Assuming these are both dramatic enough to do as extended contests (obviously, this is easy to handle as two simple contests with a modifier to each) then one solution is abstracting it out to "doing it all" and then deciding if there is a failute which succeded or not.
> > Once your
> > lesser extended contests start getting nested like
> > that (a big no-no according to the rules),
>
> Then the rules need to get back in touch with reality.
> It happens.
> > you reinterpret it as a more over-arching
> > contest.
>
> But you can't, not without being so vague it's
> useless.
That is the problem. There is a point where it adds up to too vague. Throwing an escalating series of problems is a tactic I like to do sometimes, and it seems I am forced to use simple contests for that.
> OK, back where we were. I'm cooking, and the phone
> rings.
>
> > I'm inclined to say that any subsequent contest acts
> > as a modifier to
> > the earlier one, but what if the subsequent contest
> > clearly overshadows the former?
>
> A good question, and one to which I have no answer.
Me neither. It can be, and certainly there often is one predominant contest, and one can argue an extended contest for that with the others coming as unrelated actions that then add modifiers.
LC
Powered by hypermail