Good morning all.
I've been giving this general issue some thought based on "what would I do in my game?" and think it has to come down to a case by case basis. I'll try and elaborate a few of my thoughts with regard to presented examples below.
> Alex Ferguson
>
> Well, I think this all depends on what we mean by 'winning' and 'losing'
> in the context of the contest's narrative. To take an extreme case, if
> I'm getting creamed by the Law speaker at the tribal moot (down to 1AP in
> a debate), and I decide to <Trotsky impersonation> *nut!* </Trotsky>
> him one, I think it'd be sheer artifice to say "sorry, you're still
> starting at 1AP as this is the same contest". (One might in fact start
> inflating one's estimate of the scale of the defeat in the original
> contest, but...)
Using Alex's "nut the lawspeaker" example, I have meandered to the following whilst typing:
The attack is made as part of the same contest requiring a desperation stake level AP bid: you are about to break all social conventions by offering violence and is nutting the lawspeaker really going to help your position in the debate. The attack is made using "relationship to clan" or similar, versus the lawspeakers equivalent: the physical effects of the attack are (possibly) less important than the social consequences of your action.
If you loose, the result is damage to all interactions with the clan, up to
dying = exiled.
If your AP bid was enough to reduce the lawspeaker to 0 or less, well
obviously he was an idiot to rile such an important personage. He gets the
penalty, after all, violence is always an option.
If the lawspeaker looses, but still has AP, the contest could continue and
he can now use your scurrilous descent to physical violence to additionally
augment his arguments with suitable abilities (eg cite precedent &
relationship to clan).
The physical effects of the attack could be resolved as a (simultaneous) unrelated action: this may mean that one or other party may be in no fit state to continue the debate.
Also, now the contest is over, either Mr Lawspeaker or his best buddy Mr Clan Champion may wish to take the matter further, anyone for a trial by combat?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that whilst you may perform an action which you perceive as attempting to change the goal of a contest, it's important to look at the action in the light of the original contest.
Now, thinking about the bridge example which began the whole thing.
> Alexander Smith
>
> I did an extended contest trial run with the gamers, doing a simple
> scenario of two people trying to cross a narrow bridge from opposite
> ends. After figuring out that the healer wouldn't stand up to the
> cavalry soldier, we switched sample characters and had the cavalry
> guy face the trooper. The contest to see who got across first started
> out as a swearing contest. Insults were traded merrily, with modifiers
> for an intimidating horse not stopping the trooper's Swear
> Like a Trooper
> ability, until the foot soldier was ahead (33 AP to 8 AP), whereupon the
> cavalry soldier charged with his horse.
>
> What should happen then? He runs down the soldier but loses the argument?
> Runs past the trooper and gets out of the contest before it is ended,
> though running past makes him win the overall bridge crossing situation?
> Should I have discarded the contest and started another one?
> Or have the horse injure the trooper, giving him a penalty to his swearing
(or would
> (or would that be a bonus)? Or have the trooper attempt to scare the horse
when
> it charges?
>
> It just seems odd doing a contest and then having a preemptive strike
> make it all meaningless.
Now this is with a lot of thinking and hindsight whilst the debate has been ongoing, however, I would keep the AP as they are, the contest continues because nothing has changed: this IS the same crossing the bridge contest. The cavalry trooper decides how much effort he is going to put into it and then describe the action, eg from low AP - nudge horse forward a bit - to charge hell for leather, maximum bid. This IS the same crossing the bridge contest
Since in the example you said "the cavalry soldier charged with his horse" this is a high to maximum bid and will likely resolve the situation in one exchange. This action will require the horse to at least gather itself and back up a bit if not be wheeled about for a run up. The foot soldier could then use an ability such as agile/nimble/skirmisher keyword/tactics (possibly with an appropriate modifier) to nip through the available opening.
Assuming this ends the contest, then physical injuries would I be appropriate in my opinion: a big scary beat going at speed is involved. Perhaps the foot soldier gets trampled/barged out of the way. The horse may shy and throw the cavalry trooper. If the contest isn't over, then the foot soldier obviously mistimed his move, but the contest continues...
I hope this helps somebody - I think mulling it all over has certainly helped me.
Cheers
Meirion
Powered by hypermail