Re: Argument overridden

From: Paul Andrew King <paul_at_...>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 19:42:14 +0100

>wrote:
>
>> 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.

Yes, that's what I said. The point is that it is undermined to the point where trying to preempt the result by forcing a path across the bridge is not an option. He is still free to use other abilities including the use of abilities that could improve his state of mind to the point where it becomes an option again.

> The contest is about preventing him crossing. He
>hasn't los yet, so he's obviously still free to _try_ to cross.

But not to actually *cross* until he's won - and arguably he's trying to do just that.

> 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.

Well I've already given a reason. And as I have already explained it is normal for the situation as described in the narrative to put some limits on what abilities are usable.

>
>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?

There is no such rule - I thought I was quite clear about that in my previous post. The rule is that you cannot ignore the effects of previous exchanges in the contest. I trust that there is no dispute over that.

> Especialy in contests that
>are establishing free choice in the first place?

Surely the point of this particular contest is to force the result one one of the characters despite their "free will". Given that I see no problem in ruling that if a character is close to success based on the AP totals he is also close to success in the narrative - and taking that into account when actions are decided.

>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.

No more so than in any freeform system. I mean if you want the rounds of the contest to have no effect other than shuffling AP about then go ahead. It's your game. But I'll put narrative first and treat the system as a tool, rather than a game in itself.

-- 
--
"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.