I'm not sure that there is. I mean, there is a fair amount about stating goals, but it mostly advises the zooming out you want to avoid. I don't think there is much in the book on keeping it "narrow", as you say. Basically, the only advice the book gives is closer to "if narrow detail is important, then use an extended contest".
As I mentioned, the book doesn't explicitly state, but certainly seems
to imply, that lingering benefits and states of adversity are optional
on a given contest.
I'm not sure the book even discusses the "I make my goal to kill him"
idea, and whether or not that means a marginal victory = death. (I can't
remember.)
At the same time, I think the book does go into a bit on the "no repeat" aspect meaning you can't try the same thing the same way - something about the situation must be recast for the next contest. Thus the "Cut his throat" vs "Roll under his sword" contest merely means they cannot repeat that sequence, if you want to define it narrowly.
But since the book mostly suggests avoiding this kind of framing, I don't think there are any good examples for you to follow in there. (I may be recalling incorrectly.)
LC
nikodemus.siivola wrote:
>However, not to be curmudgeonly, but... I'm not asking for advice on
how to resolve these things based on Best Practices Today.
>I'm going after the pedantic stance here: is there something in the
book that
>I'm missing that talks about these issues.
Powered by hypermail