I've no problem with combining an action if it seems to make sense.
>
>> >As a Narrator I might inflict a penalty on the ability used, or might
>> >require a higher AP bid than "normal", basd on the preceeding actions,
>but
>> >I'd rarely say "you can't do that until you psych yourself up". And, of
>> >course, the action is not final until the dice are rolled and the AP
>moved
>> >around.
>>
>> Do you apply this equally to physical limits ?
>
>Yes. Note the wrestling example - my hero is in a full-nelson. He slips it,
>then attacks. Its an aknowledgement of the previous actions, and the
>narrator is right to say "well, that's pretty tough, better give me a high
>AP bid." If I fail my roll, not only have I failed to get out of the hold,
>but I'm even more disadvantaged *as noted by the AP loss*. There is no need
>for the narrator to say "You can only break his hold this turn, can't also
>attack".
From my PoV it depends what opportunities the other guy has to do something. If the attempt to break the hold is likely to have him fully occupied (assuming the action is a success), then fine. If even a good success would leave the opponent with a significant opportunity to attack then it's better to split the action.
>
>> >Just because someone has lost AP to a certain type of attack *doesn't*
>mean
>> >that the attack form did it's "normal damage".You mentioned fighting a
>> >tentacled thing a number of posts ago - no, losing AP to it doesn't
>> >necessarily mean that you are bound up in it's tentacles- unless someone
>> >specified that's what happened.
>>
>> Well that will depend on the actions and the rolls - but it is
>> certainly something that CAN happen, and that is really all that is
>> needed to make my point.
>
>Depends on your point, but from what I see you srgueing, no, it doesn't.
Then what you "see" isn't what I'm arguing. I thought I'd made it pretty clear that the guiding principle is what is happening "on the ground" as stated in the narrative. Certainly the narrative could work out differently depending on the actions and the rolls. As I say the APs don't and can't tell the full story.
>
>> > Loss of AP in that contest could mean that
>> >you spent fruitless effort and fatigue and found no opening to thrust
>your
>> >sword into just as much as "it's got a hold of you". Even if the
>> >player/narrator running the Tentacle beast said "It's entangling you" and
>> >won a good bid (or did a Wound-for-AP transfer), I'd still let the other
>> >player say "I get out of the tentacles and run away (or dodge, or attack,
>or
>> >whatever), though perhaps with some sort of penalty/Bid restriction.
>>
>> They're still going to have to do an action which somehow involves
>> getting out of the tentacles.
>
>In my action statment I've included "I get out of the tentacles...". From
>what I can gather, you want to stop the action there. I allow it to continue
>with "...and attack".
Well if you look a few lines down you can see that I explicitly allowed that fixing the problem could be part of the action. The only problem I have with "I get out of the tentacles and,.." isn't the "and", but in that it doesn't say how your character is going to try to get out of the tentacles.
>
>> >Your way seemingly pre-empts actions - "you have to psych yourself up
> > >first". I prefer to say "Yes, you can do that, but you have a penalty"
>and
>> >let the dice decide if he gets away/attacks/whatever.
>>
>> Well that would depend on how severe the problem is. I've no issue
>> with including fixing the problem as part of an action or using
>> penalties in some cases.
>
>And I allow it in all cases.
-- -- "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