That's not what I am saying. It is not the AP's it is the position *reflected* by the AP balance that is at issue (if APs were equal at 8 then my comment about a "frustrating stalemate" would apply, allowing the switch).
>
>later:
>
>>I disagree here. Just as the events of the contest may have
>>(temporary) physical effects within the contest, affecting the
>>actions available (e.g. a character may fall over) they may also have
>>(temporary) psychological effects which affect the actions available
>>to a character.
>
>So in this specific case, what event in the game world prevented the
>cavalryman from deciding to try and force his way through? If there is
>one then fine, I don't think anyone would argue with you, but so far
>you're only been citing nebulous 'narative' reaons why the cavalryman
>can't try what he wants. If there's a real reason, what is it?
I believe that I've explained this more than once, but lets point out exactly how the narrative figures in.
The narrative has to explain HOW the actions taken change the
situation in favour of one character or another.
So the narrative will include an explanation of how success at
swearing leads to the infantryman being in a better position to get
across the bridge.
Now *my* explanation is that the swearing undermines the cavalryman's
morale and the will to cross first. From that it follows that if the
cavalryman is in a bad position and facing imminent defeat (as he is
in the example) he does not have the will to take the decisive action
of actually starting to cross the bridge. Another explanation - if
there is one - may have different effects.
-- -- "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