>
> So this really doesn't "shortcut"
> anything, in fact, the player is acknowledging that in the case of a
> Complete Victory that the opponent will only be wounded. Perhaps for life in
> that case, but as the goal wasn't to kill, it can't mean that the goal of
> the overall EC is achieved.
I've used it in the case of someone trying to eliminate or weaken a specific magical ability or weapon or something. So a complete victory doesn't mean the fight is over, as you say.
> BTW, this method is significantly different from the "chaining simple
> contests" concept in a very significant way. Players in an EC are still
> committed to the outcome of the entire original goal (though they can change
> it) as the form of the overall contest. Which mostly means that the result
> will still have to adhere to the overall AP result. With chaining you get
> players using the "I attack more!" concept until foes are dead, and then
> you're back to "task resolution" rather than "conflict resolution."
Oh, absolutely. I don't want to fall into chaining simple contests. As far as the "changing the original goal" thing, I sometimes find that a bit tricky to deal with. Take the famous example of the barbarian changing a debate into a seduction; I'm never sure why the APs for the contest as it stood should stand. Surely this is a new contest now, no?
LC
Powered by hypermail