> > 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.
Yes exactly, he isnt actualy crossing the bridge, he is only trying to.
> > 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.
There is no actual force or effect in glorantha that has robbed the cavalryman of the use of his legs or ability to command his horse. That is what the contest is about, and the contest has not yetb concluded. You are at least partialy pre-judging the outcome of the contest.
> >
> >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.
What effect of previous exchanges is being ignored? Previous exchanges have affected the relative AP totals, reflecting the characters relative confidence and motivation. Those effects are fully simulated by the AP situation which is not being pore-empted or ignored in any way. What effects of previous exchanges are you refering to?
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail