Re: Argument Overridden

From: Stephen McGinness <stephenmcg_at_...>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:44:06 -0000


Hi – I've taken a few of your statements from a number of mails to try consolidating it all! :-)

I think I need to state how I see a contest. A contest represents two opposing parties seeking to impose their direction on the narrative. When the contest is simple then everything is wrapped up into one roll and there's no arguments or changing tack involved.

In an extended contest due to the mechanics of bidding there are a lot of narrative descriptions of what happens during the contest. As far as the rules are concerned no penalties get assigned due to someone else's action upon you unless they impose it through buying hurts for AP.

Your skill may receive a situational modifier because it is not appropriate to the skill the active player uses against you but not because of previous narrative descriptions. Any restrictions imposed narratively against you may be removed narratively (as long as the dice rolls go your way).

Ignoring hurts due to AP buys, all consequences of a contest become game relevant at the end of the contest. They are all potentials until that time – like schroedingers cat. It's only when we open the contest box at the end that we see whether the cat is alive or dead.

Paul Andrew King wrote:
>>player/narrator running the Tentacle beast said "It's entangling
you" and
>>won a good bid (or did a Wound-for-AP transfer), I'd still let the
other
>>player say "I get out of the tentacles and run away (or dodge, or
attack, or
>>whatever), though perhaps with some sort of penalty/Bid restriction.
>
>They're still going to have to do an action which somehow involves
>getting out of the tentacles.

This - for example – you impose a narrative restriction but do not allow a narrative escape. You assume that the entanglement is complete even though the contest is still under way. With the uncertainty principle of contest mechanics the best you can say is that the tentacles are closing about him, not that they have closed. It might influence the choice of skill to be used, or weapon being wielded but, again those are narrative restrictions that can be avoided narratively.

>>Your way seemingly pre-empts actions - "you have to psych yourself
up
>>first". I prefer to say "Yes, you can do that, but you have a
penalty" and
>>let the dice decide if he gets away/attacks/whatever.
>
>Well that would depend on how severe the problem is. I've no issue
>with including fixing the problem as part of an action or using
>penalties in some cases.

And what I believe the point was that the situation is not severe until the contest is resolved – no game modifiers applied. If he narratively describes how he's getting out of the bind he's in then you allow the relevant skill to be used – if he doesn't describe, or hasn't a relevant skill to achieve the effect he's attempting then you impose a situational modifier.

To clarify my thoughts – the situational modifier is applied due to its relevance to the attempted action not due to past narrative events.

>>or to put it another way, you can do that *as part of*
>>your action - "His insults have made me mad, I'm going to charge my
horse
>>into him"; "I slip from his double nelson and do a reverse scissors
leg-lock
>>on him"; "My fear of the Crimson Bat is strong, but my comrades
need help, I
>>charge in".
>
>Assuming that this fits with what has gone before.

I don't see how anything that was written there doesn't fit with what went before. In each case there was a reference to previous events and then a decision by the player about what he intends to do – none of them seem improbable. Whether they are successful depends then upon the roll of the dice.

>>You're right, it is. But that's still no reason to restrict his
actions.
>
>Well that depends on how that showing is told in the narrative.

Included as an example of where I think we disagree. It depends on how relevant his proffered skill is to the needs of the action being bid upon. Obviously a strong narrative case might aid you in deciding relevance though.

>>They certainly have an impact on what the other guy can do, though.
Yes,
>>this guy's been doing poorly and there *is* an impact: a low AP
total.
>
>There are also any effects from the narrative description of that
>explain those losses.

As I said previously the only effects from the narrative should be narrative in basis and possible to circumvent narratively.

>>Where?
>
>We've been through this, and I've produced examples directly from the
>rules, such as being knocked to the ground.

I think that being knocked to the ground doesn't fit well with the uncertainty principle of the pre-conclusion narrative. An opponent might try to knock you to the ground (I'd allow the spending of AP to achieve this rather than a hurt) but the narrative shouldn't make this definite unless the player accepts the knock down in their response to the narrative and uses it in some fashion. Or else they regain their feet and attack within the narrative flow (with no penalty for being prone as, in game mechanical terms, they never were)

>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).

I thought that this _was_ a good example of uncertain narrative – the possibility is open that it is broken or it is not. The difference I think between your game and mine is that I would not assign any penalty to the player with the possibly broken arm whereas, as I read it, you might prevent them from using their shield in future narrative (or only use it with a penalty). My penalty would be narrative – the character would feel the pain as they use the arm narratively – the mechanics wouldn't reflect this.

>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.

They make the narrative more exciting and possibly closer to coming to a conclusion. But with regard to penalties on the characters skills then that is correct – there is no more effect of losing 1AP than 20AP.

Powered by hypermail