>Perhaps it is a hurdle that some GMs have getting
>past the AP=HPs to AP=actions, I know I am continually changing my
>views on how to resolve things and thus continually knocking my head
>into a wall to try to get myself to think in a different manner.
Trying to see AP as proportional to the action taken? Hmmm. Make a copy of the chart, perhaps, that discusses what a certain sized bid means, and have it handy during play. Might that help? You do have the rules behind you here, so it might be good to have a physical reminder so that everyone can get into it. I find that my players understand the principle well enough that they already gague their bid size by what they want to have their character do.
>If my players see a mastery advantage due to position, they will
>ALWAYS go all out, knowing they have a HP to push it to two masteries
>and make it almost impossible to fail.
You might point out that this is wastefull of HP. That is, if they instead bid less, and let the dice take care of things over time, saving that HP for any real emergencies, then they might be better off.
Further, I don't think that I'd bother doing an extended contest against something that was a whole mastery lower than the heroes. Basically, the players are telling you that they think this should have been a simple contest, too. Is it possible you're doing too many extended contests? For example, I do about one every other session these days. I'm not saying that's optimal for everyone, but are you doing more than one per session?
>And then there is the mindset of not dying. I have been drumming into
>them for 6 months that -35 AP is dying, not dead. I did this to try to
>encourage them to take risks, to alter their style of play and to try
>to get them past the "kill all enemies D&D or be killed" mindset. So
>they have finally realised that I seem to be reluctant to kill them
>off without a good reason. A bad dice roll is not a good reason,
>ever! Even tho they put themselves at risk, a bad dice roll just
>sucks enough as it is. So unless I start reversing my policy (which I
>might do) I sought have got myself into the situation...
Change the contest. Say they automatically win, and make the contest about whether or not they have the guts NOT to kill their opponents. Or somesuch. Basically, don't give them opponents that are viable to kill. No "monsters." Instead make their opposition lawspeakers, merchants, and even rowdy villagers. Sure you can get into a fight with a rowdy villager, but you can't kill him. Not without serious repercussions.
Mike
Powered by hypermail