Riding down a person to get across a bridge is perfectly reasonable, especially if you've been reduced by his insults and insinuations. Its actually a pretty common reaction in the real world: two guys insult each other until one is goaded into attacking the other (and then gets busted for "throwing the first punch").
The classic example of "crossing a bridge" is Robin Hood vrs Little John, which proceeds almost exactly as this example did - bantering leads to fighting.
Remember that in this case the goal was to "Cross the bridge" - if you can pummel your opponent into unconsciousness, leap over him, force him into the water, or reduce him to a whimpering puddle of tears through your insults, go for it. You'll get across the bridge.
> My general philosophy for contests is that the narrative description
> is primary - the rules are there to provide an mechanical system
> which supports and gives direction to the narrative. Ability
> switches are fine provided they make sense within the context of the
> narrative. I don't think that this particular switch does because of
> the nature of the contest and because the narrative must take into
> account the weak position of the cavalry officer (invoking "free
> will" as a reason for ignoring that is equivalent to - say -
> insisting that a merchant who is losing a bargaining contest can call
> on his guards to expel his opponent without any justification).
Umm, ever see a sign saying "We reserve the right to refuse service" in a restaurant or bar? A merchant can (and sometimes does) eject unwanted customers. While you may win short-term, you can easily lose long-term as your ejected customers tells all his friends to avoid your place, or the ridden-down soldier's buddies come for you in the dark of night.
You *can* always "surrender" - "He's going to ride me down and saber me?!? Sh*t, it's not worth it, I let him cross. Then I tell his commanding officer what he did." That's a victory without rolling dice.
> If the cavalry man had simply decided to ride across at the start
> then that would be fine - it's not the ability I object to, it's just
> that I believe that the switch of ability IN THIS CASE does not take
> adequate account of the state of the contest.
He was feeling inadequate in his verbal skills, so decided to up the stakes to physical violence? Sounds absolutely realistic to me. Frustration is a general precurser to mayhem.
RR
It is by my order and for the good of the state that the bearer of this has
done what he has done.
- Richelieu
Powered by hypermail