Re: Argument overridden

From: Bryan <bethexton_at_...>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:24:57 -0000

Roderick;

I just wanted to say that I thought this was an exceptionally clear and well written post, thanks for it!

--Bryan

• In HeroQuest-rules_at_yahoogroups.com, "Roderick and Ellen Robertson" <rjremr_at_s...> wrote:
  >
  > Backing down is losing (whether he decides on his own or is forced
  by loss
  > of AP). Your interpretation is forcing it early by restricting the
  hero to
  > an arbitrary choice of abilities. Low AP is the time to switch
  abilities, to
  > change tactics.
  

<more excellent stuff snipped>

Obviously whatever you've been using hasn't worked, so try
> something else. "My center is giving way, my right right is pushed
back,
> situation excellent, I am attacking" (General Foch, Second Battle
of the
> Marne)
>
> One very basic premise of the AP mechanism and Extended Contests is
that you
> are *not defeated* until that last AP slips away. It is closely
based on
> adventure stories and movies, wherein Our Hero(tm) gets the snot
beat out of
> him before winning. "While there are APs there is Hope", "Never
give up",
> "It's not over 'til it's over" etc. are the watchwords of an
extended
> contest. As long as the hero has even 1 AP left he is fully capable
of
> action (using the desparation stake rule if he must).
>
> What you are proposing is *arbitrarily* restricting a player's
choices. And
> badly at that, in this case - not allowing a verbal slinging match
to
> degenerate into violence simply goes against all human behavior.
>
> > >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 ?
>
> A hero should always have the will to force the issue as long as
the contest
> is still ongoing. Yes, it *is* binary: Either he is in the contest
to win,
> or he has lost. While he has APs, it can be assumed that he intends
to win
> the contest. Restricting his choices as you propose is hamstringing
him,
> taking away his options, making it more likely that he will lose.
>
> > >And as I mentioned before, violence is *more* likely when
someone is
> > >frustrated.
> >
> > But he's not frustrated - he's LOSING.
>
> And this isn't frustrating how?
>
> RR
> It is by my order and for the good of the state that the bearer of
this has
> done what he has done.
> - Richelieu