Well that depends on how that showing is told in the narrative.
>
>> > 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?
Because it doesn't seem to be a very important contest to the character. When the players wants have the character acting in odd ways then something is wrong.
> 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.
Usually because they haven't. I have had to issue rather a lot of corrections.
> Are you losing the will to argue or are
>you becoming more determined? Both are certainly possibilities, as are
>others.
Well if the contest is to make me stop arguing then my opponents are losing.
>
>> > 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.
APs in themselves don't, but the position in the narrative that those APs reflect, might,
> 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.
There are also any effects from the narrative description of that explain those losses.
>
>> > 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?
Well if he wasn't doing badly the narrative effects of his opponent's actions wouldn't be doing much to restrict him, would they ?
>
>> > 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?
That would depend on what the other guy had. Now maybe I am completely wrong about this but it seems to me that if the result would give the character a big advantage in the contest the AP balance after the exchange has to reflect that, To take a more extreme, but similar example, if you can't bid enough APs to take an opponent out of the fight you can't, for instance, go for a single-shot-kill - or if you try you won't actually kill the opponent, unless the result of the contest actually does take enough APs to knock him out of the contest (and even then you may need a successful parting shot to kill).
>
>> >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?
We've been through this, and I've produced examples directly from the rules, such as being knocked to the ground.
>
>> 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.
>
Haven't I said often enough that it isn't ?
-- -- "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