'Active' Magic in defence?

From: flynnkd2 <flynnkd_at_...>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 05:22:19 -0000

Just some thoughts on some interpretations of some things people have been saying...

1. An action in an extended contest is merely the active player setting a goal, then selecting a skill to achieve it. The 'defending' player is trying to stop them attaining the goal. (In fact their isnt an attacking player and defending player, but merely participants in an 'exchange').

So if I state that my goal is to 'shoot arrows into my enemy', then select archery to attain that goal, could my enemy select an action to prevent my shooting arrows as a means to stop me attaining my goal. Eg a oakfed practitioner could use fire magic to consume the attackers arrows before he fires the arrows. ONe would use Archery and the other a 'Consuming Fire' spirit.

My point being that the two abilities are not really direct counters to each other, such as Archery vs Dodge, but under the concept of attaining or preventing the 'goal' they are.

Is it appropriate to match Archery vs 'Consuming Fire' Spirit?

Can you extend this further... eg A Oakfed Shaman attacks a whole group with a Bonfire Spirit, his goal being to burn them all. Would the group then try to 'prevent the goal'... either all rolling individually or making one roll for the group?

I actually quite like the idea of this, but I am worried it might end up getting out of hand in what skills could end up being compared to each other.

2) The other aspect of this is the use of 'active' magic in a defensive role. If you consider an action to be an exchange then both sides could fire at each other... I shoot him with arrows vs I shoot him with arrows, OR I cast "Burn his body to a cinder" at him, I reply by casting "Stop his heart from beating"... the exchange and rolls would merely represent which one got their effect out first? Both actions are "attacking".

Or am I pushing this too far?