>4) During this major, drawn out battle, one player said "This game
>is not detailed enough!" in exasperation. He meant, he really
>missed graphic combat explanations. As a group, they found the
>idea of whittling an opponent to "Dazed", then being forced to
>take the risk action of a coup de grace to actually kill the
>opponent somewhat distasteful. To paraphrase one player, "I'd
>rather chop his head off in one mighty blow than stab a down
>opponent through the heart." Even though I tried to explain that
>you could certainly perform the former action if you wagered
>enough AP, the player shot back that having only a 60% chance
>of succeeding greatly discouraged them from taking any such
>risks (ie, why give your opponent a 40% chance of gaining 14
>AP!?
Why not ask them to describe what they want there character and the you can _suggest_ a bid, at least until they get the hang of it. If they do something risky against an opponnet that has the same number of masteries then it should be really risky.
I try to point out to players to think in character even in combat and stop thinking about a 'menu' of combat options specifically listed in the rules. For example a character says 'I want to turn around run up the pillar and flip over the head of the hoplite' I am not going to sit and look up the rules for disengaging from melee and then the rules for acrobatics manoeuvres and attacks from behind. I would say ok thats a 20 point bid. Or if he says 'I will stay back defending and hoping he makes a mistake', thats a 3 point bid.
Powered by hypermail