Re: Re: Argument overridden

From: Paul Andrew King <paul_at_...>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:39:54 +0100


> > >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?

He's free to use any ability that's consistent with his mental state - close to backing down and letting the infantryman across. If he doesn't have any decent alternative then that's a limit of the character. I'm assuming that the contest has been going on for several rounds but that seems reasonable given the AP totals. Actually, backing down would be a quite reasonable option since it could let him save a bit of dignity and if it was that important to go first I don't see that it would be based on a swearing contest when one of them had a horse.

>
>> >> >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.

That's an all-or-nothing interpretation. Why can't he be in a state where he's not (quite) willing to back down yet without the will to force the issue ?

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

But he's not frustrated - he's LOSING.

-- 
--
"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