I think I can see what you are getting at, but I'm not sure I see it as a problem...
>While I
> agree that one can say which tactics is better only after seeing
the results
> (i.e. after rolling the dice), I'm not talking about modifiers. I'm
talking
> about AP, which only measure the risks and the possible rewards of
a given
> action. If you can judge this things for an attack, and factor them
in the
> measure of the "ebb and flow of advantages", as you say below, then
why
> can't you when it comes to defense?
Well I suppose you could, but it would be at the expense of a great deal of "simplicity & convenience...".
If you had to bid AP's in order to defend (with a high bid representing a "more risky" defence) then in general, as time went on, your defence would get worse and worse, as your AP's went down. Since this same mechanic also reduces the effectiveness of your Offence, you are being hit with a "double whammy".
> >it
> > is describing the actions that you get to see the differences
between
> > them.
>
> But only if the game system reflects this difference,
otherwise it is not
> observable in the game reality. Now please don't answer me with a
variation
> on the "but what matters in a RPG is the role-playing, not the
> roll-playing", but try to see the point I'm clumsily trying to make.
>
Unfortunately that is the glib way of putting it - try it this way. The Hero Wars Game system is not concerned with the intricate details of any contest, only the end result, and even then, from a fairly coarse grained viewpoint. If the object of the contest was to get into Sor-Eels headquarters past the Lunar guards then, as far as raw HW mechanics go, it doesn't matter if the guards are slain, knocked out, incapacitated or just ran away. Obviously it might make quite a difference to the characters, and this is where the description part comes in.
A non-combat example - If you are arguing with a representative of antother Clan at the tribal moot, you could rely on facts (that you can back up with evidence), on your clever arguments, on historical precedent, by threatening to go to war, or by provoking your opponent so he looses his temper and stops arguing. The succesful use of any of these strategies is that you "win the contest", but the consequences of how you won it may have future repeurcussions.
> What I mean is that the mechanics of a RPG, of whatever kind,
should
> represent the reality they are modeling, otherwise they are
useless.
I think the HW mechanics do just that, however the reality they are modeling may not be the one that you are familair with! HW is not RQ (or D&D, or Pendragon, or RM) and it is not trying to model combat in the same way. OK, in RQ It (could) make a big difference in the liklihood of your success if you chose to parry with a shield, a sword or just to dodge, but, on the flip side, you couldn't choose the same level of detail in your attack options as in HW...
Yes, this is asymmetric, but since you generally get to act on both sides of the equation, the net result should balance out. (It probably comes down in favour of the players too, since most of the time, most GM's won't let PC's be defeated without the chance to strike back....)
If I'm
> concerned only with descriptions I can play a ruleless game. There
is
> nothing wrong in that. But HW is not ruleless.
Correct. As I see it, in a ruleless game, the outcome is decided entirely on the GM's opinion as to either the best action taken or their view of where the story should go. The HW rules add an impartial layer into the equation
And these rules are used to
> determine the story flow in a way that is (or should be) consistent
with the
> descriptions.
It does so, but relies on the GM being consistent /enforcing consistency with the AP Bids and the descriptions being used
Clearly defense tactics belong to this category, so should
> be factored into the AP bid. Otherwise the bid does not represent
correctly
> the effort the characters are putting into the contest - rather, it
> represents only one side's.
But then the Actor and non-actor swap roles and the other side's actions are represented. May be we would do better if we stopped saying "Attack" and "defend" and said "Combat actions" it would be clearer. You get to describe how you will fight the combat, as does your opponent, then you take it in turns to roll, until one of you runs out of AP's. If you want to say "I will try and run past him, dodging his blows, and poking my spear at him as I pass - 12 AP's " (Risky defence, inconsequential attack) rather than break it down into a "defence" and and "attack", then I don't see aproblem with that...
>
> Then the story will be inconsistent as the mechanics that are
used to
> determine its flow fail to consistently track its state.
No, they exactly track it's state (One player is doing better than the other). What it doesn't track is the minutae (One player has a gash on his forhead, dripping blood into his eyes)
All of your
> explanations about how you'd differentiate the situations I
described are
> very nifty, but they miss the point, which is: why is there this
asymmetry
> between the actor and the opponent, when everyone is saying that the
> distinction is just one of simplicity and convenience?
>
Think about how you would implement an equality. If the Defender could bid AP's as well what would they mean? A risky defence would be a High AP bid, so if he looses, he is much worse than if he had "done nothing" (Possibly true). A cautious defence would be a Low AP bid. Defeat would not leave you (much) worse off than doing nothing, but neither would success mean much...
Powered by hypermail