> Well that depends on the extent to which you feel that that
> particular rule reflects "reality" rather than being a feature of the
> mechanics. In my view it is probably there to make sure that
> contests end in a reasonable amount of time.
Regardless of the reason (or indeed, reality -- don't make me say the 'N-word'!), one ought not to entirely ignore the effect. To take a largely hypothetical extreme case, if everyone involved in a contest made _only_ 'improving my position, getting ready to go for a win' actions, nevertheless the contest _would_ end, and someone would win, and someone would lose. (Which actually makes perfect sense for some contests, e.g. generals well up their Sun Tzu maneuvering for position before a battle -- that they never actually fight...)
> And I don't think that anyone was insisting on such actions, just that
> actions had to make narrative sense [...]
Well, aside from 'Kathy', at least... I agree, the consensus here seems to be somewhere between "yes, but...", and "yes, of course!".
> >Indeed, as mentioned I think by someone else, one might argue that if an
> >action _isn't_ phrased in such a way as to make it seem as if it 'helps
> >win' the contest, it ought to be treated as an unrelated action (if it's
> >appropriate at all).
> I have to disagree - certainly in cases where a change in position
> was the explanation of an AP loss. If a result shifted the AP
> balance against you then reversing that result ought to shift the
> balance in your favour.
Not necessarily. Suppose Steve wants to attack the Proverbial Monster. Kathy says, "No, you're on the ground, you idiot!" Kathy then has a small narrativist [oops] epiphany (or gets heavily copy-editted by Ruiri, as you prefer), and instead says: "Yes, but... you're at -30!" (I did say it was a _small_ epiphany...) Unimpressed, Steve decides on a change of plan: "OK, I spend my action getting up." It's not unreasonable as such to say that's an unrelated action, since its primary intended _effect_ is to get rid of that -30, not to defeat the PM as such (i.e., chib off its APs). In fact, it might be better to do it this way if the 'getting up' part would be in the context of the narrative was unopposed. (Oops, Vic, I've fallen down again... the chafing, the chafing...)
Changes in AP are, after all, not just 'shifting in balance'. If you lose 2AP by being knocked on your duff, then you take 2AP off (one of) the _other_ guy(s) by Heroicly Standing Up, you haven't restored the previous (AP) situation, you've created a new one, and the game mechanic and narrative will mesh better if the latter takes some account of that.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail