> I'm looking at the rules, and they don't say this. It says that there are
> usually two contestants, and that your hero's ability is opposewd by some
> resistance. This resistance, it says can be active or passive, By active, it
> says that it means some opponent with their own ability, or by the
> transitive property that any ability use by the opponent is active. In the
> section Contests: Victory and Defeat, it points out that a marginal success
> for you is a marginal failure for the opponent.
Notice that the sequence for every resolution method starts with, "State what your hero is trying to do[...]". I don't think I'm paraphrasing unduly when I refer to that as a 'goal', and I can't otherwise how this is 'not what the rules say'.
> In all these cases it implies that each side is equal in the contest -
> there's no indication that either side is passive. The only thing listed as
> passive are things like heights of trees, etc.
But I didn't say anything about that.
> >I think the distinction intended is that if you're trying to Speak
> >Eloquently to accomplish some discrete goal of your own, it's "active";
> >if it's used simply to thwart someone else's, it's a "resistance".
> If one side says that their goal is simply to stop the other side from
> succeeding, then it's passive?
I should probably have specifically said in a simple contest, here, since otherwise it rather conflicts with my later statement in that message about extended contests.
The SC procedure in fact _assumes_ this is the case; there's no mention of more goals than that of the party initiating the contest, and the opposing ability is specifically characterised as a "resistance". (Which isn't to say this isn't suspectible to application of Rule #1 where this seems illogical, naturally. If two parties declare "goals" that are in conflict, but the second isn't simply the negation of the first (or they were effectively declared in parallel, come to that, and assuming an SC is the appropriate-seeming resolution method, still) it'd make sense to me to require that they both be abilities one can use "actively" in the rules sense, but the rules don't seem to _specifically_ anticipate this situation).
> Meaning that I think that "augment only" abilities are going to be used very
> often as "active" abilities.
Well, as "abilities you can roll against in a contest", for the want of a better term for "active abilities or resistances", which isn't quite the same thing. Specifically, as resistances.
> Hmmm. Terminologically that's odd - to make an automatic augment work
> actively (as the primary resistance), it has to be used passively.
Calling it an automatic augment is very odd terminology it's that's not how it's being used, but I think I discern your drift. Personally I'd put it simply as, the use of an ability to resist another isn't an 'active' use, which is certainly terminologically consistent in the case of an EC, where you're "active" when taking an "action".
Come to think of it, from the errata:
"**Page 104, Common Feats, Charms, and Spells As the example on page 99 shows, a common magic ability can be used to resist magic if it is appropriate, since resisting in a contest is not an active use of an ability. Using an ability actively means taking an action in a contest with it -- attacking a foe, casting a spell, or otherwise using an ability against a resistance."
There is a small mess here that the rules terminology is distinctly anti-antonymic. The dual to "active ability" is "resistance", and the dual of "passive resistance" is "personal resistance". This seems slightly contrary, but I think the rules are consistent about it. Oops, well nearly -- it does talk about "active opponent with his or her own ability" on p61, which ain't helping. I imagine one could do better given ten minutes with a thesaurus, but the horse has somewhat bolted on that one.
Cheers,
A.
Powered by hypermail