David Dunham:
> Correct. Except that it doesn't seem that strange. As a fencer, I can
> suddenly make an a risky attack like a fleche. As a defender, I do
> have choices, but I have a lot less control over the degree of risk.
That seems an odd argument, especially as it relies on the notion that actor = 'attacker'. Nor do I think it's a very generic one: when charged, counter-charged, or when assailed by a 'high stakes' debating tactic, respond in kind...
> I think too the game would be slower and not work as well if both
> sides got to participate in every bet. Especially if a superior
> opponent could always up the bets against him -- wouldn't be any fun
> if you were on the inferior side (never a fun side to be on anyway).
While I'm not saying a 'bet auction' is necessarily a good idea (haven't seen a suggestion I'm gripped by, but I'm open to offers), I don't see the problem you suggest is any sort of problem at all. The superior side almost always has the (perverse) motivation to bet _low_; it's far more likely to be the inferior that wants to, statistically speaking. (Though being 'upped' from being Dazed to Dead is what's known technically as a bit of a drawback...)
I think the best way to think of it is that your 'reply' isn't what you do as Opponent, but what you do when it's _your_ turn to be Actor. Obviously, 'realistically' these are often near- (or even actually) simultaneous, but this is, after all, a matter of narrative convention. Indeed, after an initial burst of enthusiasm (or, GM-cajolery, at least) for the idea of always describing both action and 'resistance', I (and I suspect my group) came to the conclusion that often, the latter was somewhat redundant, unless you have some huge brainwave for something desparately original. (In other words, fishing for a great big defensive bonus. <g>)
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail