RE: Starting APs

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 01:47:01 +0100 (BST)

Richard Develyn:
> Well, even if you allow it, but with an improv penalty, that penalty
> clobbers your APs just because Meldek was first actor. And remember, first
> actor doesn't mean he surprised you or anything like that. In any extended
> contact between two people *someone* has to be first actor and there might
> be no good reason to pick Meldek over yourself.

Indeed. Obviously there's some inherent asymmetry here, since someone _does_ have to go first, and pick their action (and implicitly, objective) which might not correspond directly to the other persons -- but what annoys me is that the rules seem to want to celebrate this as a 'feature', without regard to any actual narrative sense.

> I generally agree that your starting APs should be governed by objective.
> The problem I can see is that objective is not necesserily determined by
> your first action in the encounter. So you make a statement of intent which
> encompasses some high rated ability to make sure you get the high starting
> APs, but then do the most appropriate thing for that stage of the encounter.

Indeed. You can get some very odd-looking results if you try the old standby of a volley of missiles, or of magic, followed by rushing 'em in melee, for example, all considered as one contest, and using the Glory In Having the First Action rule.

> I would deal with this by not using first actor at all, treat instead as a
> two man group contest. Now, interestingly enough, you choose sword (45 APs),
> he would probably choose claws (42), so you would go first. On the JOB's go
> he would still try Confuse against your resistance of 14 (just as before,
> but the starting APs is better realised), and would still have the advantage
> since 10w1 vs 14 will win more often than 5w2 vs 2w2.

I think in an earlier draft, that was pretty much explicitly how you did it for _all_ extended contests, group or otherwise. That some distinction has sneaked in between an 'extended contest' (between two people) and a 'group contest' (also between two people) is fairly boggling, in itself. (The 'Final Action' rule is another case in point, alas. How very symmetrical!)

Cheers,
Alex.

Powered by hypermail