On Thursday, October 16, 2003, at 07:25 PM, Alex Ferguson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 02:04:28PM -0400, Dave Camoirano wrote:
> > > Then again, I'm not at all sure this
> > > makes much in the way of procedural sense; as I mentioned before,
> my
> > > personal test of whether something is the 'same' contest is
> precisely
> > > whether the objective has changed -- here it explicitly has, and
> I'd be
> > > very much inclined to say it's a new contest. Granted there are
> cans
> > > of worms there, but...
>
> > Lots. What's to stop anyone (including opponents and other NPCs) from
> > just saying "ok, I run away. New contest!" when they're at 1 AP. How
> is
> > anyone going to actually lose unless their opponent causes them to
> lose
> > their starting AP total in one swell foop?
>
> Because it's the GM's call whether it starts a new contest or not. (If
> you want to make HQ narrator-abuse-proof, good luck to you...) Nor is
> 'running away' always going to be possible, or desirable.
>
> The 'worms' in question are more to do with possible stop/start
> contests
> -- e.g., you run away, but then get caught up with again, etc.
This is one of the reasons for a contest not to be over until someone reaches 0 AP. As Roderick stated, if someone tries to withdraw from a contest, the opponent may allow them. That's the only way for a contest to end without someone reaching 0. Otherwise, all sorts of abuse is possible. A narrator can certainly not allow an action that a player wants to attempt but one of the principles encouraged in HQ is "try not to say no". There will, of course, be outrageous requests occasionally made but even those should be worked with, if possible.
In any case, there's no such thing as "narrator abuse" since the narrator (or GM or whatever) has final say in his or her game. No matter what the rules say, the narrator can always make an exception, house rule or ignore it completely. I don't plan on listing every possible exception that can arise since that would just be a bit much.
I have yet to see an example of something that would warrant a new contest rather than a change of objective in the current contest.
I suggest rereading pp 70-71, "Switching Abilities" and "Withdrawing From an Extended Contest".
> > > Needless to say it doesn't make a great deal of simulationist
> sense,
> > > and
> > > is also potentially a recipe for someone feeling somewhat hosed
> > > "gamistly" -- if you decide to withdraw from a contest because
> you're
> > > getting a hiding, if your opponent decides to 'pursue', chances are
> > > you'll be comparably hosed in trying to do that, too.
>
> > That's exactly why it *does* make sense from a simulationist POV. If
> > you're getting the tar kicked out of you and are down to 2 AP, you're
> > probably hosed no matter what. Don't forget, the 'A' in AP stands for
> > 'advantage'. If you're that disadvantaged (backed into a corner,
> frex),
> > why should you be able to just say "bye!" and get away?
>
> It stands for 'advantage' (or dis-) in the context of the original
> contest, and its objectives. If those are entirely changed, that
> degree
> of advantage may not (or may, that's not what I'm arguing) be
> meaningful
> in the slightest. It's not as if every 2AP in combat consists of being
> cornered (or indeed that every situation you might want to withdraw
> from
> is combat).
No, it stands for 'advantage' (or dis-) in the context of the current contest, regardless on its current objectives.
And you're correct: not every 2 AP means your cornered. It could mean you're flustered and confused in a debate and not able to think straight. Even if you change your ability and objective, you are still going to be flustered and confused and not able to think straight.
You could be exhausted and almost too tired to continue. Even if you change your ability and objective, you are still going to be exhausted and almost too tired to continue.
If you're exhausted due to climbing a mundane mountain (and since this is a pivotal part of the adventure, the narrator has made it an extended contest), you could, for instance, switch to your "Fly" feat which not only is 10 points higher but is now against a resistance of 14. You're still exhausted from the climb but due to the increase in ability and the decrease of opposition, you still have a better chance now of getting to the top. Of course, the fact that you were supposed to climb the mountain for whatever reason will be dealt with later...
> > On the other hand, one of the the big reasons for changing the goal
> of
> > a contest is to give yourself a better chance of winning.
>
> You make it sound as if 'winning' were somehow independent from 'the
> goal of the contest'; it's not like these are likely to be
> interchangeable, or of equal value, even.
No, winning is not independent of the goal but the goal is certainly changeable. If I change to goal from "climb to the top" to "fly to the top", you probably still want to win the contest.
> > If your 'Sword and Shield Fighting' is 3W and you're losing but your
> > 'Run Like the Wind' ability is 15W2 (and it turns out your opponent's
> > 'Chase Down Wuss is only 6W), you probably have a decent chance of
> > turning the tide on the contest.
>
> Possibly, but in such cases it's even more arguable whether it does
> actually still resemble 'the same contest' in any credulity-sustaining
> sense.
It's the same contest, just the objective has changed. I don't see why you think it wouldn't be, especially with this example. Someone losing a fight attempting to withdraw is, I would think, a common occurrence and certainly a reasonable change in the objective of a contest. Again, reread p 71.
Camo
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail