> Well, that might as well have been posed as an _actual_ loss of the
> contest, the way you phrase both examples, so it's not really the
case
> in point. If the contest is over, it's over, and we apply
consequences
> as appropriate, and see what happens next. And your suggested
> difference between the way you suppose I'd narrate it, and the way
you
> suppose you would, is that I seemingly fail to impose any
consequences
> at the end of a contest, on the self-described defeated party -- a
> curious lapse on my part! I feel I must flame myself for lax GMing
at
> once. Though hopefully someone will save me the trouble. ;-)
Ok, fair enough. My point is that if you want to start a new contest, and are losing the old contest, then you have to forfeit the old contest first. You can't just leave it hanging.
In the 'nut the lawspeaker' example suppose you're in a case over the ownership of a sheep. If you drop the sheep ownership contest to nut the lawspeaker that's fine IMHO. You forfeit the sheep owning contest and start a combat one, but nutting the lawspeaker isn't going to win you any sheep.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail