with physical combat. Assuming that the troll withstands Oscar's opening shot, it seems that you are telling us that a troll will be less likely to be able to damage a human who starts talking to him first. I agree that the troll suffers an improvisational modifier if he wants to refute Oscar with a weapon, but unless Oscar's words have some magical effect on the troll, then I doubt that standing under a descending maul will be healthy for Oscar.
Another case: Oscar and the troll meet in the wilderness and Oscar uses R Wit against the troll who responds with his maul. Hopefully, you're not saying that Oscar can stop the troll in his tracks with a sarcastic remark short of Oscar's R Wit being magical.
I think that there should be some consensus that the game rules do not dictate that anyone can win any contest at any time by choosing any skill that he (the Actor) happens to be good at. Here are some examples that assume that Oscar's Rapier Wit is not magical, that Oscar has no good physical combat skills, that the opponent does and will beat him decisively in physical combat, and that Oscar tries to start a contest with Rapier Wit against the opponent.
Example1: Oscar tries Rapier Wit in a social situation where it will be appreciated. Then he should usually be able to succeed.
Example2: Oscar tries Rapier Wit in a social situation where it will be appreciated, but against someone who cares not at all for social conventions (Storm Bull). If that someone retaliates with a sword, then there is no way that Oscar isn't getting hurt unless the surrounding receptive audience constrains the attacker. If you don't believe me, go to a bar in a bad part of town (or a similar setting) and insult someone in such a way as to provoke a fight. I'm saying that you will not be attacked less effectively because you managed such dazzling wit.
Example3: Oscar uses Rapier Wit on someone who Has To Be The Best At Everything. Against this type of foe (the type who cares about Oscar's Rapier Wit attack), Oscar can do well.
Example4: Oscar uses Rapier Wit on someone in the wilderness. That other person doesn't care what Oscar has to say but he is annoyed that Oscar is talking. If the other person responds with violence, I wouldn't rule that Oscar has somehow set the stage for the fight and has the advantage of AP. I would say that Oscar doesn't know how to pick his fights and is about to get a lesson on not picking fights without the proper skills. In the real world, if I don't care what someone says and if that someone can only talk, I can ignore them without any bad consequences.
Example5: Gordius ties a complicated knot. Alexander comes along and loses the test of wits to untie it. Alexander slices the knot with his sword. Do you believe that Alexander was less effective with his sword because he was beaten by the Gordian Knot earlier?
My Solution to all of these examples: First of all, the Narrator should probably rule in all of these cases that the battle of wits is a simple contest (it takes two to have an extended contest). Then, like contests only effect like skills (unless there are extenuating circumstances or magic). Oscar humiliating his opponent will not prevent the opponent from effectively physically attacking him. There are some simple allowable extenuating circumstances: the opponent fights less well because Oscar humiliated him in front of his friends and he is still self-conscious or the opponent fights even more fiercely to punish Oscar for humiliating him.
-Andy
Powered by hypermail