I can see some of my players having a real problem with me closing down their options because _I_ as the GM don't think what they want to do is consistent with their character's state of mind. :-) I'd be dodging M&M's pretty damn quickly!!
I think this is almost exactly what the desperation stake is supposed to be for. The cavalry soldier entered into an argument about who had the right to cross first and has been browbeaten fairly badly, almost to the point where he is going to allow the trooper to cross first. In desperation he thinks he'll take firm action and try to force his way - forget that talking crap. (In game terms that is a bid beyond the 8AP he has in an effort to end the contest in a way he thinks he has an advantage - if he fails he may be driven very low in AP terms and be badly hurt if the GM decides the only way he loses what has become a physical contest is in a physical fashion)
Just because someone is being browbeaten doesn't prevent them from lashing out. IMO :-)
>>> >What effect of previous exchanges is being ignored?
>>>
>>> The undermining of the will to cross the bridge, of course.
>>
>>This only occurs when he runs out of AP. If he doesn't have the
>>will to attack the foot soldier, he doesn't have the will to
>>continue the contest: ergo, he has lost.
>
>That's an all-or-nothing interpretation. Why can't he be in a state
>where he's not (quite) willing to back down yet without the will to
>force the issue ?
Because that is the players remit. The player is the representative of what the character is willing to do and what it is not. The AP simply allows them to see whether a particular course of action is being successful and eventually what the final outcome will be. If he continues arguing it is likely he will lose - the player can see that. The player may then be in a state where he's not willing to back down but not wanting to take physical action, either for social considerations or because they are worried that the current contest situation could result in them being badly hurt.
The player should not be constrained in what they attempt - the GM's job is to ensure that their AP bid reflects the boldness (or lack thereof) of their declared actions.
>>And as I mentioned before, violence is *more* likely when someone is
>>frustrated.
>
>But he's not frustrated - he's LOSING.
That's _why_ he's frustrated!! :-) He sees that he's not going to win a verbal argument. This trooper is making him look and feel stupid and why he may feel that a violent response is the _only_ option he has...
Powered by hypermail