> Alex , replying to me:
>
> > 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.
>
> Well, good question, and I think, good answer. To sound must
> unlike myself, I'm not proposing any quick mechanical fix,
> I'm really just suggesting that there many on occasion arise
> situations which aren't necessarily best covered by
> (rerere)rereading pp70-71, and applying 'em mechanistically.
> There's the small matter of p7, too, after all.
Definitely agreed: it's all to do with experience of the system and/or narrative role playing in general. As an aside, it's only recently clicked how you might use a simple contest sort out any form of physical violence beyond a single shot type situation. Conflict resolution as opposed to task resolution and all that!
Also, whilst I would like to think I could have come up with this reasoning within the timeframe of a table-top game, I have to admit it would probably be more of an "if only I'd done that" revelation at 3am the morning after... ;o)
> > 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 lawspeaker's
> > equivalent: the physical effects of the attack are (possibly) less
> > important than the social consequences of your action.
>
> That's a very plausible construction, actually; certainly
> it'll kill or cure that contest, chances are... OTOH, it
> doesn't completely tidy things up, since we may want to run
> the (new, physical) contest as an EC too (assuming the old
> geezer is 'a bit handy' himself, and this becomes part of the
> evening's entertainment, let us suppose). And if the result
> of the one depends on the result of the other, then we're
> perilously close to The Dreaded Contest Nesting (gasps of
> horror from the audience).
I'm suggesting drawing a line under the first contest as quickly as possible: one roll with maximum AP bid to sort out what happened. Then the next contest can proceed immediately.
So, returning to "nutted lawspeaker gets punchy". When the fight kicks off, you may have already earned yourself exile (if he won) or shown that the lawspeaker was an overblown snot who didn't have the right to talk to such an important personage in such a way (if you won).
In the event that it's inconclusive (both still having AP) I see it as both participants withdrawing from the original contest (in the same way a fight would be over if both parties decide to run away).
Sort out the fisticuffs with and extended or simple contest to taste! If someone survives, the ensuing lawsuit would be another new contest, rather than restarting the interrupted one.
> > 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.
>
> Well, for that reason it's not strictly speaking unrelated...
Apologies: I meant simple contest not unrelated action.
> > 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.
>
> That's exactly what I'm struggling to say myself; thank you.
You're welcome.
Cheers
Meirion
Powered by hypermail