My players are not the most narrative, so my fears of using such a system are based around them using the numbers to obtain a result. Eg if I am an archer I can shoot everything that tries to attack me before they can attack me, so I can use archery to defend against everything... if I extend my 'exchange' idea.
Once this idea sinks in they basically just spend HPs to improve one skill and rely on this for everything. Which is of course not a good thing.
Although I like the idea of allowing 'exchanges' I think the best balance is that one side has control of the trigger and the other is responding, and that appropriateness is important. If someone is the active player and they are casting a spell it is generally at range so a defence of 'run at him with my spear' may not be totally appropriate, but a 'shoot him quickly with my bow' may be.
All of the following should be true:
'Attack him with my sword' vs 'defend with my sword and shield' 'Attack him with a spell' vs 'defend with appropriate magic' 'attack him with my sword' vs 'defend with appropriate magic' 'attack him with magic' vs 'defend with appropriate mundane skill'
With some of them it is an easy mental step to replace 'defend' with 'attack back', and to my mind this is appropriate. I think the appropriateness depends not so much on the action selected but the circumstances under which they are used....
'I cast a spell at him from 50ft away' makes an 'attack him with my sword before he can' somewhat inappropriate. And, 'shoot him quickly with my bow' loses appropriateness if you are locked in a melee. In both cases use a heavy improv penalty...
I am really attracted to the imagery of dueling opponents exchanging magics at range (and after all melee does this already in its own style). Lets see how my players handle it tho ... ))
Powered by hypermail