Re: Implicit and explicit factors in Extended Contests

From: Benedict Adamson <yahoo_at_...>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 02:01:04 +0000


Roderick and Ellen Robertson wrote:
...
> The Implicit expectation is that you will advance towards your contest
> [goal] - not just "get in a position to take an action", but actually gain on
> your opponent. This is my problem with the "you have to fix the problem
> before you go on" theory. "Fixing a problem" (whether psyching yourself up
> or getting up from the floor) is, to me, treading water without going
> forward. Every action should have the possibility of going forward - What
> happens when "I spend the round getting up" turns into a Crit-Fumble and I
> get the 3x transfer? Wow, I *really* must have psyched myself up! So much so
> that...err...he sees how psyched I am and gets scared ?!? "I [fix the
> problem] and [do a suitable action]" both fixes the problem, *and* advances
> me towards my goal. If the narrator wants me to make a larger bid, or take a
> penalty, or specify how I'm fixing the problem that's okay. But saying "You
> can't do Y until you do X" was not my intention when working on the rules.
...

A small AP gain or an AP loss means not 'fixing the problem' (you are still on the floor). A big gain or a transfer means fixing the problem AND advancing towards your goal (you leap, in cinematic slow-motion, over your opponents head, spinning your sword blade to strike him just as you land). Of course, you will get a big gain only if you take a big risk (bid high) or you are highly able (big ability rating), which seem right.

I've done exactly this in a Big Climatic Battle Scene: after the Zorak Zorani smashed by PC to the ground with a tree-trunk maul, my PC's action was to run up the maul to chop him in the head (a big bid) to try to save the situation. The Narrator did not insist I do 'get up' action first, and a good thing too. Just how exciting can 'I get up' be?

Powered by hypermail