Re: Changing objectives

From: Roderick and Ellen Robertson <rjremr_at_...>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:01:28 -0700

> >I'm going to agree with Mikaal (shock!) here. Just because I've changed
*my*
> >objectives, my opponent may not have changed his, so I, too, am wary of
> >"changing objectives" as a way of reducing the results of combat.
>
> (Roderick, i've seen you spell my name 'Mikaal' quite a few times
> now. It's still Mikael.)

I'm sorry, I think I picked it up from the "aa" in your your last name, I'll try to remember in the future.

> Yes. Changing objectives within a contest is a Bad Thing, since the
> nature of a contest is determined by what you set out to do. Changing
> objectives changes the contest.
>
>
> >I kind of like Philip's suggestion that a person fighting a MKM/Below-0
type
> >can fight on until one or the other is dead (-40), but that is a personal
> >preference, not a Issaries Official opinion.
>
> (I think that was actually my suggestion (i did post such a
> suggestion, and i don't recall seeing a similar suggestion from
> Philip).)
>
> Yes, i think it works quite nicely. A bitter, gruesome fight to the
> very end between unyielding or desperate opponents. Sensible entities
> don't fight like that (which, i think, is one of the reasons contests
> end when the defeated is still unhurt).
>
>
> On a related note, someone said that whoever is at 0 AP is too
> battered, bruised, exhausted and dazed to continue combat. I don't
> think that is altogether true.
>
> In my mind it works like this: if you reach 0 AP you have lost the
> will to pursue your objective further because you realize it is a
> forlorn hope; the opposition is too strong. Why else would you be
> defeated while you are still none the worse for wear?
>
> Defeat is mostly in the mind. If you have lost hope of succeeding,
> you are already defeated (unless you get a transfer from your
> opponent's parting shot, and realize there is still chance).

I totally agree with you on this point, and at below-0-but-not-yet-too-terribly-hurt is when a normal person would surrender.

*BUT* by doing so he is literally putting his life in the other person's hands. He is so exhausted (mentally and/or physically) that even running away is not an option.
I think this is where we differ in our opinion of how the "not-yet-Hurt defeat" works.

> > > * I note that the rules for withdrawing from a contest (p138) is
> >> hopelessly confusing.
> >
> >They were hopelessly confusing when I got the manuscript, as I
remember...
>
> Then i suppose Greg is to blame, as usual. You said nothing about my

> suggested 'clarification'; shall i take that as tacit agreement
> (wishful thinking, most likely)?

As a house rule I have no problem with it.