Sure -- I'm not saying you're being overly cathedraexly (you may use that, no charge), I'm saying that I'm not sure it's true _for all possible contests_.
> >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.
It's IMO a contest with him any time capabilities on both sides are being used to opposed ends, e.g. if there's a 'race' to see if he raises the alarm before they get clean away (which to say it's not obligatory to resolve it as one, of course).
> 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.
Or indeed to see if they can get away _after_ the guard is told, much the same difference, sure. Certainly I'd think it seems likely to be a different contest -- perhaps that's not such a great example of the case at issue in that the first contest has 'terminated cleanly', but you have much the same issues: does a disadvantage in the first in any sense 'carry over'; what if one side had instead not simply let the other run away, but he's trying to alert the guard anyway, is it then (necessarily) the same contest after all...?
> >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.
Fairy snuff.
> > > 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).
OK, a less than watertight choice of words, but I'd have thought the gist was still clear enough: if you start off disadvantaged in the verbal conflict, does it necessarily disadvantage you in the subsequent physical one, simply due to the game-mechanical convenience of it being the 'same contest'?
> AP numbers models the "advantage" in that it shows how close you are to
> winning/losing.
Exactly, in other words how close each side is to achieving its goal. If that goal changes, it's at the least time to consider whether the assumptions underlying the contest as it stands still hold true, and if they egregiously don't, to consider some mechanic other than "sorry lads, it's still the same contest, ante up your last AP" (let us say).
> 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.
You pose that as a false opposition. I'm not suggesting that it has to change when the contest changes 'somewhat'; that's a judgement call. Nor do I think it amounts to 'resetting'; one should always be clear what _has_ changed in the meantime from what one was resolving before, and what one is resolving now instead. I don't see how a 'contest infinite loop' is any sort of realistic danger.
> >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.
Nothing very concrete, just "what seems appropriate to the situation". It's not as if consequence are an exact science in the first place, mind. Essentially the question is, is the issue of the first contest in some sense being conceded by the new action, perhaps only to some degree; avoided entirely; or (perhaps most untidily of all) merely being suspended somehow.
Powered by hypermail