On 24 Nov 2008, at 23:28, Jamie wrote:
>
> Hmm, I don't see pass/fail as a fall back at all, so we probably have
> different interpretations of the intent of the system.
It isn't an interpretation. It's directly stated (at least in the
Continuum edition) on p69
>
>
> The advice on Extended Contests only refers to changing abilities, but
> as I am currently picking abilities (or at least current situation
> modified abilities) as informed by the current pass/fail situation
> then it is not clear if reassigning a resistance based on the
> High/Moderate/Low/etc. scale in the middle of a contest is something
> that would be appropriate in this situation. It felt wrong to me when
> I did it but I don't want to ditch a possible intent of the rules at
> the first hurdle as that can often lead to problems down the line.
I don't see why you can't use "New Conditions. New Resistance" (p72)
during an Extended Contest - aside from credibility concerns.
>
>
> There seems to me to be two possible answers, either an extended
> contest is effectively a simple contest with multiple rolls and a
> chance for the player to change abilities in an attempt to gain
> favourable modifiers to the already established resistance, or it is a
> spread out sequence of conflicts which themselves can be informed by
> the pass fail cycle. I found myself drifting towards the latter but I
> suspect the former is more likely to be intended and may actually be
> more appropriate.
My gut feeling is that it depends on how extended the contest is in game-time. If you're talking about a fight scene or some other short conflict, then the credibility condition requires that the resistances shouldn't change very often. In something that takes place over a longer period of time (weeks or months or even years) then the conditions could change for every exchange.
Powered by hypermail