> 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.
But in order to completely ndermine the cavalryman's will the trooper has to win the contest, as it is he has only weakened it and not destroyed it yet. The contest is about preventing him crossing. He hasn't los yet, so he's obviously still free to _try_ to cross. The only argument is how he can try, and I don't see any reason to constrain his player from any tactic he chooses to use.
More generaly, you are establishing a rule that I, as a player in a game you were running, would be very concerned about. How many APs is enough to be able to make free choices? Especialy in contests that are establishing free choice in the first place? Are my choice of tactic going to be free or not depending on what initial tactic I choose? It all seems very nebulous and arbitrary.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail