> > ...That kind of pre-judgement of the outcome would seriously
> >piss me off.
>
> As I say it should flow from the narrative. In a "real" game it
> would not be arbitrary (or it wouldn't happen).
Ok, so limiting action is only justified if there are narative (stated) reasons for it.
> >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 you were assuming that there had been specific statements in the narative to this effetct. Shame you didn't mention that earlier.
> >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.
Well yes, but why would I spontaneously assume that the character's actions should be limited, when there had been no stated reasons for doing so?
> 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.
Sop you reserve the right as narator to assert limitations even when there is nothing in the narative to suggest that they are appropriate?
Ok, but that seems to me to 1) be pre-empting or over-ruling the stated intentions of characters, 2) encouraging lazy statements of intent by the players, 3) possibly even discouraging specific statements by the players since they might well be over-ruled anyway. None of which I think are at all desirable.
> 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.
That's not what you've been saying, all you've invoked so far are arguments based on his supposed 'mental state' reflected in his low AP score, and protestations against 'nullifying the contest'. So long as we're actualy on the same page - that restrictiing available actions should be based on specific narative reasons for doing so and can't be just imagined up by the narrator, we're fine.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail