OK i agree with that.
>
>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.
How on earth do you get that ? I say that the character needs to use at least part of an action to get out of the tentacles and you say that I am not allowing any way out ? Isn't that what you meant by removing restrictions narratively ?
> You assume that the entanglement is
>complete even though the contest is still under way.
I've no idea where you get that from either.
> 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.
No, that is wrong. He won't be COMPLETELY entangled and helpless until he has been reduced to zero AP. The "uncertainty principle" is about the enduring effects of losing the contest. Being partially entangled (which is the issue here) can only be a circumstance within the contest in any ordinary situation.
>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.
That makes no sense to me. There are no LASTING effects from the contest until afterwards, but the circumstances within the contest can certainly include severe problems.
> 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.
Yes, that's right.
>
>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.
Well you don't see what has gone before ! You can't assume that there can never be a situation where these actions wouldn't fit what has happened in previous exchanges.
> 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.
Taken on their own, no.
> 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.
Well if you are saying that you can completely ignore, say, that the character fell over in the previous exchange, then I disagree.
>
>>>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.
It's a circumstance within the contest, not a lasting effect of the contest (like a wound). So it fits perfectly.
> 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.
Why shouldn't something that - according to the rules - represents low APs occur when the character loses APs ?
> 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.
How you sue it is up to you.
>
>>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.
I have to disagree. An action with a 1 AP bid will often be insignificant (unless the APs are really low) even with the best possible result (such actions are described as "inconsequential" on p68). Even a marginal success at an attempt at a one-shot kill in an extended contest ought to be more than that.
-- -- "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