> >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.
Based on what? There has been no description of a specific effect that would be equivalent to "thrown to the floor". What has the trooper done that would force the GM to make this interpretation? All I've seen described is a player saying "I'm gonna use "Swear Like Trooper" to browbeat him into letting me cross first". I wouldn't rule a character was thrown to the floor unless his opponent specifically tried to do so - and I wouldn't rule a character was so psychologically withdrawn that he couldn't ride his horse unless his opponent did *something* specifically to do so...
> >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.
Yet one player has tried to change tack, and you think the *GM* shouldn't allow it. That means its not mutual at all...
> > 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).
So the player says "I swear at him to win the argument that I should cross first". Sounds fair enough to me. Especially if both players at the time are trying to argue. I still don't see where this would lead to your interpretation of the result.
> >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.
As has now been explained. I'd assumed otherwise, what with transfers being pretty unusual...
In this case, I wouldn't let him ride the other guy down - its hard to see that as anything other than an all or nothing action. I would let him go with a slightly less optimistic action - say "I ride my horse into the guy, and try to force him backwards".
> >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.
??? This is the complete opposite of your suggestion. I'm suggesting that the only person who can *try* to keep it a psychological contest is the other player. *NOT* the GM.
> If you read my explanation you would see that I explicitly stated > that I based it on my reconstruction of the narrative and on how I > assumed the swearing "attack" to work.
But you have not managed to communicate (to me at least...) *what* is restricting the guy's actions. Saying "he's close to losing" and "it was a psychological contest" isn't enough for me. If a character (especially a player character) is being stopped from taking an action, I want a clear example of exactly *why* he can't. Maybe you can see that specific reason, but it escapes me so far.
Cheers,
Graham
Powered by hypermail