I assume this is a reply to me, despite getting the name wrong. And it's rather depressing to see that after I wrote a post specifically to explain my position I'm still seeing a lot of the same mistakes that I had corrected even before then
>Andrew, there are some flaws to your logic, however. You're talking
>about basing the limits on the AP differential.
No. AP differential says who is winning but it doesn't explain what that means in terms of the situation on the ground. For that you need the narrative.
> What about when you
>start contests with significantly different AP values?
I refer to what it means in terms of the narrative.
> Like one
>person starting off against a ruffian and his 3 buddies, and they're
>being run as a group with a single AP value? Does he start off
>automatically limited?
Well he'll have whatever limits are implied by the fact that he's facing off against four opponents. For instance if they surround him, he'll have trouble getting away.
>
>Yes, there is narative flow, but keep in mind that one thing that HQ
>was specifically designed to avoid was the "death spiral". I agree
>with Roderick: when you're losing is the exact time that you're going
>to change your approach.
And I'm not disagreeing. What I am saying is that ONE particular approach is ruled out by my reconstruction of the narrative situation. He can try other changes. If the narrative situation were different he could try that particular change. I've said all this before.
>
>Also, if you want to model someone getting beat down BEFORE the
>conclusion of the contest, and having a tougher time of it, start
>issuing wounds (-1 modifiers). I don't remember if these stayed in
>(I don't have my HQ book handy), but the way they worked is that the
>winner of an exchange could exchange the first 7 APs lost by his
>opponent for a -1 Hurt.
But that doesn't do what I want at all. What I want to do is to reflect the situation "on the ground" as it has been described in the narrative, and take that into account when evaluating whether actions suffer penalties on the ability used or are possible at all. I don't want a lasting penalty - I want something that reflects the situation of the moment and that can go away when the situation changes.
>
>None the less, the mechanics are intended to model classic heroic
>conflicts. The extended contest mechanism does reflect this very
>well. Imposing arbitrary (and yes, they're arbitrary as there is no
>concrete guideline for them) limits on a hero in a contest,
>especially because he's losing, goes counter to this.
You're taking far too wide a reading of "arbitrary". Is it arbitrary to say that a character that has been knocked to the ground has to deal with the situation before he can start running around the battlefield ? Is there a "concrete guideline" saying that ?
>
>I don't see how two men standing on opposite sides of a bridge
>stating oaths as to what they will do if they get to the other side
>first (or what they'll do to the other if he doesn't let him pass)
>prevents one of them from resorting to hurling insults or even
>saying "to the Underworld with this," drawing his sword and charging.
Well I explicitly said that it was a premise of the original post, and not something I found particularly convincing. I don't think that I would actually get to the situation described. Even if I allowed the direct use of swearing in this particular contest (and I am not sure that I would) the bids would probably be seriously restricted (no more than 2 AP perhaps ?). But maybe you consider these "arbitrary restrictions" ?
-- -- "The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala Guide to Taoism_ Paul K.
Powered by hypermail