(about AP betting strategies)
>
> All systems do that; certainly I don't think one would accuse RQ of being
> rules-artifact-free. But since the "optimal" strategy for AP-betting is
> pretty clear, and since the rules actually point out what it is, at least
> no-one is likely to be sitting around with their abaci in mid-game trying
> to determine what it is.
it doesn't appear to me that it's completely cut and dried; in an earlier draft of the rules i ran several combat simulations; while the general rule that "the better player wants low bets, the worse high" held, things weren't completely uniform. i'd have to take another look at it with the current payoff matrix.
still, one has to ask: if there's an optimal strategy (and it appears that there may well be one), why bother with the betting mechanism?
> From: Simon Hibbs <simonh_at_msi-uk.com>
> >8) In a similar vein, major NPC's shouldn't bother throwing chaff
> >(weaker warriors, debaters etc.) at the players to soften them up,
>
> Action points are not carried over between conflicts, which is evidently
> the case here if waves of warriors are being sent in. Each time they
> would be reset to their starting totals. I'd realy much rather field
> criticisms of the actual rules, rather than missconceptions of them.
that is, of course, almost as bad. you send in a wave of mooks and follow up behind them. (obglorantha -- an uz sends in a swarm of enlo.) it's entirely possible for the PC to crank his AP/SP/whateverP total to the sky fighting them. (bollix pounded his to in excess of a thousand when crunching through a squad of mooks in one of our playtest sessions). when the tough guy arrives, one of two things has probably happened:
Powered by hypermail