At the least they should be implicit. And in that case there should be room for compromise if one of the parties disagrees. It's one of the reasons I have problem with a contest like this where the stated ability doesn't seem to be enough to produce the effects - but I'd accept it if the players both insisted or I could be convinced.
>
>
>> >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.
Not necessarily specific - but certainly some explanation of the effects the swearing was supposed to produce - and I HAVE stated that more than once.
>
>> >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?
Well *I'm* assuming it based on my best effort to reconstruct the sort of events required to get to the stated situation. If your best effort disagrees then that's fine with me.
>
>> 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?
That is certainly not what I said. What I said was that there SHOULD be something in the narrative to at least suggest that it is appropriate. What I do not agree with that there should be a specific statement to that effect.
For instance:
If a Great Troll is walloping a Hero with a Maul, intending to crush
his skull and with an AP bid to match.
If the Hero defends with Close Combat, Sword and Shield
If the result is success vs success with the Hero losing half the AP
bid, leaving him just in the contest.
I would feel it reasonable to state that the Hero caught the blow on
his shield, but that now his shield arm is numb and possibly broken.
Now there is no explicit statement that the Troll is trying to hurt the Hero's shield arm but it IS reasonable given the narrative.
That is the sort of thing I mean - no explicit statement, but the result follows from the stated actions.
>
>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.
I hope my explanation has dealt with that objection.
>
>> 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'.
It certainly IS what I've been saying. No maybe you missed the post I made to expressly set out my position but this isn't new stuff.
> 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.
>
OK, I think we're in agreement there, then.,
-- -- "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