Re: Implicit and explicit factors in Extended Contests

From: Paul Andrew King <paul_at_...>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:23:08 +0000

>Having read both of the threads that lead to this one I am pretty
>sure all of these issues can dealt with by a lot less philosophical
>twisting by treating them as group extended contests.
>
>
>trooper versus cavalryman
>-------------------------
>
>There are three actors, the trooper (swear like a trooper 2W),
>cavalryman (ride horse 2W, pigheaded 17, big horse 10W) and the
>bridge (hard to cross 5, i.e. not particularly narrow or high).
>
>The trooper acts first. He could just take an action against the
>bridge to cross it, which would automatically suceed if unopposed,
>as thats something no hero should ever fail at.
>But he is smart, and realises the cavalryman will just block him
>with his big horse (fast 14 versus horse's large 10W, small chance
>of winning).
>So instead he insults the cavalryman, winning a few AP. The
>cavalryman is starting to look a bit foolish.
>
>The cavalryman responds in kind, but loses again, and the trooper
>continues taunting him (cavalryman now down to 8AP).

I notice that you haven't stated the objectives for the contest. If you are using the stated objective ("get across the bridge first") then we have a problem (see below).

>
>At this point, the cavalryman finally realises he should be playing
>the game on his own terms.
>He bids 5AP to cross the bridge, again an automatic success if
>unopposed.

Just to correct a little detail the trooper got a major transfer (at least 10 points), and the cavalryman seems to have started ahead on this little contest due to augmenting with his horse's Large. Both have swearing as an ability in their professional keyword

>
>At this point, the trooper could try something to oppose the
>cavalryman. If he tries 'swear like a trooper' now, a W2 (2
>masteries) penalty sounds about right, only truly heroic swearing
>could stop a cavalry charge.
>Assuming he does something else that plausibly could work
>(e.g. 'dirty fighting' to cause the horse to rear up, 'relationship
>to unit' to get his friends to block the bridge, or something
>magic), then he has a chance of winning.
>
>So assign applicability penalties, roll, handle AP transfer as
>normal.
>Trooper wins: cavalryman still on far side and very nearly defeated.
>Cavalryman wins: bridge out of contest (i.e. crossed), but trooper
>still in it
>
>Alternatively (amd IMHO this is the smart move) the trooper just
>lets the cavalryman across. Unopposed action, no AP transfer, bridge
>out of contest.
>
>Now if there was a specific reason for the bridge being important
>(e.g. a bet), then the cavalryman wins that bet.
>But in any case, _the trooper is still in the contest_, his action
>points are not 0.
>
>So he carries on mocking the cavalryman. He wins, the cavalryman
>bursts into tears, is humiliated, and loses the contest.

With the objective "get across the bridge first" the cavalryman wins the contest if he gets across the bridge first. Or rather it is the other way around - until he wins the contest he has not successfully crossed the bridge.

While it probably gets into trouble with changing objectives I'd rather have the contest start with the objective "persuade the other guy to let me across first".

With "nutting the lawspeaker" the important question is whether it is an attempt to win the case (not one likely to work - "violence is always an option" does not mean that openly assaulting a lawspeaker in that situation is acceptable unless provoked) or whether it is an attempt to simply beat the man up. I think it can be handled adequately either way in most cases.

-- 
--
"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.