On Monday, October 27, 2003, at 03:03 PM, Paul Andrew King wrote:
> > 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.
You're right, it is. But that's still no reason to restrict his actions.
> > 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.
Why would he not care? How do you feel getting these responses to your e-mails? You've expressed that you don't feel that others are understanding your position. Are you losing the will to argue or are you becoming more determined? Both are certainly possibilities, as are others.
> > 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.
The other guy's AP have no impact on what this guy can do. They certainly have an impact on what the other guy can do, though. Yes, this guy's been doing poorly and there *is* an impact: a low AP total.
> > 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.
Then why do you keep bringing up that he has only 8 AP?
> > 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.
Fine. Then make it that he has to bid *all* his AP. The point is, the number of AP aren't as important as their relationship to the AP total. What if he started with only 8 AP for some reason? Would half his AP be enough then?
> >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
Yes, it does.
> which DO limit actions.
Where?
> 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 first quote above:
> > 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.
is your statement based solely on AP.
Camo
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail