> Well I'm certainly not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that
> given the nature of the contest someone who is getting close to the
> point of backing down is not likely to make an all-out charge. And
> given the implicit acceptance of a psychological contest, invoking
> "free will" to overrule it is especially inappropriate.
Remember the guy still has APs, so he hasn't suffered an actual defeat yet. How many APs would he have to have to be able to freely choose to change tactics? How mnay APs does someone generaly need to have to be able to change tactics in a contest?
I'd say any positive amount in enough. Only an actual defeat in a contest should force someone into any given course of action.
> 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.
My point is that yes he is on the verge of breaking, but hasn't yet, so I
fail
to see why his choice of action should be constrained. If he tries to push
forward and fails, being reduced to 0 APs, then he's lost the contest and
you can constrain his choice as much as you like. His resolve has broken,
both argument and force have failed to the point he has suffered unbearable
humiliation and he must back down. Untill that happens, I as a player would
deeply resent having my character's actions constrained without an active
force in the game world (i.e. in a contest) doing the constraining.
Why should you have controll over what the narative is about, surely that's what the contest rules are for?
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail