Do I have ot keep repeating this ? Based on how the attack is supposed to work.
> 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wouldn't rule a character was so psychologically withdrawn that he couldn't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...
Hold on, what i am saying is that the concept of the attack has apparently been mutually agreed - both characters are using it.
>
>> > 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.
Well that is where the question of what the contest is comes into mind. If it is "persuade the other guy that he should let me go across first" then riding across the bridge is rather an odd action - and what ability should it use ?. But the contest seems to have been to GET across the bridge first (and I don't see that swearing is very persuasive).
> 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".
At what sort of bid, if I might ask ?
>
>> >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.
It certainly isn't the complete opposite. It doesn't seem to be a big step away.
>
> > 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 it was a wrestling contest would you have the same problem ? Wouldn't the change of AP's reflect gaining (or losing) holds that would restrict the other character's actions ? My point is that the attacks ASSUME this sort of effect and getting repeatedly worn down to being on the point of losing is going to have SOME effect - what else does the loss and transfer of APs MEAN in this contest ?
>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.
>
-- -- "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