>It may depend on bidding strategy. We may pay more attention to the
>numbers than the rules want you to, and player bids of (AP / 2) - 1
>are common -- as much as you can to do damage, but not so much that
>if you fail big you're out.
I'm not sure about the HQ rules, but the HW rules gave equal attention to drama and numerical tactics. In any case, since the AP are an abstract pool representing position and that sort of thing, it makes sense to use these sorts of tactics. They inspire in-game description, IMO. So, if you want to play it safe, and make a calculated bid like the above, then describe your character's action as similarly calculated. Extending himself as much as possible while keeping out of the enemies range to put him out of the fight.
When you make an impulsive bid, describe the character attempting something impulsive, etc.
The point is that playing the strategy of the abstract system actually can inspire the in-game action. So I don't see it as particularly undramatic. Very cool, IMO, actually.
In any case, I can verify that many extended conflicts don't go all that long given the bidding (as someone pointed out, there's almost always somebody who's interested in keeping it short). OTOH, in some interesting extended, but subtle contests, things can go longer. For example, we did one in which two characters were both trying to maneuver a social situation such that they ended up alone with another character they were both with, with the added proviso that neither wanted the third person to realize what was going on. This was very dramatic, and lasted about 6 rounds, IIRC. I can't imagine a 10 round contest, thought if it did happen, I'd think that it would be about something dramatic and climactic.
The only thing that tends to extend contests is using Unrelated Actions to get augments and do other things. But even this doesn't seem to make them long to me. I don't think about the action in terms of "scenarios" or "adventures" and we just have a ongoing story. Think more like a Soap Opera. Which means that the pacing of extended conflicts is all about the drama at the time.
Interestingly, I do use the cliffhanger as a way to maintain interest between sessions; totally appropriate for the serial nature of my game. But to me that means getting up to a contest, and then waiting until the next session to actually resolve it. If you resolve the conflict of the guy hanging from the cliff, and then go home, well, that's not a cliffhanger. So I tend to start sessions with conflicts rather than end them with them. What Dave is describing is really the Episodic model, in which you build to a climax each "scenario" or "adventure". Very different.
Anyhow, the point is that in the serial game, as opposed to the episodic game, the players have no idea when they'll be needing their resources. Will they be the one on the cliff this week (or in a position to help)? Will there even be a cliffhanger? More importantly, when will the next important conflict occur? Who knows? And how long until they can rely on that resource again? Indeterminate. So they tend to play things more in-game. Does it make sense for the character to use it here? Would they whip it out? If so, then they do. The players aren't shceduling their character's use of resources on a known metagame plot pace (which is not to say that they don't plan, OOC, but they just tend to do so in a way that's more in link with the in-game activity).
Anyhow, that's one way to make repeating resources harder to plan around, making it more of a limitation.
Mike
Powered by hypermail