> if the little by little strategy is to your advantage, then
> it is not to your opponent advantage, and so your opponent will make large
> bets.
True, but this doesn't invalidate your strategy, nor remove your statistical advantage. You'll only lose if you're unlucky. Which is what your less able opponent is counting on, thus his strategy. You'll still probably win most of the time. Your opponent's desperate betting maximizes his chances, but it is still desperate.
> Yes, and its not a bad thing either - its seems very intuitive that
> experts who are also cautious are hard to beat
no argument here.
> When the natural result of 'minimaxing' is natural seeming behaviour,
> thats good.
"I take insane risks to win" vs "I gradually wear down his defenses, while minimising the chances of presenting him an opening" seems very reasonable given the situation.
> if it bothers you as a GM that players will play the odds
It doesn't. I'm not complaining, merely pointing out one of the realities of the game as I see it.
> its not that hard to construct more complex situations, given edges and AP
> bonuses, and differing bonuses for different abilities, and so on, so that
> your players will find it a little more difficult to calculate the odds.
only if you keep the actual numbers away from them, which is probably how it should be anyway. Best to describe opponents in visual rather than statistical terms. "She's got a reputation as an unstoppable killing machine, and her scimitar-arm is red up to the shoulder with the blood of your kinsmen" works better than "She's got Unstoppable Killing Machine 15WWW and is up to 275 AP courtesy of your clan ring."
Eric H.
Powered by hypermail