If I haven't been clear before, that's what I do (and slap sit-mods for magical and mythic appropriateness on instead). But rather than just dance on the grave of the "14 rule", I do honestly want to try and clarify its procedure, rationale, and applicability: it strikes me that the 'defenders' of it are more at odds with each other on such points than the are with me...
> That said, I think your last incarnation of the idea seems pretty
> functional, and almost within the rules (and pretty ingenious).
If it's only 'almost' in the rules, what do you suppose the example on p98 is actually using, pray tell? ;-)
> >That's _definitely_ not a procedure in the rules,
>
> I wasn't sure. But I thought there was *something* in the book
> on three way simple contests...
>
> >and I can't see how it'd work for extended contests at all.
>
> Uh, it doesn't. I only mentioned simple contests, and then
> mentioned that the Multiple Extended Contest rules handled more
> parties just fine already.
This is what I was referring to: I don't think Group Contests _do_ really handle situations where you have three distinct parties. (Other than situations like combats, or where otherwise it breaks down to a series of 'bilateral' conflicts.)
> Well, I'm talking about a functional reading. It's totally
> possible that it was meant to simulate something in-game, but if
> so, then it is by far the most problematic idea to rationalize.
> Waaaay more difficult than the archery stuff, or nutting the
> lawspeaker, or crossing the bridge with words or any of that
> stuff. I'm willing to accept that the original intent may be messed
> up. But from a narrativist perspective it works just hunky-dorey.
As I say though, I haven't seen it actually explained in those terms _either_ in a way that makes sense to me. Suppose the participants in the Oddi/Jane 'subliminal contest' had been reversed, with the PC using a mundane ability, and the NPC using a(n appropriate) magical one. Is there any indication that the outcome ought in any way to be different?
> That is, as I've said, players tend to only look at the outcome
> of the resolution, and don't worry about
> what the ability levels are at. In my game, I don't announce
> resistances a lot of the time (I just do the comparisons and
> table lookup in my head and
> announce), so they probably just don't know.
Oh, me too, decidedly. Then again, I'm happier in my own mind if I know precisely what rules it is I'm ignoring or fudging. ;-)
Powered by hypermail