On the subject of talking past each other... I think this makes you at least the third person to mention this idea that the player would use this as a game-mechanical 'tactic' (in disjunct with any possible gameworld validity of changes of tactic). I'd have thought it would have flowed fairly naturally from the choice of contest mechanism being the narrator's in HQ, and not to mention having said it myself a couple of times: but the point is that whether/when a contest would be 'restarted' in this manner is, I'm suggesting, *entirely* up to the narrator.
> By changing actions you bring different skills and abilities into play
> during the contest and by changing goals you change the consequences
> of the contest if you are victorious. Obviously if you lose then its
> your opponent that dictates the conseuences of the contest.
I don't follow the logic of this. You seem to be saying that what a contest is for is entirely mutable, right up until the moment of victory or defeat; but the AP totals are what's sacrosanct? I think that's definitely putting the mechanical cart in front of the story horse.
> As far as I see it, once you enter a contest then you have to finish
> it and determine the consequences of that contest before entering a
> second one.
I can see why that's game-mechanically clean and convenient; I think it's something of a awkward fit to the twists and turns of actual storytelling (and actual playerly ass-preserving wangling), however.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail