> Alex asks
>
> > it's the actor who chooses how many APs are
> > bidden each round, and the defender can't alter it, right? This
> means that
> > how the defender choose to defend has no weight on how much he can lose
> > and/or win. This seems quite strange, doesn't it?
>
> 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.
As Alex pointed out the "actor" is not necessarily the "attacker", but even if he is surely his opponent (i.e. the "defender") has a choice of tactics. As a fencer, I could suddenly make a fl�che while my adversary is closing in to lunge. Otherwise we're back to the attack/parry routine...
Moreover, remember that if something is not represented someway by the game system then is not manifest in the game world, that's it, it doesn't exist. So why bother describe a defense, if it has absolutely no weight? Not even a weight on the storytelling, since it does not alter the flow of the story.
> I think too the game would be slower and not work as well if both
> sides got to participate in every bet.
Why? I actually think it would be faster! After all you are doing two exchanges in one, halving the dice rolling. Has it been tried during the playtest, or was it never an option?
> wouldn't be any fun
> if you were on the inferior side (never a fun side to be on anyway).
Indeed...
Cheers, A defensive Alex.
Powered by hypermail