Re: Implicit and explicit factors in Extended Contests

From: Paul Andrew King <paul_at_...>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 18:02:02 +0000


>Paul Andrew King wrote:
>...
>> The problem I have is that this doesn't seem to leave room for
>> cautious bids based on improving the chance to win, without directly
>> contributing to winning.
>
>
>Either an action contributes towards winnning (perhaps only a little),
>or it doesn't, so that statement makes no sense to me. Or do you have a
>hang up about 'indirect' contributions?

No, but I got the impression (rightly or not) that Roderick wasn't happy with actions that did not directly contribute to success.

> Are you focusing on the tasks
>being done rather than the objective, perhaps?

No, I don't think so.

>
>To kill an opponent in a combat, a PC does NOT need to attack using
>Close Combat. They can perofrm actions that render the oponent helpless,
>giving a Complete Defeat, and have the description of the Complete
>Defeat involve a sword blow.

Yes, I fully agree.

>
>What about augmentations? They can be said to indirectly contribute to
>victory.

Augments aren't used directly in exchanges - they're unrelated actions if they're action at all.

>
>> Fixing a problem improves the character's
>> position by depriving the opponent of an advantage.
>...
>
>The HQ contest resolution is zero-sum (your Major Victory is their Major
>Defeat), so there is no rules difference between removing their
>advantage and giving them a disadvantage.
>

More to the point, AP changes (other than loans) are always losses to one side, so all effects are expressed as a "worsening" of position.

-- 
--
"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