A heads up a regiment/troupe/family, and wants everyone available for guard duty/the big show/Aunt Gertrude's dinner. B wants permission to leave for a while, to travel to McGuffin place. C just wants to be with B, whether both staying put, or B going off with guards/companions/servants (which include C).
The contest between A and B is pretty straightforward, either B gets permission to go, or A enforces the desire to keep everyone together. But C could argue for either case (or even both ways depending on the situation). C has distinct goals, so should have a separate AP pool, but during the discussion at times might be solely supporting one of the others.
First of all, does this model even work at all?
Second, if C is augmenting one of the others, and they lose an exchange, per the rules I see no effect on C. However C could rather use this to not risk any AP for most of the contest.
Third, if C wants to make the grounds that either B stays or B goes but with one or more companions (including C), to win would imply driving both others to zero or less AP—but that doesn't mean that the discussion between A and B is done yet.
Help!
-Bryan
Powered by hypermail