That depends on how inured they are to swearing. If you've got some delicate flower for an opponent then swearing might be a very good choice. In a military context a "Sergeant-Major"-type "Bark Orders" ability would be a good try.
>
>> >> >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.
>
>It seemed pretty clear (to me, at least) that the swearing was supposed
>to browbeat, embarrass or otherwise cause the other person to allow him
>to cross first.
>
>You know, a G (or maybe PG) version of a swearing contest can be found
>in the movie "Hook" where Peter and Rufio are having their contest of
>words around the dinner table. It degenerates into a food fight and at
>one point Rufio throws a coconut (or was it a melon?) at Peter. Peter
>deftly defends himself by slicing it in half in midair. There is no
>reason for this to be anything but one extended contest (too pivotal to
>be a simple contest, IMO).
I just don't see how it is going to be a very effective tactic, from the other side of a bridge.
>
>> >> 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.
>
>I couldn't agree more but I wouldn't state that the hero couldn't use
>his shield now. First of all, it's a marginal defeat so the effects
>should be, well, marginal. A -1 with the Hero's next action using his
>shield arm, perhaps. Second, while the result you give is reasonable
>for an effect once the contest is over, it's not for a contest that is
>still ongoing. The section "Narrating Contests" on pp 188-9 covers this
>very well.
Well I read it and it seems to fit very well with the examples. Perhaps you are assuming that I meant a "broken" arm as a possible result rather than a "numb and possibly broken" arm. I would say the latter - the arm is numbed and only "possibly broken" - it could come back to life during the contest and even if it doesn't it could turn out afterwards that it wasn't broken at all ("possibly broken" is how it feels to the character). So far as I can see the only difference is that you are proposing that an AP loss of 1 point has no more effect on the circumstances as described in the narrative than a loss of 20 or 30 APs.
-- -- "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