That's more or less what I intended in the example (if it seems that I've based it on the Craftsman's Ability then I made a mistake by making the Resistance equal to the Craftsman's - that was just an example of a resistance level that I thought was challenging for the builder in question). AP = Resistance, so that would be the Ability level of the thing created when finished more or less. The only possible difference between what you're saying and what I intended in the example is that I allowed for the player to overachieve by pushing the target below zero. If the player only plays it safe and drives the target to zero, then he'll get a result exactly equal to the Resistance.
I think that your method is exactly the method that's used to create fetishes at the moment, which works fine. In fact, if people want to think of builders or other craftsmen as binding appropriate Spirits to the craft in question, it actually becomes the same thing. The rating of the house becomes the rating of the spirit that inhabits it, making it like a guardian for the family if you will.
In some ways, all that I'm advocating is opening up the fetish creation rules to the other sorts of magic, and the mundane world as well. Theistic folks would be "blessing" the item in question with some of their god's power, or even "binding" a daimon to it. Wizards would infuse with essences. Mundane Abilities would create mundane objects. I'm aware that this would take some of the "specialness" of shaman away, but I think it's for a good cause.
The only problem that I have with solely basing the result on the Resistance is that you can't have variable results. If possible, I'd like the result to be colored by the nature of the conflict, and give a use for results other than simply driving the opposing AP to zero. So I was hoping that the implied currency could be employed. There are problems, however, as at least one poster has caught on to.
The main problem is that the result of a conflict is dual in nature, theoretically. That is, the "wounding" result is actually ancillary to the main result, which is a loss of ability to proceed with a certain line of action (or, conversely with an ability for the other side to proceed). For example, if the goal is to "defeat Jorgesin in combat so I can cross the bridge", then loss implies not only whatever wounds are delivered, but more importantly that I can now proceed. Basically, changes take place as the result of Contests that are not enumerated mechanically. The mechanical enumerations are often a side effect.
What my system seeks to do is to make these main results quantified in mechanical terms. You'll note that the house can take "wounds" etc. per my example. But these aren't part of the main goal, which is to get the house built. What this implies is that, in the case of Jorgesin, an Ability would be created which represented the thing created, namely the defeat in the example. Going with the logic that I've used so far, this would imply that I would receive a "Defeated Jorgesin" Ability as a result of my efforts. The counterpart of the "House" Ability in the house building Contest.
The thing is, that this Ability is never going to work correctly. That is, if I put Jorgesin to -31, on top of his 17 Sword and Shield combat, that would be a rating of 48. Alone, that's fine, because I can say that the character has to overcome that rating in order to perform any other contest that would be prohibited by the nature of the defeat. The problem is that I can never declare a character dead then. That is, I've defeated Jorgesin, but I don't seem to get that "secondary" effect that you would normally get in which he's dying.
If I said that I wanted to kill him as my sole goal, would a result of giving Jorgesin a Dying 48 be sufficient? That would imply that I couldn't give him Dead 48. Either is problematic. Either I can't give out a Dead ability, and therefore can't kill anyone, or I can, and I have to deal with the "Pompous Ability Name" problem of how to adjudicate the results of a character who's Dead 48. Can he take an action at -5 if he rolls and somehow overcomes his Dead rating (would be a nice stat to have for resurrection purposes, however)?
One option is to take the philosophical course and say that building and destroying are handled differently. This makes things more complicated, but has some interesting metaphysical ramifications. Basically, you'd say that if you wanted to add a trait to something that you'd use the method that I stated. If you wanted to destroy something, you'd use the original method.
What I think might be simpler, would be to allow any Contest to have either result. That is, if it seems appropriate, the result of any Conflict can be what I'd term a Fact (from this other game...). That is, it's something that has in-game weight, but it's impact is solely in terms of limiting what can reasonably done, and has no particular mechanical influence (could still affect bonuses and penalties). Or any Conflict can be used to produce a potential mechanical rating. In this way, if my goal is to wound somebody, I can only give them a Wound as a result of a success. Accidentally death would only be a result of failing the contest, not of winning too well.
Again, as I see it, the alternate wounding rules being suggested would just be "unrelated actions" meaning other small contests to create Wound stats along the way to whichever goal you choose. This has a couple of implications. Going back to the Burning Barn example (from the wayback), the goal of the Burning Barn is to "prevent the character from saving Jenny". Which means that the GM can take unrelated actions at any time to wound the character instead of rescuing overall AP to prevent Jenny from being saved.
The other implication is that this means that you can stop an extended contest at any point. That is, these "unrelated actions" are their own little extended contests that can go as long as the GM or player likes. In trying to inflict a wound, the Barn can go for only one round and cease delivering the total AP loss generated to that point, or it could continue (GM can declare limits per nesting for playability's sake). The implication for our house building is that the character can stop at any time, and have a house that's got a lower rating. So, if the player notes that he's only got a few AP left, he can narrate sloppily finishing the house as is, and leave it at the current AP total.
This all seems to jibe with the idea of contests terminating if both sides want it to do so. The house doesn't care if you want to stop working on it, and the player being burned by the barn will almost certainly not want to continue with that contest. Though, philosophically, it's interesting to think about the idea of the player insisting on extending that Conflict in order to make some sort of gain against it - he could roll to develop a temporary Angry in his character. Which is narrated as the Hulk flails about in rage after having a rock drop on him instead of pulling it off and moving on.
OK, kinda rambling now. Any of this make sense?
Mike
Powered by hypermail