Re: Extended Contest - Argument Overridden

From: BEThexton <bethexton_at_...>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:15:19 -0000

This is no doubt one of those IMO, YGMV things, that may also be clarified a bit if you have things sketched out or described in more detail.

My conception was that that the time needed to draw sword and get the horse going was long enough that a defiant threat was a reasonable defense--if the threat fails, you are a sitting duck and will be bowled over by the horse or thwacked by the sword, but if it works he doesn't actually charge, or pulls up before contact, losing his nerve. Obviously that would not work so well in the middle of an established melee, and in that situation I'd give a major negative modifier.

In general, when your opponent takes a major change of tactics, there is often a choice of immediately changing to a new ability to deal with it, or taking one more 'defense' with the old one. So if you are in a melee and your opponent decides to run away, your defense to that first action could be with your sword (after that he is out of range most likely). If you are trying to persuade someone to buy something, and they decide to resort to force, you can make that one last offer before they bop you. And so on.

I guess another way of putting that is, when someone totally changes their tactics, I view the first action as in part the intention to do things differently, but they aren't all the way there yet. Their opponent can either agree with the change, or try to block it.

Obviously story circumstances won't always make that appropriate, but it works for me a rule of thumb. But I accept that many other people will not view it that way.

--Bryan

Powered by hypermail