The problem I have is that this doesn't seem to leave room for cautious bids based on improving the chance to win, without directly contributing to winning. Fixing a problem improves the character's position by depriving the opponent of an advantage.
>
>> Remember that a 3x transfer requires a
>> *fumble* by the other party
>
>Gosh, how could I have forgotten that? Wow, thanks for pointing it out.
The point is that the fumble can open up an explanation for a "win" even if the declared action would not normally be enough to win.
>
>
>> Simply forbidding actions that are about improving the position ready
>> for a strike would seem to rule out a lot of low AP bids. I'm not
>> happy about something that seems to say "no, you can't bid that low"
>
>I'm not forbidding anything.
Well you were objecting to actions on the grounds that they helped the character's position in the contest without directly contributing to winning. If you'll permit such actions then I'm not sure what the problem is.
> If the *player* decides to "Circle around to
>get the sun at my back - 3AP" that's *his* decision, not mine. If the player
>wants to spend a round just getting up, that's his decision. If he wants to
>augment himself instead of attack, that's his decision. It's not the
>narrator's job to *force* him to improve his position.
Then I think you are misunderstanding the point at issue. The point is that in my view the narrative effects of the exchanges - as well as the initial conditions of the contest - should be respected. This MAY mean that the character will have to improve his position before the character can do what he the player would like to do, and that this MAY be something that is better not rolled into a single exchange. If the character wants to make a dive for the kitchen knife he was forced away from last action he can do so - but it will be a bigger AP bid. If he wants to gradually force his opponent back to get to the knife then timing issues may make that better as a separate action.
>
>If the player wants to jump across the hedge and hack through the beast's
>neck, then I want to see something more than 6 AP (Unless he's only got 8
>points to start with...), and if he insists that he's only bidding 6 AP,
>then I may just restrict him to jumping without the hack - based on his
>description *and* how reckless (or not) he's willing to be (so he doesn't
>get to augment his Leap with his Sword).
Well that's up to you, all I can say is that the example doesn't offer any indication that the reason for dividing the leap and the hack is the size of the bid.
> But if he gets the 3x transfer,
>then he gets 18 points and more power to him. If the beast can be defeated
>by losing 18 points, then his leap somehow defeated it. Do I care that
>leaping "shouldn't win" the contest? Not at all - perhaps the beast felt
>secure while it was a hedge away from the hero and now it decides to flee.
>Or he landed on its gouty foot. Or he actually *did* manage to hack at it
>while sailing through the air.
Well of course that isn't at all what I was suggesting. What I was suggesting is that if 18 AP doesn't defeat the beast there is no reason to worry that the beast would be defeated even if it "shouldn't" be. The jump is fixing a problem - the hedge is in the way.
>
>And if you don't think a mere "positioning" action can win fights, I refer
>you to the Italian Condotierre and sieges throughout the ages.
>
I don't doubt that positioning can be the deciding factor, or even
enough to set up a near-certain win.
-- -- "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