RE: Implicit and explicit factors in Extended Contests

From: Paul Andrew King <paul_at_...>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:25:23 +0000

>Or it might just mean that the GM thought that the Junp was a more
>important element in the action of jumping over the hedge and
>attacking than the combat element. In that case, the emphasis was
>placed on crossing the obstacle - the bidding of AP would determine
>how risky the manouever would be and also whether there would be
>much chance of an attack being carried out.

That's not the way it's written. "You can hack next turn" seems a pretty clear indication that he can't hack this turn.
>
>
>As for forbidding low bids in this example you would seem to say
>that it is OK to rule out high bids. The proposed action could win
>the contest by jumping the obstacle and chopping off the beasts
>head. The way you suggest would rule that out.
>

I don't know how you get that. What I am suggesting is that arbitrarily lumping together different actions can be ruled out for a number of reasons. For instance the time factor - it helps to keep the contest reasonably in sync. Differences between the actions involved. The amount and nature of the resistance to the sub-actions. On the other hand it is quite possible to do a high AP bid without lumping together different actions at all. Mybe in this case, trying to thrust through the hedge with a spear.

-- 
--
"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.