Re: Extended Contest - Argument Overridden

From: Paul Andrew King <paul_at_...>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:00:39 +0100


> > My general philosophy for contests is that the narrative
>description
>> is primary - the rules are there to provide an mechanical system
>> which supports and gives direction to the narrative.
>
>I don't se how telling a player their characetr can't try to do
>something they plainly could try to do in that situation helps the
>narative.

Just to emphasize this point, if the player accepts a psychological contest, then they agree to it potentially having an affect on their character's choices. The cavalryman could physically continue blocking the bridge - or even try to ride across - even if suffering a complete defeat as a result of the swearing contest. Saying that he can't is telling the player that their character can't do something that they just as plainly "could do" and - from the perspective of the narrative (rather than the rules) - for the same reasons.

My point is that the cavalryman is likely to lose in the next round (an bid of 8 by the infantryman is quite reasonable and is sufficient for a victory). Therefore - in the narrative - he is on the verge of backing down, and in my opinion he needs to take some action to improve his mental state before jumping on his horse and trying to ride across.

-- 
--
"The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of 
immortality.  More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals 
in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala 
Guide to Taoism_

Paul K.

Powered by hypermail