The *risk* in an AP bid is primarily to your position in the contest. How will swearing interfere with your attempt to get across first ? How could it help the other guy get across first ?
>
>> > If you want to limit things based
>> >on situation, then a situational modifier on the action's roll is
>> >appropriate.
>>
>> Look if you can explain why high AP bids are appropriate to describe
>> swearing at each other over who gets to cross the bridge first then
>> please do so. What's the risk if you lose ?
>
>Losing face. Risk can be more than just physical. Let's say the cavalry
>guy doesn't charge but keeps the contest a swearing contest. He's
>driven down to a minor defeat. Not only does the infantry guy get to
>cross the bridge but the cavalry guy will suffer a -10% to any ability
>where his losing face will cause. For instance, the next time he tries
>to get his troops to "respect his authority", he'll suffer a -10% to
>his command troops. This will either last until he does something to
>regain the respect of others or until the incident is forgotten (a
>minor defeat so maybe only a season or so).
AP bids are about individual exchanges, and only the deciding exchange, and the "Parting Shot" (if any) have much bearing on the contest result. THe question is how to justify a high AP bid (big risk to your position) when all you are doing is swearing at the other guy ? OK there ARE contests where it would be a high risk strategy (e.g. in a more diplomatic setting where it is inappropriate behaviour) but two soldiers swearing at each other ? I don't see it.
>
>> What effect does
>> swearing have that justifies knocking a lot of AP off the other guy
>> if you win ?
>
>You have obviously never cussed or been cussed up one side and down
>another...
Then explain.
>
>> So far as I can see it is low risk and likely to have
>> little effect (if it can work at all). And if that's the case then
>> that *is* a low AP bid. Strictly by the rules.
>
>You are correct in that low risk should equal low AP bid. However, any
>kind of contest can have an action that means a lot of risk. Take a
>look at the "Sample Consequences" on p 65 and the "Sample AP Bids" on p
>68. Of the categories listed, this is probably closest to social
>conflict. And look! A threat of physical harm!
In a situation where presumably the threat can be executed immediately. Now context matters (I'm sure that soldiers swear at each other all the time) and being on the other side of the bridge would rather reduce the impact of any threat of physical harm.
> Pages 70 & 71
>specifically cover switching abilities and withdrawing from a contest.
>Page 70, second paragraph under "Switching Abilities" states
>"...remember that advantage points measure advantage�how well the
>character is doing in the contest at the current moment. They do not
>measure proficiency; that is what the target number is for." In other
>words, you don't get worse just from being at low AP.
This is getting weird. Why are you quoting rules that are irrelevant to this issue and which I have never disagreed with ?
> The third
>paragraph continues "When you switch abilities, your goal does not
>necessarily change (although it might), just the means by which you
>pursue it. When you switch your goal itself, of course, the ability you
>use to pursue the new goal will probably change as well." Here it's
>talking about changing tactics. The goal (crossing the bridge first)
>hasn't changed, only the means (charging across rather than browbeating
>the other guy into letting you pass.)
I don't remember anyone disagreeing with that either.
>
>While no one in the contest is trying to withdraw, the section covering
>withdrawing on the next page still applies with regard to charging
>changing the contest. I don't want to type in the couple of paragraphs
>there but I recommend reading them (as well as the previous three)
>again.
Well I've read it but I don't se anything there that changes anything.
-- -- "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