Re: Re: I forget the subject line, but, Edwards-style AP-lending.

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Thu Sep 16 11:42:17 2010

> > What about a half dozen rounds after any
> > "opponent" was showing a blind bit of
> > notice in him -- how would you describe
> > that?
>
> I can't recall a contest that lasted more than 5 rounds[1] ;-)

OK, so four rounds later then. Cut me some slack, man. ;-)

> As our extended contests are relatively short, AP lending tends to be
> given as quickly as possible, frequently in the same round, always in
> the next.

Those cases seem to me to be the easiest to narrate, and those would be the ones I'd formally allow (or informally cut slack in favour of, at least). These "long after the fact lends" I'd want to have very convincingly rationalised, were I to allow them at all.

> I presuppose that the final status is not clear until the entire
> group extended contest is over. Quantum superposition of states and
> all that! As I noted in a previous post, APs measure capacity to
> act, not damage. A large loss of capacity to act is converted to
> damage only after the contest is over.
>
> So you might call it as a different sort of recovery but I would
> respond "recovery from what?".

What I would say would be more along the lines of, "Charles, it was you that began talking about AP lending in terms of recovery, so, you tell me..."

Effectively we're not talking so much about recovery per se, as a change from "apparently, you had [some nasty fate] befall you" to "but in actual fact, you were OK because [reason]", with the nasty fate being determined by the action that put you negative, and the reason being supplied by the character doing the AP-lending. The issue is really how to do this convincingly (and without introducing too much in the way of perverse incentives to distort the narrative for "gamist" reasons).

> Say that there is a debate, where one participant is at a total loss
> for words. Without further help, they have lost. Now say that a
> friend offers them another line of argument. With this argument they
> proceed to demolish the opposition and win. This is the model I use,
> even for physical combat.

This comparison is incomplete. If your debater were given a sufficiently good mauling, then as well as being unable to help their side any more (i.e., being out of the contest) they would also suffer _consequences_ (sometimes mispronounced damage, when we drift into talking about just the CC case). If AP lending can avoid those consequences _during_ the contest (by some funkily-described means), then why can't it do so _after_ the contest?

In any event, I'm finding this discussion instructive (as well as somewhat confusing...). I thought I understood the rules on this/how to narrate these situations, but I'm not longer half so sure...

Cheers,
Alex.

Powered by hypermail