RE: Re: Argument overridden

From: Paul Andrew King <paul_at_...>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:58:33 +0100

>I don't think I misunderstand your position but I still don't accept
>it as a 'normal' reading of the rules - obviously you're quite
>entitled to run them whatever way you wish. Your game.
>
>
>
>What my position is that players suffer no limitations on their
>actions except those imposed by being defeated in a contest. That
>means that until they are defeated they can attempt whatever they
>wish.

Well I'll explain why I consider it a "normal" reading of the game rules.

The loss of APs represents a change in the circumstances - so a loss of APs means a disadvantageous change. Look at the list of things that APs can represent on p68 and consider what a loss of APs means in relation to those - . Has a character been thrown to the ground ? That limits his actions - he's not running anywhere until he's back on his feet. Has he been forced away from an object he could use as an improvised weapon ? That limits his actions - he can't grab that object and use it unless he manages to manoeuvre closer to it.

Now you can keep things entirely abstract if you like, but the actions themselves are narrative elements and it seems normal to explain the results in narrative terms, leading to the effects I have mentioned above.

-- 
--
"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.