> > and even more unneccessary. Since there's no problem with direct
> > comparisons to begin with (unless you have a certain Sim view, in
> > which case the easier process is just to drop the special rule for
> > magic).
>
>But that I entirely disagree with. The question arose, how to
>distinguish who did 'best' in a contest where two people were
>competing against the same "force", but which resisted each
>differently, i.e. at different numerical values. If you'd resolve
>this differently, then fair enough, but I don't see how you can
>characterise it as "unnecessary".
Actually that wasn't the original question, doing third party comparisons was brought up as a way to solve another problem. But that other problem is solved perfectly well by just comparing A to B directly. So the "solution" is unneccessary in that regard.
If someone wanted to do what you imply just to do it, then fine. But I think that in play there would rarely to never be a reason to do it. So...
> > I thought there was a way to do three parties at once in the
> > Simple Contest rules that did work. I'll have to research it,
> > tho. In an extended contest I'm certain it works perfectly well.
>
>I don't think so. You now have four numbers in a 'contest'
>representing a contest between two actual persons, and one abstract
>resistance (the tree, the distance, etc), which may (in some
>cirumstances) have different initial numerical values, and certainly
>is 'beaten' in the contest by the two separately, not acting together
>against it as per the standard Group Contest. (Aside from "drafting"
>considerations perhaps...). Unless you're envisaging some situation
>other than the one originally being talked about, I don't see that
>this works at all.
I wasn't refering to third party conflicts, here. I was refering to three things competing against each other (which is what my post was responding to). So, three racers. In that case, I'd just have them all roll once and compare against each other separately. A beats B, B beats C , we have the order of finish. I think that this would work, but it might not under odd circumstances - you might then get C beats A. But even in that case, I'd just narrate some other sort of victory.
I'm not sure if this is in the rules. I seem to recall something...
In any case, you can do more than two parties very simply as an extended contest if the above doesn't work. Those rules I've used, and they're not only functional but fun.
>It's not in the least clear to me that it's intended to be meta-game.
> The "14 rules" states, "This is the the resistance to cast magic on
>one's self, and the passive resistance of the Mortal World to magical
>change." It doesn't say anything about this having a different
>narrative status from any other ability use in the game, its phrasing
>is entirely in terms of game-world effects.
Well, by clear I mean, that it's the only sensible interpretation. But I totally agree that the text doesn't make it clear at all. Hence the problem here.
And I do overstate to an extent, because there are the alternate readings that I came up with. The simplest of which is that "the world" meaning whatever target you aim at with your magic, resists with it's highest appropriate ability or it's Resist Magic of 14, whichever is best. That seems to work pretty well as a rationale. Basically, when you lose to another character with a mundane ability, it's because the world is using the metaphysical (in-game) power of that ability to cancel most of your magic. Meaning that you actually do jump much lower or whatever.
Mike
Powered by hypermail