> Why? I actually think it would be faster! After all you are doing two
> exchanges in one, halving the dice rolling. Has it been tried during the
> playtest, or was it never an option?
Never an option, at least not one I ever got wind of. It would indeed theoretically speed things up, at least in the sense of there being fewers 'rounds' per contest, if betting tactics didn't change. But equally, it'd likely mean more humming and hawing about bet size, describing, etc, per roll.
But it's not clear to me how this would apply to group contests. If A acts against B, and B then acts against C, how do you handle that? Do you just not bother with the summing, in this case? And should there be some incentive for B to counter-attack A, and/or a discentive to ignoring it, and attacking C instead?
Powered by hypermail