Firstly the actions available, and the modifiers applicable are determined by the circumstances of the contest, as described in the narrative. Remember the point of the rules is to support the narrative.
Actions in the contest may affect these circumstances - in addition
to affecting the AP total. Indeed this is clearly implied by the
list of things that the AP total may represent (p68). I see no
reason to restrict this to physical limits as some have suggested
(there is nothing on the rules to say otherwise)
Moreover the narrative must include explanations of how the action is supposed to influence the situation - this is, after all, the point of matching AP bids to actions.
Going to the particular example it was a premise of the contest that swearing COULD win the contest. I am not sure that I buy this myself, but it is a premise of the contest. Indeed if anyone wants to rule out or severely limit such psychological attacks then I have absolutely no objection whatsoever. But there must be some explanation of how it is going to win. And this explanation has to be applied to the victories in the extended contest, and of necessity losses and transfers - especially adding up to the major advantage shown in the AP totals must have some effect on the target's mindset.
So my central point is that the narrative describes the changing
conditions of the contest, including psychological effects on the
participant, and reflected by the AP changes. These conditions may -
and often will - affect the actions available. MY reading - and it
is mine and I do not claim that it is binding on anyone else - of the
likely course of the contest based on the description given
(including the AP totals) was that the described action did not fit
into the narrative. This is not an arbitrary decision, and in
actual play any such decision would follow from the actual narrative
generated in the contest. Ruling out such a decision a priori
effectively rules out the use of APs to adequately measure the
psychological dimension of the contest - even though such a use is
given in the rules.
Anyone who is uncomfortable with the idea that actions in an extended contest might impose psychological limits on the actions available is of course quite free to limit the use of such actions - either banning them altogether or making the AP bids allowed minimal - possibly only when player characters are the target. Such an approach would be consistent - and I have no objection to it - but this is not the situation in the example given.
Powered by hypermail