> > > If the action cannot win the contest, then keep the AP bid low so it
> >> cannot win the contest.
> >
> >Every action should have the possibility of winning the contest (within
AP
> >limits). That is my "implicit expectation". Every action I take has the
> >possibility (however unlikely) of becoming a Crit-Fumble 3x Transfer in
my
> >favor. The AP bidding limits are based on how reckless or cautious I act
in
> >my description. The narrator and I then agree on the bid number based on
my
> >*description*, not on whether the action should win the contest or not,
> >which is why I am opposed to "Fix it, then you can advance" type
solutions.
> >"You can't win the contest that way, I won't let you bid enough to do so"
is
> >bad GMing. "Explain to me how this advances your cause/justifies your AP
> >bid" is better.
>
> 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.
Sure it does - as I noted below I have no problem with the player deciding to bid low or do an unrelated action; my problem is the narrator forcing him to do so. "You can't both jump and attack, and you can't win by jumping, so I won't allow you to bid big" is much different than "I'll just jump this turn, and attack next turn when I don't have the -10 penalty for the hedge". If the player wants to do an action to remove a potential penalty or augment himself, that's fine. But don't force him to do it. Let him do the risky stuff - he's a hero and gets paid the big bucks to take chances.
>>> 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.
I'm objecting to the narrator forcing the player to bid small (or do an unrelated action) this turn to "set up" or "position" for later turns. If he decides to do it all by himself, that's fine.
> > 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.
Not at all - I understand it perfectly. As a matter of fact, in my view *you* are misunderstanding the point of the entire extended contest mechanism. Players should be allowed and encouraged to act in "heroic" ways. If this means doing crazy multiple-action stunts then they should be allowed to try to do them. By saying "no, you can't do that, you have to do this first", by not allowing them to combine actions, by *forcing* them to perform set-up actions, you are removing the heroism.
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.
I'm not saying that the previous narrative elements should be ignored, but they shouldn't force the hero to do certain actions to "set up" a "scoring" attack. "I won't let you do a big bid because I think you have to do [this] first and [this] can't win the contest" is bad narrating. "I'll let you do it, but it has a -15 penalty because of [this] and is really risky so you have to bid at least 3/4 your AP" allows the player to decide that he doesn't want to be quite that risky and fix the problem instead, or to go balls-to-the-walls and be heroic. But it is *his* choice.
If the player wants to do a complex action to fix a problem and attack he should be allowed to. At a penalty, and/or a high AP bid maybe, but he should be allowed to try it. If the dice go his way, he will have overcome the narrative difficulty; if they don't, he didn't. "I sprint past the monster, roll and scoop up the knife, then throw it as I make a backward flip and land on my feet" is a perfectly valid, NARRATIVE, action. It solves the problem (don't have the knife) and allows an offensive maneuver (throw it). High bid? Sure. Penalty? Quite possibly. Two actions to perform? Only if *the player* wants it.
And yes, I see your "MAYs" up there. My point is that they are "Rarely, if Evers". I won't say that I would *never* force a set-up action, because I can't read the future. But I certainly like to think that I would adhere to "Yes, But" in those situations.
> >
> >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.
No it doesn't, because that wasn't the purpose of the example.
> > 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 the beast only has 17 AP left? Should I worry that a 6 AP "positioning" action can win the fight when it "shouldn't" ? Or should I tell the player that he can only bid 5, because jumping won't win the contest?
RR
It is by my order and for the good of the state that the bearer of this has
done what he has done.
- Richelieu
Powered by hypermail