> I am going to repeat my position, which I
>think is being misunderstood.
I think your position is being understood fine, just disagreed with...
>So my central point is that the narrative describes the changing
>conditions of the contest, including psychological effects on the
>participant, and reflected by the AP changes. These conditions may -
>and often will - affect the actions available. MY reading - and it
>is mine and I do not claim that it is binding on anyone else - of the
>likely course of the contest based on the description given
>(including the AP totals) was that the described action did not fit
>into the narrative. This is not an arbitrary decision, and in
>actual play any such decision would follow from the actual narrative
>generated in the contest. Ruling out such a decision a priori
>effectively rules out the use of APs to adequately measure the
>psychological dimension of the contest - even though such a use is
>given in the rules.
Okay, as I recall, the situation is that a trooper (34 AP) has been successfully swearing at a cavalry officer (8AP) to decide who will cross a bridge first. It is now the cavalry guys turn, and his player wants to ride down the trooper.
Here's how I see it :
Situation.
The cavalry guy is at a disadvantage, but has not yet lost. 8AP does not seem a small amount to me - starting characters have many skills where this would represent more than half his starting total! Rather, the Trooper is doing well. However, this is irrelevant - the contest is only over when someone runs out of AP...
Possible Actions.
The cavalry trooper is free to choose anything consistent with his current situation. In short, it must fit the narritive. (We agree!) However, riding down the other guy seems to me to be entirely consistent with the current situation - he wants to cross the bridge, he has a horse, he's mounted, he is physically able to move, he is free to act, he has a reasonable chance of success.
Your argument is that he was losing a psychological argument, therefore his actions are restricted by this "fact". However, he has not lost the argument. Resorting to violence while arguing is pretty consistent - if you doubt this, try going into your nearest bar and swear continuely at a guy bigger than you - see if he hits you or runs away first...
I do not see him changing tack as "ignoring the psychological damage" - more on this in a moment.
Side Thought.
I think part of the problem here is the idea that the circumstances of a contest effect the person's ability to act. While this is true, I think its important for the GM *not* to create such circumstances. So, if a player says "I attack him with my sword", it is not reasonable for the GM to interpret the resulting AP loss as "you break his shield". If the player wants to break the other guy's shield, he needs to specify it - "I use my Shield Breaker feat" - "he loses 7 AP, and his shield is broken..." In this case, if the footsoldier had deliberately made a large bid and tried to shame the cavalry man into dismounting to face him, then maybe we'd be in the situation you describe. Coming up with descriptions that don't arbitrarily restrict the other person's choice is hard, but part of the skill of HQ GMing. See also "Well, when I thought you would lose I said your arm was broken, but seeing as you won, I guess..."
AP Bid
Riding down your opponent is a pretty make or break effort. I'd want an AP that could be expected to knock the trooper's AP to 0 in one go. You'd need to use the desperation stakes rules, and you'd need to be able to bid 34AP anyway. Anything less than 34AP, you need another action...
Defensive Ability.
"Hey, but I was swearing at him, and he was about to back down - how come
he can suddenly get so brave?"
"Well, we'll only know if he manages to be that brave after the dice are
thrown..."
To my mind, this is where the psychological contest comes in. The cavalry
trooper is trying to change the nature of the contest, but that doesn't
necessarily mean he gets to. The footsoldier is quite entitled to make an
defense on the basis of "when I see him gathering himself to charge me, I'm
going to swear at him to try and make him back down." So for this exchange,
I reckon that using "swear like a trooper" as a defensive ability is fine.
Of course, if the soldier would rather dodge, that's his business...
Or to summarise - in my view, the GM should not be restricting choices, except as a direct result of a character's deliberate (and successful) action. BUT the defender should be allowed (if they want to) to make an attempt to stop the contest changing direction so sharply.
>Anyone who is uncomfortable with the idea that actions in an extended
>contest might impose psychological limits on the actions available
I don't think anyone is saying anything like this. I'd certainly have the same reaction if you were restricting player choice for comparable reasons.
Cheers,
Graham
Powered by hypermail