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