>I disagree with that. The nature of the contest is very much defined
>by the actions, as described in the narrative
Ah. I actually agree with you there. I was more trying to say that the cavalryman's charging action is not an attempt to override or shortcircuit the contest as it is an attempt to continue it by other means. It remains the same contest because the objective remains the same.
>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.
Ahh, now I begin to see your point. You're saying that, since the guy's AP losses so far have been interpreted as shaken confidence, he should be precluded from suddenly making a confident charge. I can definitely see that being a consideration that the narrator should bring up, and even enforce if that's definitely how things have played out so far. It's not much different from interpreting an AP loss as a lost weapon and forcing the character to retrieve it or else do without it.
On the other hand, we know it's entirely possible to come back from that kind of AP deficit purely through lucky die rolls, and further that in certain circumstances (group contests) participants can even come back from negative AP with a desperate move. So I'd be careful of letting the interpretation of results preclude certain actions entirely. If a fighter or racer could "gather his last reserves" and make a large bid after being driven nearly to defeat, then surely the insulted cavalryman should have the same chance. Require an appropriate personality trait roll if it seems farfetched, I guess. (Which, in the given case, would probably result in defeat anyway if counted as an unrelated action, since the trooper would get another round of insults in.)
If the insult contest were to continue another round, and by pure luck of the dice the cavalryman managed to improve his position (forcing a loss or even a transfer on the trooper), how would you interpret that within the narrative? Is that kind of reversal easier for you to accept than the one resulting from the player's change of tactics?
>>Deciding to stop bandying words and just charge across seems a
>>perfectly reasonable and predictable narrative development to me.
>I'd see that as more likely given a stalemate or close to it.
Given your interpretation of the losses so far, as explained above, I can see that. Though surely, in the more general case, there should be room for the "This isn't working -- gotta change the rules or I'm done for!" sort of thinking as defeat nears.
Stacy Forsythe
deadstop_at_...
Powered by hypermail