As I stated in another post I believe that there can be good reasons
to insist that "compound actions" are split.
>
>>>> 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.
Well then if you are arguing that such actions should never be split it would have been better to take on the reasons for doing so rather than objecting to the actions in themselves.
>
>> > 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.
I don't believe so. As I stated above you were objecting to particular actions - not addressing the reasons why "compound actions" should sometimes be split
> 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.
And did I say that they should automatically be disallowed ?
>
>
>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.
[...]
>
>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.
Did you read the example ? A quick simple action contrasted with a
slower, less risky, compound action to do the same thing. Are you
telling me that I should allow the less heroic slower action as a
single action even if it causes timing problems with other
characters' actions because it is "more heroic" ?
And if there are adequate reasons for ruling out the less heroic
compound action as a single action, then why can't they apply to
other compound actions ?
Indeed, there surely comes a point where a compound action combines
too much disparate "sub-actions" to be sensible no matter what the
bid.
>
>> >
>> >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.
Since dealing with a "compound" action isn't the purpose of the example, it would have been better not to include an example of the GM disallowing one for a reason that is not even hinted at in the text.
>
>> > 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" ?
Say it's a 5 AP action, or use the fact that to get 18 AP the beast has to fumble and the player has to get a critical success. Since the AP bid represents both the consequences of failure and success I don't hold with basing it purely on the consequences of failure - even though that is what the rules say. There obviously isn't a problem here unless you want to say that the GM should never adjust the AP bids (something the rules DO permit) AND take a very rigid view of what can happen as a result of the action.
> Or should I
>tell the player that he can only bid 5, because jumping won't win the
contest?
On that action, you certainly could - or ask for a lightly more aggressive action. But if it's only got 17 AP - even with the benefit of the hedge - and fumbles against a critical success I don't see any difficulty in finding a result that would let the jump 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