> Yet when I suggested that achieving a high AP bid by insisting that
a
> sequence of actions be combined into a single roll - *instead* of
> choosing a "daring and risky manouevre" - should not *always* be
> allowed you replied
>
> "I think that clearly a high-bidding player wants their character to
> attempt a daring and risky manoeuver is a big concern, especially if
> they're not being allowed to do so."
Note that I am not explicitly disagreeing with you. I am merely voicing concern. Your interpretation of that as an attack, and as not taking your possition into acount is gobsmacking.
> >> And how exactly does that contradict anything I said ?
> >
> >Why does it have to?
>
> Well given the context - your insistence that your "original point
> still stands" when it was never even contested - I think that
there
> is a pretty clear implication that I disagreed with it.
Of course it satands, because it hasn't been contested. If it was still in contention it wouldn't stand, would it? I said I didn't think there was much more to say, because I thought we were coming to general agreement. Apparently we were. Yet we're still arguing. My head hurts.
> Well when I see an argumentative one - especially one that seems to
> claim some sort of victory - I have to say that I do not take it
as
> indicating agreement. Rather it seems to be indicating that the
> other party opposed the point but failed to make a case.
Bearing in minds that I actualy spent much of this discussion agreeing with you, I realy don't know what to say about this.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail