>From: Light Castle <light_castle_at_...>
>I like this explanation, and it is pretty much how I view the situation.
>But would you say that this means if the players want to change goals
>dramatically (to the point it would change the conflict), they are saying
>they accept the consequences of the previous conflict?
No, absolutely not.
Each opposing side of a contest has a goal. In your example, the barbarian wants to get the princess to believe in thing X by debating (or perhaps get onlookers to believe), and the princess wants them to believe in thing Y. If the barbarian changes his goal to getting the princess to shut up about it using kissing and seduction as his means, then his goal has changed, but the princesses has not. She still wants to get thing Y to be believed, and will not until the barbarian is down to 0 AP.
I can see this playing out, too, as the princess keeps making her point between kisses, or slaps him in response, etc. Fun stuff. The end result will be either the princess collapses in his arms if he wins (note he doesn't get his original goal of convincing anyone of X), or she will make her point despite the interruption.
Your opponent doesn't get their goal yet, you just abandon your previous goal. The chance to win that is the only thing lost.
Mike
Powered by hypermail