As I say it should flow from the narrative. In a "real" game it would not be arbitrary (or it wouldn't happen).
>
>> Not exactly. My argument is based on the nature of this
>> psychological attack, and the "facts" are the (assumed) effect on
>him.
>
>Assumed by you, but not based on any specific statement of action in
>the contest.
Since we don't have any, it's all assumptions.
>
>> So it is pretty clear that my argument IS (still) being
>misunderstood.
>
>Nothing in the characters actual statements of intent specificaly
>excludes the cavalryman from changing tactics.
Since we don't HAVE any such statements that's an assumption, too.
> You keep raising
>example such as shields being broken, or people being thrown on their
>back. That sort of situational change is driven by statements of
>intent "I try to break his shield", "I charge him and throw him
>back".
I don't agree that there needs to be a direct statement that the action should have a specific result in every case. Especially when an action succeeds better than "expected". The result, should follow from the stated action, and in this case there should be a statement as to how the attack is supposed to work.
> No statement with such a specific goal has been given, and so
>arbitrarily assigning such limitations is IMHO completely
>unwarranted.
The problem with your argument is that you are assuming both that my idea of how the contest would work out is wrong AND that I would make the same decisions if it were. That's wrong. In real play my decision would follow form the course of the actual narrative.
>
>> > However, he has not lost the
>> >argument. Resorting to violence while arguing is pretty
>consistent - if you
>> >doubt this, try going into your nearest bar and swear continuely
>at a guy
>> >bigger than you - see if he hits you or runs away first...
>>
>> And I haven't disagreed with this either. I've explicitly said
>that
>> in differing situations it is a real possibility.
>
>But there isn't anything specific to this situation that makes it
>different. Lets suppose there are several similar situations that
>arrise during the scenario. Why would you prevent the character from
>switching tactics because he's losing in this contest, yet allow him
>to switch tactics while losing in another?
THat would depend on HOW he's losing and what switch he's trying. As I keep saying it depends on the narrative situation, not just the abstract AP balance.
>
>> >
>> >I do not see him changing tack as "ignoring the psychological
>damage" -
>> >more on this in a moment.
>>
>> Again it is not the issue of "changing tack" as the nature of the
>> change. The way I see it the most likely situation is the
>> psychological equivalent of being "thrown to the floor". He's got
>to
>> recover from that before going on an all-out attack.
>
>And if the statement of intent by the troper had been of the "I throw
>him on the floor" variety, fair enough. It wasn't.
How do you know ?
>
>Suppose the Trooper's player had made a statement like "I want to
>intimidate and humiliate him so he doesn't try to force his way
>across". That would be a perfectly valid statement of intent, and if
>it were sufficiently successful of course it would prevent the
>cavalryman from attempting to cross because that's implicit.
>
>The trouble is it also doesn't say anything about letting the trooper
>cross. This is a fair trade off which occurs very frequently in
>HeroQuest. I you want to limit someone's freedom of action, that may
>require limiting the possible consequences of your own action. Again
>breaking someone's shield is a good analogy. If I state I am using a
>shield breaker feat, I am limiting the possible outcomes of that
>exchange and can't expect to kill the guy as a result of it no matter
>what level of success I get.
>
>However this is a very different situation from the one we were
>discussing. The trooper was using his ablity to persude the
>cavalryman to let him cross, but for all his accumulated advantage
>through the use of clever insinuation and insult, he has not yet
>succeeded, the cavalryman has not yet been persuaded, and IMHO must
>be free to pursue whatever course of action he chooses.
>
If you want to make different assumptions about how the contest went, then fine. But don't assume that I would make the same decisions regardless of that, and recognise that your assumptions are just as much assumptions as mine.
-- -- "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