> 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".
Does that mean that since you have to bid APs in order to attack, then as time goes on your attack gets worse and worse, because your APs go down?
> 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.
Actually, it's more concerned with details than most games. But, unlike other games, it doesn't take them into account with ad hoc rules but instead it factors them into a single score: the AP bid (well, with the help of modifiers/edges).
> 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.
No, they don't. The APs bid, which theoretically represent the effort the characters are putting into achieving their goal, effectively represents only one side's. The other's character effort is immaterial for the game mechanic that parameterizes this. Thus this game mechanic is flawed. A small flaw especially compared to its virtues, but a flaw nonetheless.
> 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...
Then why, please explain me, you are so hostile to giving defense the same level of detail you have in attack? Frankly, you seem to me the one who's obsessed with RQ.
> 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
Agreed, though with the caveat that there is a good deal of literature about the supposed impartiality of dice rolling, especially when it happens behind a screen.
> 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
Again, would you be so kind as to explain me why the GM must guarantee that a bid is commensurate with the actor's description but not with the defender's?
And note that I said actor, not attacker, because actually the actor is not
necessarily the attacker. Takes this example:
Actor: I circle him, in defensive position and ready to step back in case he
attacks - 3 AP.
Opponent: Screaming, filled with blood lust, I jump upon him and try to
slice him.
Do you think that a 3 AP really represents what's going on? If the characters' roles were swapped, would you accept a 3 AP bid for his declaration? I wouldn't.
> But then the Actor and non-actor swap roles and the other side's
> actions are represented.
Again, it seems to me that you are the one who still thinks according to RQ sense. (Hey, are you a GL?!)
> 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...
And in what this would differ from what happens to the actor?
Simon Hibbs:
> > ....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?
>
> Personaly i think it's fairly realistic. Having been in a few mass rubber
> sword fights, and a few Sealed Knott (English Civil War) skirmishes I know
> that sometimes as a defender you have no choice whatsoever about the risks
> involved in a combat.
As I said above, the actor is not necessarily the attacker. And in hand to
hand the defender has many choices about the risks involved in combat, for
two reasons:
1) There must be a reason to explain all those different kind of parries
that seem to counter the same kind of attack (in fact some are more
difficult but they leave you in a better position to counterattack - frex).
2) When you opt for a defense you usually have a strategy in mind, i.e. a
series of moves. In fact one cannot really speak of defense and attack as
two separate things, and this is why I prefer systems with some sort of
opposed resolution.
-- Regards, Alexandre. "Cinq milliards de races d'hommes sur Terre, Est-ce assez pour croiser le fer...?"
Powered by hypermail