As I said I've discussed the reasons why actions might be split in other posts.
>This isn't GURPS or D&D, where contests are measured out in seconds and
>tactical considerations are paramount. This isn't Runequest where attacks,
>parries and damage are determined individually. This is HeroQuest. We
>aren't trying to model "Reality", we are modelling the action of the Illiad,
>King Arthur, the Three Musketeers, Xena and Buffy.
Nor will you find me arguing for fixed time limits - but I do argue for keeping the contests going on more or less in sync, and I think that that is an adequate reason for splitting up a sequence of actions.
>
> >
>> I don't believe so. As I stated above you were objecting to
>> particular actions - not addressing the reasons why "compound
>> actions" should sometimes be split
>
>No, you wrote:
>
>"Then I think you are misunderstanding the point at issue. The point
>is that in my view the narrative effects of the exchanges - as well
>as the initial conditions of the contest - should be respected. This
>MAY mean that the character will have to improve his position before
>the character can do what he the player would like to do, and that
>this MAY be something that is better not rolled into a single
>exchange. If the character wants to make a dive for the kitchen
>knife he was forced away from last action he can do so - but it will
>be a bigger AP bid. If he wants to gradually force his opponent back
>to get to the knife then timing issues may make that better as a
>separate action."
I also wrote that I had mentioned these reasons in other posts. Now you could ask me to repeat them or you could look up the posts yourself. I'll do you the courtesy of assuming that you missed or forgot that.
>
>Nothing there about why compound actions *should* be split, some waffeling
>about MAY. Your point, explicitly stated, is that: "the narrative effects of
>the exchanges - as well as the initial conditions of the contest - should be
>respected. "
>
>I agree, they should. I have said so all along. Where I disagree with you is
>how they should be respected.
>
>
>> > Players should be allowed and encouraged to act in "heroic" ways.
>> >If this means doing crazy multiple-action stunts then they should be
>allowed
>> >to try to do them. By saying "no, you can't do that, you have to do this
>> >first", by not allowing them to combine actions, by *forcing* them to
>> >perform set-up actions, you are removing the heroism.
>>
>> And did I say that they should automatically be disallowed ?
>
>You sure implied it. This whole thing started when you insisted that a man
>cannot go from swearing like a soldier to physical attack without a round to
>"psych himself up".
I don't remember insisting on a round. If sequential actions are allowed at all then there is at least a possibility of doing the whole thing in a single round, although it would probably involve an odd choice of ability (and a penalty from that)
> A numer of us disagreed, saying it seemed perfectly
>natural that this change in method occured.
And I have replied saying that I don't see it as natural - at least not without being set up by narrative in the preceding stages, which I don't believe to be the case in the original example (nothing was said either way).
> If you are so adamant that a
>seemingly natural ability shift can't be done without a round wasted in
>psyching oneself up, then that colors the rest of your argument, as far as
>I'm concerned.
Well I suggest that your "colouring" can only be as accurate as your
perception of my position.
>
>
>
>
>> >And yes, I see your "MAYs" up there. My point is that they are "Rarely,
>if
>> >Evers". I won't say that I would *never* force a set-up action, because I
>> >can't read the future. But I certainly like to think that I would adhere
>to
>> >"Yes, But" in those situations.
>>
>> Did you read the example ?
>
>Yes I did.
>
>A quick simple action contrasted with a
>> slower, less risky, compound action to do the same thing. Are you
>> telling me that I should allow the less heroic slower action as a
>> single action even if it causes timing problems with other
>> characters' actions because it is "more heroic" ?
>
>Neither of your descriptions allowed for an immediate attack (or any other
>actioon) with the same roll.
I don't see that that matters.
> Both were designed simply to "get the knife"
>with an implied "but don't use it until next round". As far as I'm
>concerned, they're simply variations on the same theme, and can *both* be
>handled in one action - they are producing the same result.
Well I'm not insisting that either should be split on the grounds of the results.
> Now, if the
>*player* wants to fart around and bid low and slow and make it last over
>several turns, that's his decision. This begs the question of how either the
>player or narrator determines when he can pick up the knife using those low
>bids.
Which is not terribly relevant to the present discussion.
>
>> And if there are adequate reasons for ruling out the less heroic
>> compound action as a single action, then why can't they apply to
>> other compound actions ?
>
>I don't see either of these as a compound action. I don't agree with your
>question. Certainly not based on your examples.
OK, suppose the other players are doing significantly quicker actions. Is it reasonable to split the longer action then ?
[...]
>
>> >No it doesn't, because that wasn't the purpose of the example.
>>
>> Since dealing with a "compound" action isn't the purpose of the
>> example, it would have been better not to include an example of the
>> GM disallowing one for a reason that is not even hinted at in the
>> text.
>
>And the rest of the book is perfect? This arguing by example was done to
>death with the "Switching Abilities" example in Hero Wars, page 137.
Well I think it is worth pointing out that you are arguing based on private information about what "happened" in the example that is absent from the text and certainly at odds with at least one perfectly reasonable reading.
>
>
>> >And if the beast only has 17 AP left? Should I worry that a 6 AP
>> >"positioning" action can win the fight when it "shouldn't" ?
>>
>> Say it's a 5 AP action, or use the fact that to get 18 AP the beast
>> has to fumble and the player has to get a critical success. Since
>> the AP bid represents both the consequences of failure and success I
>> don't hold with basing it purely on the consequences of failure -
>> even though that is what the rules say. There obviously isn't a
>> problem here unless you want to say that the GM should never adjust
>> the AP bids (something the rules DO permit) AND take a very rigid
>> view of what can happen as a result of the action.
>
>Why should I worry that a jump "shouldn't" win the contest in the first
>place? Why shouldn't it?
Well if you're the narrator and can't think of a good way to narrate it, then that would be a good reason.
> That is my implict expctation of the contest -
>anything I do *can* win the fight if the dice and AP are right. You seem to
>be saying that certain actions can't win the fight no matter how well I
>roll, how well I describe them.
If you don't take risky enough moves you won't in a by-the-rules game either. All I'm doing is considering the potential rewards as well as risks into account when setting the AP value of the bid. That may be against the rules but hardly an unreasonable variation.
>
>Fine, it's your game, play it the way you want, but don't expect me to play
>in it. And that's my last word on this subject.
>
-- -- "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