> so my question now is: does anybody else play it this way, am I the
> only one not to play it this way
It's possible to read Ron as if he plays fast and loose with AP lending and augmenting - nowhere does he state that participants take the time for an unrelated action.
OTOH, it could be implied. If someone falls to negative AP, but is lent some through an unrelated action before the end of the round, _then_ you go to stage 3 of the description and retroactively justify the comeback. That's how we've always done it.
But "AP lending can always get tossed in, at any stage; Augments across player-characters are certainly permitted prior to the rolls" does sound as if Ron's not too picky about the order of actions. Knowing something about his narrativist ideals, it seems even more likely.
Powered by hypermail