Re: Re: Argument Overridden

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 02:12:04 +0000


On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 04:56:07PM -0000, stephenmcg_at_... wrote:
> Both goals and tactics might change during that contest but the
> contest must be resolved before resetting AP totals.

Isn't this slightly shades of, "This axe has been in my family for 10 generations. We've had to replace the handle 5 times and the head 3..."?

> There is a strand of argument that would say that when it turns
> violent then a new contest should be begun ??? perhaps with GM
> assigned penalties to one or both of the parties with new AP totals.

On the subject of positions being misunderstood... I don't think anyone is saying _should_ be begun. What I, at any rate, am saying is _could_ be begun, if it's decided that's the most appropriate means of resolution, specifically where treating it as the same contest would seem incongruous, contrived, narratively self-defeating, or frustrating the legitimate expectations of the player. I'm repeating myself on this, but it does seem to be repeatedly necessary. It's not really material to cite examples where the same contest is an appropriate mechanism (since I agree they exist, not to say predominate), since on those we agree (if we agree as to the appropriateness, at least); the worst in that sense my suggestion can be is redundant, if there were to be no such cases.

> In this case the original contest might not ever be resolved. Which
> in my view would be ending the contest prematurely.

If you end the contest, ipso facto you (ought to!) resolve it. I thought I said this pretty explicitly. You might do so by (in effect) conceding some degree of defeat in it, or 'escaping' it, etc, but those all certainly resolve the matter. There might be less clear cases where the matter isn't really settled, in which case you really haven't ended the contest at all (though as I said, this is untidy enough to be worth avoiding).  

> I???m willing to accept that multiple contests _might_ possibly be
> done simultaneously ??? though what happens when might be problematic
> here ??? especially if you have multiple opponents engaged in both
> contests! :-) The GM would have to be a masochist!!!

It certainly helps... But wasn't it you that suggested we stick to the examples at hand? You seem to be constructing here a vast, if vaguely drawn, vista of Things That Will Go Wrong if one lets the camel's nose one inch inside the tent, without even _reference_ to an actual example. If one were to do this, it would sure be _because_ one were in a situation were two very distinct things were at issue, both worthy of the narrative significance of an EC, but in sufficient conflict as to not make sense as to resolve them as a _single_ EC. This ought to be pretty rare though -- I can't contrive an example off the top of my head I'd feel I _had_ to run that way (much less had it happen). But equally, if the situation arose...

Cheers,
Alex.

Powered by hypermail