I've been watching this go back and forth for a while and haven't chimed in for a while because others were pretty much saying what I would have said.
> Not exactly. My argument is based on the nature of this
> psychological attack, and the "facts" are the (assumed) effect on him.
I think I've finally figured out the effect that Paul is trying to create with the situation and that would be much better reflected with situational modifiers. In other words, if a character has been hit by a particular barrage of insults that the GM has ruled would put him at a psychological disadvantage or has caused the character to not think straight, the character should receive a penalty to any action that would need a clear head or a mind in line with the desired action. The section entitle "Yes, but..." in the HQ rules (p. 180) applies here. As narrator, if you really don't think that charging is appropriate, when the player asks, a good response would be "yes, but you'll get a -5 penalty since you're so flustered" or whatever. In general, restricting a players actions is not a good thing. Personally, I've yet to see anything to convince me to restrict the cavalry guy's actions at all (even giving the penalty) but we also don't know the exact exchange that went on.
The intention of the rules was to give the players more options, not less. Saying that a PC cannot do anything simply on the basis of low AP goes against the whole idea of "Yes, but..." and MGF. The low AP *has* had an effect on the character. Only heroes (and important narrator characters) can do a desperation stake. This means that someone down to 8 AP can only bid a maximum of 8 AP. Because heroes are something more than a common person, they can overcome this limitation and bid up to their starting AP. Because of this, they should also be allowed to do things you might not normally allow a "commoner".
Give the examples on pp. 69-71 a reread. I think they'll make things clearer.
Camo
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail