No, I'm basing it on my ideas on how a contest could play out to get to the described situation (and that is all that any of us have in this case).
And I'm arguing because rather than say "I don't think it would happen like that" and agreeing to differ (which would be fair enough), people are arguing with me. When I made the post explaining my position I raised this point, and people still argued.
> Based on the information we know (the
>cavalry guy is down to 8 AP),
Against 33 AP - from a position of near equality, where he seems to have had the edge. That's a pretty bad showing.
> there's no reason to restrict him from
>charging across the bridge in a contest where the goal is to get to the
>other side. If we knew he was thrown from his horse for some reason
>then I'd be right with you. How could he charge across on his horse if
>he's not *on* his horse?
>
>But even assuming that it is supposed to undermine the target's will to
>resist, it *doesn't* limit the target's choice of action.
Why not ? If he can be forced to lose by psychological actions how can it be that they have no effect ? I take the view that at that point, so far as I can tell he would not care enough to go all out. It looks to me like a player determined not to lose whatever happens.
> The target
>will no longer resist once his AP have fallen to 0. Given only the fact
>that he's down to 8 AP means that he's close to conceding to the other
>guy and that's all.
Even for that we have to count the other guy's AP. But we ALSO know that he's been doing very badly in the contest and it is at least reasonable that there could be some impact.
> Being down to 8 AP means nothing else. Period.
>Other factors may limit his actions but not the fact that he only has 8
>AP.
And - as I have made clear - I AM taking other factors - known and assumed into account and it is THOSE not the 8 AP that are the important factors.
> If the cavalry guy is not a PC or major NPC, it would restrict his
>maximum bit to 8 but even that should not restrict his action otherwise
>since a bid should be commensurate with his actions via percentage (for
>example, "If you charge across the bridge, you must bid at least half
>your AP"). See the 'Sample AP Bids' chart on page 68 of HQ. If the
>character is a PC, you might even require a desperation stake.
That depends what sort of gain you think charging across the bridge would produce. I don't believe that 4 AP is nearly enough.
>
>As far as I know, however, there's nothing in the rules that limit your
>choice of action based purely on current AP, regardless of the stated
>goal. If there is, please let me know where.
BUt there is certainly stuff in the rules saying that CHANGES in AP can be and sometimes are explained in the narrative by changes in the situation which DO limit actions. and THAT is what I am talking about. I never ever said that actions are limited solely by AP (and I've said otherwise often enough).
-- -- "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