Re: Re: Implicit and explicit factors in Extended Contests

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:43:20 +0000

On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 04:12:48PM -0000, kaledan2001 wrote:
> Having read both of the threads that lead to this one I am pretty
> sure all of these issues can dealt with by a lot less philosophical
> twisting by treating them as group extended contests.
>
>
> trooper versus cavalryman
> -------------------------
>
> There are three actors, the trooper (swear like a trooper 2W),
> cavalryman (ride horse 2W, pigheaded 17, big horse 10W) and the
> bridge (hard to cross 5, i.e. not particularly narrow or high).

[...]
> nutting the lawspeaker
> ----------------------
>
> There are 3 actors, the plaintiff (sword and shield 4WW, intimidate
> 1W, debate 16 after augments), the lawspeaker (debate 2W, fight like
> an old man 8) and everyone else present (horde of heortlings 5WWW).

Ingenious in some respects, and maybe even a brilliant idea altogether, but I suspect of no practical application to me as a GM, simply because to use this idea, one'd have to _anticipate_ the change-of-plan/ multiplicity of goals situation, whereas in practice it's going to come up a) rarely (if ever, some would insist, in a way that'd make the 'new contest' treatment seem compelling), and b) unexpectedly (especially unexpected for those that think it'll never happen, obviously <g>). So I can't imagine it having anything but an 'oh, if only...' use in an actual game session I was narrating...

Cheers,
Alex.