Nic Hughes:
> >
> > This requires not just that you take your action "out of sequence",
> > but that you're allowed a lending action _after_ an action is
> resolved,
> > but before it takes "effect".
>
> This opens a whole other can of worms, when does the effect of an
> extended contest take effect. I tend to go with the view that its
> all a bit open to interpretation until the end of the contest at
> which point participants start noticing those wounds they picked up
> along the way etc. You generally know if you are getting the upper
> hand or not but the finer details are lost in the melee, this gives a
> lot of for narrative manouvre although it certainly can feel a bit
> uncomfortable when still adjusting from more "crunchy" game systems.
Sure, but what you're omitting is "when does the contest end?". If a contestant is below 0AP, then, unless he invokes some special power (like a Secret), or takes a Final Action, then For Him, the Contest Is Over, surely? The Edwards example plays _very_ fast and loose with this, is my feeling.
> >("The Sword
> > summons up his best magic, and using the power of Death, Severs
> > the soul from your very body!" "Hrm, that smarts. Someone lend me
> a few
> > AP, please?")
> >
>
> Generally I would be reluctant to narrate anything as definite as
> wounds or death part way through an extended contest because
> something might happen to mitigate it.
Are you suggesting that if I'm reduced to -40 AP during a group contest (through "mundane" means like being sliced in two by the enemy clan champion), then I remain in a state of quantum superposition of states until the _entire_ contest is over (i.e. one "side" has won)? That sounds a little fishy to me. ("Don't end the contest yet, I haven't finished fixing up this guy here!")
> It is certainly possible to play so that each contest is seperate
No, we're talking about a group contest, after all, not "parallel" extended contest.
> and off-the-cuff intervention not allowed but I think this leads to
> the "its his turn, I'll just sit here and doodle and pay no
> attention" syndrome. Keeping players interested at all times is such
> a worthwhile goal[1] that playing a little fast and loose and
> narrating around the consequences seems like a small price to pay.
Well, I tend to agree, hence my earlier suggestion for "... and but" actions. Or equally, spending AP to "act" sooner than you ordinarily would.
Powered by hypermail