The intent is to restrict the number of times a single action can be attempted so that you don't get the syndrome of "I failed, I try again, I failed, I try again, I failed I try again". It specifically does *not* apply to exchanges in an Extended Contest, but if you are "defeated" in an extended contest, you run into the "no repeated attempt" barrier.
Example: You need to pick a lock. You might roll an Ability Test, a Simple Contest, or even an Extended Contest to do so. If you *fail* to pick the lock, you can't just say "I'll try again". Multiple attempts at the same thing is part of the test - you've already tried jiggling the knob, using a hairpin, trying a knifeblade, etc. Once defeated by the lock, that's it (at least for today - you could come back tomorrow, or even an hour later). You can't just keep trying until you succeed.
> It seems pretty clear to me that "No Repeated Attempts" does _not_ apply
> to exchanges within an extended contest. It could conceivably apply to
> the results of the whole contest, though. But that seems a bit strange,
> too - just because somebody beat you once, you can't pick a fight with
> him again?
You have to wait a bit, not start a new fight immediately. How long "a bit" is depends on the narrator and the story. Going home and picking up your "Three-in-one Home Burglery Kit" can count as "a bit", as can going home and getting a nap and a meal and coming back with a clear head. You don't need to learn more in an ability, but the circumstances should have some sort of change to .
> I'm unsure about simple contests, too. In most cases, failure is it's own
> penalty. To put a twist on the example on p.128, if you're trying to
> climb over the city wall before the watch catches you, failure could lead
> to a chase through the streets instead and then if you succeed at that
> and wait a while for things to cool down, you could try the climb again.
Correct. That's enough of "a bit" to change the situation.
> The stated purpose of the rule is to maintain suspense, and most contests
> have enough of that since they're performed under a time limit or have
> serious consequences for defeat (like physical damage). Simple ability
> tests, on the other hand, are defined as being used precisely in those
> situations where there's no real pressure, nothing of great importance
> hanging on the result. For that kind of roll a rule of "no retries" makes
> sense, because otherwise it'd be the same as an automatic success.
Basically, yes, but if you are defeated by a lock, you are defeated by the lock, whichever system you used.
Roderick
Powered by hypermail