Re: Re: Argument overridden

From: Roderick and Ellen Robertson <rjremr_at_...>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:23:53 -0700

> >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,
>
> No, it is not. Neither of these is likely to be affected by harsh
language..
>
> > and the contest has not yetb
> >concluded. You are at least partialy pre-judging the outcome of the
> >contest.
>
> I disagree. Indeed if the AP represent anything then they must
> reflect the fact that the infantryman is close to victory.

So if you won't let the cavalryman change tactics from verbal to physical, what *will* you let him do? Force him to continue woith an ability that has obviously failed him thus far? Let him change only to another verbal ability? Make him back down before he loses his remaining AP?

> >> >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?
>
> The undermining of the will to cross the bridge, of course.

This only occurs when he runs out of AP. If he doesn't have the will to attack the foot soldier, he doesn't have the will to continue the contest: ergo, he has lost.

And as I mentioned before, violence is *more* likely when someone is frustrated.

RR
It is by my order and for the good of the state that the bearer of this has done what he has done.
- Richelieu