>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.
There's something Pratchet-esque about this scenario that appeals to me.
"Great Troll comes lumbering up with his pole-axe. Oscar stands his ground, clears his throat and says 'excuse me'. Troll, confused, pauses before swinging the axe, looks down at Oscar and says 'Huh!?'. Now Oscar starts his repartie."
I suppose it depends on how much you like this sort of thing.
One other point, it seems to be quite important (if I've followed this thread correctly) to be the 'actor' in a contest rather than the 'opponent'. Isn't that likely to make players quick to shout out snap actions as soon as they come across anyone to avoid being put into 'opponent' mode?
Richard
Powered by hypermail