I'm not sure what I have said that would give that impression.
>
>My preference is to find ways to let players have their characetr do
>what they want, using the rules to enable that rather than to exclude
>options.
And I'm not against that, but I am trying to consider ALL the players instead of letting one have whatever he wants, no matter what.
>
>> ....Now I'm certainly not suggesting
>> that the player's preferences should be ignored but I do want to
>> consider other issues and I don't think that "I want to bid more
>AP"
>> should be the overriding concern.
>
>I think that clearly a high-bidding player wants their character to
>attempt a daring and risky manoeuver is a big concern, especialy if
>they're not being allowed to do so.
Well you've taken my point out of context. I was specifically talking about the case where the player is justifying a large AP bid by insisting on dealing with a sequence of actions as a single exchange. So in this case the player does NOT want to make a daring and risky manoeuvre except possibly in terms of the game mechanics.
>
>>"I jump over the hedge, and as I descend I hack at the monster with
>>my sword". Now that *IS* more heroic, but it is also clearly not
>>two distinct actions. So I would have a much stronger bias in
>>favour of resolving that in a single exchange.
>
>I realy don't see what the big deal is. A decleration of "I argue my
>case before the presidium all through the afternoon, bringing to bear
>all my experience as an orator - I bid 15 APs" is a perfectly good
>exchange declaration in a realy long-running contest.
Well the "deal" in this case is that trying to hit while in mid-jump IS more risky and heroic than waiting to land and then making an attack. That IS a daring and risky manoeuvre.
>
>Why would I asusme there are synchronisation problems?
Why would you assume that there couldn't be ? I'm not assuming that there always WILL be synchronisation problems, I just want the option of saying that sequences of actions can be broken down when that is the best way of handling the situation.
>Ok if there's
>a specific situation you're concerned about let's hear it, but
>invoking unstated, off-stage factors to support a possition in this
>way is, well, less than helpful.
Well I don't think that your response is exactly helpful either. But to take the example we are already discussing, if one Hero wants to jump over the hedge, land safely, then attack, what about another Hero who has already made it to the other side of the Hedge ? Does he have to wait for the other Hero's action to be resolved before he can do anything ? Well maybe, that's a judgement call - but surely there's some point where you decide that that's too much, and that the sequence should be broken down to give the other Hero a chance to do his thing.
-- -- "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