Well, among others, and while drawing conclusions about what ought to to do in all possible cases of changing goals, yet, is my biggest difficulty.
> An argument turning into a fight. In this circumstance you are saying
> that the players could try to blag their way in and, if losing,
> abandon the blag attempt and draw their swords
And what, pray, is so ridiculous or abuse-prone about that? We in any event surely agree this is entirely possible, it's simply a matter of what the best mechanic is.
> taking them back to parity
No, starting them off in a new contest, with new AP totals appropriate to what's now being attempted, the abilities being used, and the current circumstances.
> you pointed out that it might be difficult to justify limiting
> their combat abilities based on their previous social interaction.
I did? Not that I'd have argued the reverse, but I don't recall having said it. Old age. ;-)
> Alex wrote in another thread! :-)
> > if you start off disadvantaged in the verbal conflict, does it
> > necessarily disadvantage you in the subsequent physical one, simply
> > due to the game-mechanical convenience of it being the 'same contest'
> It isn't that difficult, if you have been sufficiently browbeaten you may be
> less confident that you will win, less motivated to push the contest to a
> successful conclusion.
Sure, you may be. Or you may not. It depends _entirely_ on the circumstances and the individuals. Saying that this must _always_ be the case, for _all_ possible contests, smacks to me of reverseengineering the rationale from the game mechanic.
> If we are going to accept that social contests are
> as valid as physical ones then I think we have to accept that the effects on
> the mind will be as consequential as the effects on the body.
That's not the issue at all. I'm entirely happy to have contests where the issue is explicitly social, and/or contests where the goal is broadly defined, being decided by social instead of physical means. Don't see what I've said that could make you think differently. What I don't want to have happen is that someone is unreasonably constrained from being to 'cut their losses' in one situation, and attempt something _different_, very likely less desirable overall than the original.
> If it is possible to abandon a previous contest in such situations do you
> honestly believe that a group of players will accept a social defeat unless
> they are certain that the physical option wouldn't have a chance of
> success?? And if you've done it once under such situations how do you avoid
> it - if not less choice then definitely no more. I'd also think twice about
> making social interactions anything but simple contests to avoid that kind
> of problem.
I don't see any resemblance between this and what I'm saying. If social and physical conflict are to establish the same thing, and the one logically feeds into the other, by all means resolve them with one contest. If they're to establish _different_ things (i.e., they're worth distinguishing in your narrative), or if their resolutions are unutterly at odds, then I'm saying they ought to be different contests.
> > I think it can occur legitimately; to stick to the 'running away'
> > example, say, it's quite possible said NPC has been narrated into a
> > position where they're at a considerable disadvantage to winning the
> > fight, but are far from 'cornered'. You potentially then have a choice
> > of how to model this: fiat (he runs away); same contest, maybe with
> > some ad hoc sit-mods to 'compensate' for his (now frankly
> > inappropriate) AP position; or new contest (very possibly just a simple
> > one). The last seems to me to be the least frustrating, done right,
> > not the most so.
> You say that the AP situation is inappropriate but turning your back and
> fleeing combat isn't a real good way of preserving your life - maybe
> slightly better than staying in a fight you're losing
I say it _may_ be inappropriate. If in a given case it is indeed appropriate, fine and hunky-dorey. If it's not, I don't want to have to pretend or contrive otherwise.
> but in now way similar to a normal foot race (that a resetting of AP
> would imply).
Only if, for some unknown reason, you decided that the new contest ought to be resolved as "a normal foot race". The issue to be resolved is escaping from _this_ situation -- assess difficulty and appropriateness accordingly, not to some hypothetical norm.
> > For me, I'd try to confine it to same contest with new sit-mods, or new
> > contest with carry-over/wounds, but the how and which I'm not making
> > any 'written down' suggestions regarding, no.
>
> That's a shame - I was hoping you might persuade me! :-) Reading your post
> my mind was wondering how you could do it. It could be a "yes, but"
> situation. What if you said to the players "yes we can start another
> contest but you convert all of your lost AP into hurts for the purpose of
> the next contest"??
Well possibly in some circumstances, but I don't think it makes much sense to try to make one Big Overarching Rule. For one thing, there are at least two categories of Bad Thing the first contest might result in; it may disadvantage you directly in the followup contest (though that's not the case I'm so concerned with, since if that's true, chances as it _might as well_ be resolved as the same contest, at least if the disadvantage is to comparable degree); or it may affect you in some other manner, less relevant or irrelevant to the second contest, but perhaps as serious, or more so. Beating up someone one can't out-argue may not be made any more _difficult_ by one's debating faux-pas, but doing so may have other undesirable consequences. (Isn't that right, Orlanth?) Or indeed possibly some combination of the two.
> > totals as-is correspond (in an inexact way, obviously) with existing
> > established past events of the narrative; if those past events have
>
> They correspond to previous actions that 'appear' to have established past
> events. Slight difference but one consistent with the difference between
> 'it feels like the troll has broken your arm' and 'the blow from the troll
> broke your arm'. If it only feels like it then it isn't an established
> fact - that is only revealed after the contest is over. Nothing in a
> contest is established until the end.
False generalisation; nothing with permanent, irreversible effects can be established to have happened, with the further exception of things that are covered by 'wounds'. It doesn't mean that _nothing_ has happened. If I've backed my opponent up onto a balustrade in the middle of a rapier duel, then that hasn't merely appeared to happen, it really did, honest! (Well, short of a nearby M*nd*c*nt M*st*c going and R*f*ting the whole thing, say.) It doesn't mean to say that he can't jump down (or chandelier-swing, or whatever). It certainly ought to be taken into account if he at that moment decides to escape by jumping off the other side, as opposed to deciding to try to escape when I had him 'cornered' as per another supposition (though both might correspond to the same AP total).
> I'd say [APs] measure how closely one or other side is to achieving an
> advantage over an opponent. Given that, the goals might switch depending on
> the actions and indicated goals.
But that doesn't make sense, certainly not in the most general case. An advantage in getting one towards one goal doesn't help you establish some arbitrary other goal. (Unless you're prepared to detach the description of the contest from the mechanical APs, essentially completely, which I'm not.)
> > in goal may be essentially consistent with the previous one (abandon
> > current sub-goal in favour of a new way of doing what you actually want
> > to achieve overall), in which case fair enough. But if that's not the
> > case, why are those AP totals still relevant, except to the degree they
> > happen to correspond to past events that'd facilitate or hinder the new
> > goal? What are they actually now measuring?
> They are measuring how much advantage one party has over another. Past
> events give some measure of how successful immediate changes of goal might
> be given the current level of advantage or disadvantage they are at.
Exactly! That's why one cannot simply change the goal of a contest _regardless_ of those events, which is to say, the current set of circumstances.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail