> 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.
I agree, the trooper is doing very well, which is why if I were playing the cavalryman I would be desperate to try to change the basis of the contest in order to have a chance. Being restricted from doing that by the GM effectively means the GM is guaranteeing that I will loose. That kind of pre-judgement of the outcome would seriously piss me off.
> Not exactly. My argument is based on the nature of this
> psychological attack, and the "facts" are the (assumed) effect on
him.
Assumed by you, but not based on any specific statement of action in the contest.
> So it is pretty clear that my argument IS (still) being
misunderstood.
Nothing in the characters actual statements of intent specificaly excludes the cavalryman from changing tactics. You keep raising example such as shields being broken, or people being thrown on their back. That sort of situational change is driven by statements of intent "I try to break his shield", "I charge him and throw him back". No statement with such a specific goal has been given, and so arbitrarily assigning such limitations is IMHO completely unwarranted.
> > 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.
But there isn't anything specific to this situation that makes it different. Lets suppose there are several similar situations that arrise during the scenario. Why would you prevent the character from switching tactics because he's losing in this contest, yet allow him to switch tactics while losing in another?
> >
> >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.
And if the statement of intent by the troper had been of the "I throw him on the floor" variety, fair enough. It wasn't.
Suppose the Trooper's player had made a statement like "I want to intimidate and humiliate him so he doesn't try to force his way across". That would be a perfectly valid statement of intent, and if it were sufficiently successful of course it would prevent the cavalryman from attempting to cross because that's implicit.
The trouble is it also doesn't say anything about letting the trooper cross. This is a fair trade off which occurs very frequently in HeroQuest. I you want to limit someone's freedom of action, that may require limiting the possible consequences of your own action. Again breaking someone's shield is a good analogy. If I state I am using a shield breaker feat, I am limiting the possible outcomes of that exchange and can't expect to kill the guy as a result of it no matter what level of success I get.
However this is a very different situation from the one we were discussing. The trooper was using his ablity to persude the cavalryman to let him cross, but for all his accumulated advantage through the use of clever insinuation and insult, he has not yet succeeded, the cavalryman has not yet been persuaded, and IMHO must be free to pursue whatever course of action he chooses.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail