If this were allowed then in any contest between two people when one side was losing they would just then declare a new goal to force a new contest and have the AP reset. A warrior stands over his opponent who is down to 1AP. The final blow looks inevitable. The fallen warrior then says 'I want to convince him of my views on late Iron Brithini statuary'. Are you really going to declare a new contest and reset the AP? Do I lose my tactical advantage because you want to change to debating statuary. Usually the goal of any contest is to defeat your opponent. Changing the method should not imply a new constest. It may make more sense to be cautious about allowing a player to change the goals of a contest. There are two people involved. That is why you are in a contest. For the goals to change both might have to agree.
In the example of someone who has the goal of flee the tula, then I would allow fighting my pursuers hand-to-hand as a valid way of pursuing that same goal. Kill them all and I escape.
If a player simply gives up in the middle of a contest then impose the penalty of complete defeat on him. So in the chasing scenario if he gives up he is completely defeated. You have surrendered. Imposing that penalty tends to dissuade people from just abandoning a contest they think they are going to lose, because they have to suffer the penalties.
If having suffered the penalties of loss and you can still act, then you might consider a new contest. Let us say I am debating with Orlkarl in the hall. Part way through I realise Orkarl is winning the argument and the whole clan is behind him. If I throw the contest I an saying 'I have no more arguments, Orkarl is correct'. Orkarl will get what he wants and I am completely defeated. Perhaps I lose esteem in the eyes of the clan and folks will not listen to my proposals fopr the next year.
But that complete defeat does not stop me now choosing to stab Orkarl in the heart in a fit of rage. That is a new contest.
Ian Cooper
Powered by hypermail