Well that's a good thing.
>
>> >>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.
No, I'd want some sort of description of how the character is going to get out of the tentacles. Hacking at the tentacles to cut them or make them let go would be a good choice for close combat. The issue isn't so much *which* skill so much as *how* the skill used is going to produce the result.
> But the escape skill wouldn't reflect the attack - would
>that also attract a situational modifier??
Well that's another reason for having the escape as a separate action. If the abilities required are too different it makes more sense to do it as 2 actions, (just like jumping over the hedge and attacking being resolved as 2 actions on p189).
>
>The narrative escape from the tentacles was there in the first clause, 'I
>slip free from the tentacles...'
You mean the player dictating the result instead of using an action and rolling the dice ? That's what it looks like.
>
>> > 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.
No, that's not the case, unless you really do mean the player dictating results rather than describing what their character is attempting to do. The escape happens the same way as getting entangled did - it's a narrative event produced by a combination of the actions and the results of the dice rolls. So the player has to choose an action which is appropriate to producing the result of escaping, just as the thing had to use an action which is appropriate to producing the result of partially entangling the Hero.
> 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.
That's because your character *is* actually entangled. It would be
very confusing to have all sorts of "possible" results within a
contest.
>
>
>>>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.
Well as far as I can see it is definitely NOT the case that the rules are designed to work that way. The reference on p68 I quoted referred specifically to wounds, the section on p188 talks about avoiding "permanent" effects and again wounds are the examples. I can't see anything which states that circumstances which can be changed by actions within the contest come under that rule.
> 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.
I certainly don't have to concede that my reading of the rules is a "house rule". So far as I can tell it is your version that is the "house rule".
>
>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.
That is not clear to me. Certainly AP are used to reflect things that - from a narrative perspective - ought to have some effect. While I am not suggesting that the effect should primarily be game mechanical penalties to abilities it can't be ruled out.
>
>>>>>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?
I'm making a general point, that actions have to fit in with the narrative. SO it's not just a question of "how far back" it's a case of how many possible narratives you want to consider.
> 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.
What about the other examples ?
>
>>>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.
I can't think of anything I've said which would make you think I'd rule differently - unless there were narrative circumstances that made such an action difficult or impossible.
> If you had bought the knockdown with the 7AP method then I'd
>impose game mechanical penalties.
Well that's the rules - unless you mean penalties beyond the -1 hurt lasting for the contest (and beyond ?)
>
>> >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.
>
From my point of view the circumstances of the contest always matter
and AP changes produce changes in those circumstances. Bigger
changes in AP produce bigger shifts in the circumstances. I can't
find anything in the rules that contradicts this.
-- -- "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