On the other hand there are diminishing returns, both in terms of AP (since the totals are deceasing the "value" of a set bid increases) and in terms of what can actually be done - so you can't win like that unless it makes narrative sense. (It is possible in principle to have a "stalemate by repetition" but sooner or later one side will lose on their action freeing the other to do something more positive).
>
>
>> And I don't think that anyone was insisting on such actions, just that
>> actions had to make narrative sense [...]
>
>Well, aside from 'Kathy', at least... I agree, the consensus here seems
>to be somewhere between "yes, but...", and "yes, of course!".
>
>
>> >Indeed, as mentioned I think by someone else, one might argue that if an
>> >action _isn't_ phrased in such a way as to make it seem as if it 'helps
>> >win' the contest, it ought to be treated as an unrelated action (if it's
>> >appropriate at all).
>
>> I have to disagree - certainly in cases where a change in position
>> was the explanation of an AP loss. If a result shifted the AP
>> balance against you then reversing that result ought to shift the
>> balance in your favour.
>
>Not necessarily. Suppose Steve wants to attack the Proverbial Monster.
>Kathy says, "No, you're on the ground, you idiot!" Kathy then has a
>small narrativist [oops] epiphany (or gets heavily copy-editted by
>Ruiri, as you prefer), and instead says: "Yes, but... you're at -30!"
>(I did say it was a _small_ epiphany...) Unimpressed, Steve decides on
>a change of plan: "OK, I spend my action getting up." It's not
>unreasonable as such to say that's an unrelated action, since its
>primary intended _effect_ is to get rid of that -30, not to defeat the
>PM as such (i.e., chib off its APs). In fact, it might be better to do
>it this way if the 'getting up' part would be in the context of the
>narrative was unopposed. (Oops, Vic, I've fallen down again... the
>chafing, the chafing...)
If Steve's character is in an immediate position to get up without risk then just being on the ground is not a big AP loss in itself - since nobody is in a position to take advantage of his fall it isn't a big disadvantage. And if THAT'S the case then getting up won't get rid of the -30. If somebody IS there to take advantage then they'll be opposing him standing up.
>
>Changes in AP are, after all, not just 'shifting in balance'. If you
>lose 2AP by being knocked on your duff, then you take 2AP off (one
>of) the _other_ guy(s) by Heroicly Standing Up, you haven't restored the
>previous (AP) situation, you've created a new one, and the game mechanic
>and narrative will mesh better if the latter takes some account of that.
Sure which is why the AP loss form being knocked down will include other effects (e.g. bruising) which won't be lost just by standing up (so even if you allow a gain of AP through an unopposed "standing up" action t should be less than the AP lost when the character fell down).
-- -- "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