> > 2. The other side objects to the new goal. In this case, the contest
> > continues, but probably with new abilities. ("The guy turns and runs
> away."
> > "I draw my bow and shoot him in the back.")
>
>I have difficulty with the idea of it being axiomatic that this is
>necessarily still the same contest; see b), below.
Axiomatic? No, I wouldn't go that far either. Sprinkle "IMO" and other internet nonsense through my e-mails till they seem suitably non-prescriptive. I intended this only as an example of "sufficient to convince me".
>If the guy _is_ trying to alert the guard, then that _is_ an
>opposition of goals, and hence a contest -- and I don't see it's the
>same contest as the previous one (necessarily).
Its only a contest with this guy if the other side try to stop him. I was intending an example where they instead chose to let him tell the guard, and used the time to try and get away - clearly to my mind a different contest. I'm not saying its a *good* example, mind.
>Except in the case of a group contest, possibly.
Lets leave group contests out of this. The straight-forward case is difficult enough, and I'm hazy on the group rules.
> > b. One side will have gained an advantage in the previous contest. If you
> > start a new contest, that advantage is either lost, or you have to
> > introduce extra rules to represent that advantage. I don't like extra
> rules...
>
>But an advantage towards achieving one goal isn't always, uniformly, an
>equal advantage, or even an advantage at all, in achieving an
>arbitrarily different goal. (Examples of this were even handily
>provided by those rushing to refute Paul King: losing an argument may
>make you _more_ inclined to physical violence, rather than less, and it
>seems contrived to assume it'll consistently make you less effective at
>it to boot.)
I think you're confusing two models here. Relative effectiveness is surely modelled by the characters' target numbers, which are not affected by AP numbers (at least in my view).
AP numbers models the "advantage" in that it shows how close you are to winning/losing. This seems pretty imperfect to me, but I don't think it is improved by resetting to time zero when the contest changes form somewhat. It would appear an extra complexity for no extra benefit.
> > d. It breaks the basic theory of HQ that consequences are only worked out
> > when a contest ends. If contests don't end, no consequences!
>
>Well, I already mentioned the possibility of applying consequences
>appropriate to the first goal, at the time of the change-over, many a
>post ago.
Sorry, missed that one. I'll dismiss it out of hand as requiring "evil extra rules" unless you have a neat suggestion to offer.
Cheers,
Graham
Powered by hypermail