>>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.
>
> OK i agree with that.
I can see where we disagree about the rules. I think it is clear to everyone actually but the discussion has helped me decide a few things about how I run the game.
> >>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 ?
It depends. I can see an implication that you wouldn't allow the use of close combat without a situational modifier in this. Despite the fact that close combat is what I'd use to try and stab the beast. Roderick's statement of 'I slip free of the tentacles and stab it in the eye' wouldn't be enough for you to allow the use of unmodified close combat, correct? I haven't stated how I was going to slip free. Instead you'd want some kind of escape skill. But the escape skill wouldn't reflect the attack - would that also attract a situational modifier??
The narrative escape from the tentacles was there in the first clause, 'I slip free from the tentacles...'
> > 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.
because you want me to escape using a game mechanic rather than simply relying on the narrative. If I bid to escape you might require a certain level of AP bid but if you are restricting my actions based on a narrative enclosure then I have to assume I _am_ actually entangled - not possibly entangled.
>>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.
As far as I can see however it is the way that the game mechanics are designed to work. Obviously it is within your remit to change the way they work in your game but I think you have to concede that it _is_ a house rule rather than the game design.
There are no effects from AP bids beyond the loss/gain of APs that reflect the actions that take place in the narrative but not the abilities of the participants.
>>>>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".
>
> 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.
How far back do you have to go? If I am in a double nelson then "I slip from his double nelson and do a reverse scissors leg-lock on him". That reflects the flow of the narrative. You agree the bid and roll the dice.
>>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.
Not completely ignore but if the player simply says that he rolls to his feet and throws a dagger at the troll that knocked him over then I'd allow him to use his dagger throwing skill at full value. He has narratively dealt with the narratively imposed disadvantage - no game mechanics necessary. If you had bought the knockdown with the 7AP method then I'd impose game mechanical penalties.
> >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 difference is in the loss of AP involved. A 20 or 30 AP bid would put the contest over for beginning heroes. Obviously the narrative effect of that is bringing the contest to a resolution - much more effective than a 1AP bid. The narrative would also allow for a more expansive and daring description of activity reflected by that bid. If the contest was not over however there would be no penalties on the skills of the characters. The game mechanics do not allow for that.
Stephen
Powered by hypermail