I suppose I was suggesting - I prefer to think of it as raising a possibility that I haven't really thought through but seemed fun at first blush! :-)
> Firstly, making bidding more interactive (both/all parties bid on each 'action'); and secondly,
> putting it _after_ the die roll. One could equally try one of these without the other; or other
> combinations, such as having a 'round' of betting before the die-roll, and another one afterwards.
You make it sound so much more official than me. But yes - I'd agree with you.
> Another consideration is, how precisely to tie together the betting, and
> the associated description. Presumably each fresh bet requires 'upping'
> the corresponding game-world (intended) consequences somewhat.
True - I hadn't considered the narrative consequences of my mechanics. Like you say - it wouldn't be a simple matter of 'raising' the narrative would have to reflect how your actions have changed consequent on someone else's bid.
>> Obviously someone with lots of AP has an advantage in being able to
>> bid other people out of the contest but that's also true of poker and
>> it isn't always teh person with the most money that wins.
>
> There's obviously the issue here of what you consider to be "all in".
> To replicate the general effect of HQ bidding, you'd have to allow
> anyone to 'call' any bet, no matter how negative it put them, but only
> those eligible to make desparation bets would be allowed to 'raise'
> themselves more than they 'have on the table'.
Another good point - and obviously good tips from someone that has more experience at the card table than my innocent self...
Stephen
Powered by hypermail