On March 14, 2007 05:19 pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
> I think that an example here makes this one obvious. Let's say that there's
> a monster pushing you over a cliff, and you say that your goal is to pull
> the monster over the edge with you.
>
> It's only by seeing everything in terms of the combat results example that
> we feel that your character can't die in a dangerous situation. Your
> character only fails to die in a combat short of a "Complete Defeat"
> because he's trying not to die. That's part of his goal. If it's not part
> of his goal, then he'll die.
I thought that's what I was agreeing with. If the player decides they want to die and do last man on the bridge, then they die. I don't think that if they says their goal is to defent the bridge no matter what the cost (thus removing "not die" as the point of the contest, but not embracing death as a necessary part) that they die always.
> A character can also cut his own throat, and that's an automatic success,
> right? We're not going to make a player roll to see if they can accomplish
> that, are we?
Of course not, but that's not the situation, is it? "Willing to sacrifice herself for the goal" and "attempting to sacrifice herself for the goal" are not the same thing.
LC
Powered by hypermail