I disagree with that. The nature of the contest is very much defined by the actions, as described in the narrative
> If one party suddenly lost interest in crossing the
>bridge, then there might be a problem determining whether and how to
>assess penalties since he didn't wait around to lose the bridge-
>crossing contest. However, simply changing from "insult the guy 'til he
>backs down" to "charge through and knock him down" is not a change of
>objective.
>
>
>> and because the narrative must take into
>> account the weak position of the cavalry officer
>
>The narrative should be taking that into effect, but since the contest
>is not yet over, the narrative should not be reflecting a weak position
>that cannot be recovered from.
Well I'm certainly not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that given the nature of the contest someone who is getting close to the point of backing down is not likely to make an all-out charge. And given the implicit acceptance of a psychological contest, invoking "free will" to overrule it is especially inappropriate.
> What seems to be happening here is that
>the cavalryman is acknowledging his weak position in the insult contest
>and so is taking advantage of his not-yet-weak physical position. ("I'm
>still on a big freaking horse; why am I letting this guy insult my
>mama?") Deciding to stop bandying words and just charge across seems a
>perfectly reasonable and predictable narrative development to me.
I'd see that as more likely given a stalemate or close to it.
>
>Mechanically, it's the AP that reflect the cavalryman's weak position.
>Those don't change no matter what ability he starts using; he just has
>a much better chance of coming back from behind with his new tactic.
-- -- "The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala Guide to Taoism_ Paul K.
Powered by hypermail