Fair enough.
>
>> Well I explicitly said that it was a premise of the original post,
>> and not something I found particularly convincing. I don't think
>> that I would actually get to the situation described. Even if I
>> allowed the direct use of swearing in this particular contest (and
>I
>> am not sure that I would) the bids would probably be seriously
>> restricted (no more than 2 AP perhaps ?). But maybe you consider
>> these "arbitrary restrictions" ?
>
>Except that there's nothing in the rules that even implies limiting
>the bids in such a manner. The magnitude of a bid is supposed to
>reflect how much effort is entailed in the action, with a maximum bid
>being an "all or nothing" attempt.
And the risk. If the action has little risk and little effect it is a low AP bid. That's by the rules. And I'm inclined to say that that is the case here.
> If you want to limit things based
>on situation, then a situational modifier on the action's roll is
>appropriate.
Look if you can explain why high AP bids are appropriate to describe swearing at each other over who gets to cross the bridge first then please do so. What's the risk if you lose ? What effect does swearing have that justifies knocking a lot of AP off the other guy if you win ? So far as I can see it is low risk and likely to have little effect (if it can work at all). And if that's the case then that *is* a low AP bid. Strictly by the rules.
>
>As other people have pointed out, if these disadvantages situations
>are to be caused by one of the contestants, their actions need to
>reflect the attempt.
And I've been agreeing with that all along...
-- -- "The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala Guide to Taoism_ Paul K.
Powered by hypermail