Certainly not be everybody.
>
>>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...
But unless bids are restricted, the fact is that the trooper can easily afford an 8 AP loss, and so a win on the next exchange is very likely. I really look at the AP as a comparative measure, and the fact that the trooper has been getting transfers rather than inflicting losses says that he has been doing VERY well.
>
>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.
No disagreement there.
>
>Your argument is that he was losing a psychological argument, therefore his
>actions are restricted by this "fact".
Not exactly. My argument is based on the nature of this psychological attack, and the "facts" are the (assumed) effect on him.
So it is pretty clear that my argument IS (still) being misunderstood.
> 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...
And I haven't disagreed with this either. I've explicitly said that in differing situations it is a real possibility.
>
>I do not see him changing tack as "ignoring the psychological damage" -
>more on this in a moment.
Again it is not the issue of "changing tack" as the nature of the change. The way I see it the most likely situation is the psychological equivalent of being "thrown to the floor". He's got to recover from that before going on an all-out attack.
>
>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.
Well I'm not suggesting that this is purely the GM's creation. In fact I would say tat it is a mutually agreed creation given that both players are using the same ability and attempting to have the same effect. The intended effect of the action is certainly something for the players to put forward.
> 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..."
I don't really see this as applying. If the player just said "I swear at him" I would - in this case - ask "and what is your action ?" There needs to be some explanation of what the swearing is attempting to achieve (and HOW it is going to achieve it).
>
>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...
And in this case the cavalryman doesn't have that many APs - even with a desperation stake.
>
>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...
If course this is very close to my suggestion that he should try another action to "psych himself up" first.
>
>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.
Well, my impression of the "free will" arguments was that that was exactly what was being said.
-- -- "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