> As I stated in another post I believe that there can be good reasons
> to insist that "compound actions" are split.
You say "can", I say "rarely, if ever should be".
>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.
Why should I be forced to set up when my description says "I do it and do
this other thing"?
If the dice agree with me, then I do both actions. If they don't, then I
don't. I'm happy with whatever result because it was my decision to try a
risky-but-possibly-game-winning move, the narrative is happy becasue I've
covered the bases, the only one that doesn't seem to be happy is you.
This isn't GURPS or D&D, where contests are measured out in seconds and tactical considerations are paramount. This isn't Runequest where attacks, parries and damage are determined individually. This is HeroQuest. We aren't trying to model "Reality", we are modelling the action of the Illiad, King Arthur, the Three Musketeers, Xena and Buffy.
> >> > 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
No, you wrote:
"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."
Nothing there about why compound actions *should* be split, some waffeling about MAY. Your point, explicitly stated, is that: "the narrative effects of the exchanges - as well as the initial conditions of the contest - should be respected. "
I agree, they should. I have said so all along. Where I disagree with you is how they should be respected.
> > 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 ?
You sure implied it. This whole thing started when you insisted that a man cannot go from swearing like a soldier to physical attack without a round to "psych himself up". A numer of us disagreed, saying it seemed perfectly natural that this change in method occured. If you are so adamant that a seemingly natural ability shift can't be done without a round wasted in psyching oneself up, then that colors the rest of your argument, as far as I'm concerned.
> >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 ?
Yes I did.
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" ?
Neither of your descriptions allowed for an immediate attack (or any other actioon) with the same roll. Both were designed simply to "get the knife" with an implied "but don't use it until next round". As far as I'm concerned, they're simply variations on the same theme, and can *both* be handled in one action - they are producing the same result. Now, if the *player* wants to fart around and bid low and slow and make it last over several turns, that's his decision. This begs the question of how either the player or narrator determines when he can pick up the knife using those low bids.
> 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 ?
I don't see either of these as a compound action. I don't agree with your question. Certainly not based on your examples.
> Indeed, there surely comes a point where a compound action combines
> too much disparate "sub-actions" to be sensible no matter what the
> bid.
Sure. "I'll run 200 yards, heal my buddy, hop into a car and drive to the nearest deli, order a sandwich, eat it and return in time to hit those three guys before they can fire a second round" is too complex and I wouldn't allow it in a situation where rounds can be measured in seconds. I might allow it if the implied time context is one-hour intervals, though.
> >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.
And the rest of the book is perfect? This arguing by example was done to death with the "Switching Abilities" example in Hero Wars, page 137.
> >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.
Why should I worry that a jump "shouldn't" win the contest in the first place? Why shouldn't it? That is my implict expctation of the contest - anything I do *can* win the fight if the dice and AP are right. You seem to be saying that certain actions can't win the fight no matter how well I roll, how well I describe them.
Fine, it's your game, play it the way you want, but don't expect me to play in it. And that's my last word on this subject.
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