> 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?
Well, I don't really understand where the problem is. I mean, if A acts against B, then B defends against A. What B does when it's his turn to act is immaterial at this point. Of course one could argue that the order in which the characters act is just a construct for simplicity's sake, as they all probably act more or less simultaneously (or at least they could).
Rather, I can see a problem in case A acts against B *and* C. In this case both of them defend, so both of them add APs to the bid, whose size I fear can get out of hand. Moreover, if I read the rule correctly, if A wins he gets to divide the loss between B and C as he wishes, so he could take from B APs bet by C. But even this isn't really a problem, as it is just a matter of common sense (and possibly one could find a nifty way to explain why B is taking the risks and C the losses).
I don't know how these ideas would work in actual play. I'd like to give them a try, but unfortunately spring has a bad (or good, depends on your POV) effect on my gaming group, so I fear I will have to wait a few weeks before being able to do so.
Cheers, Alex-re (???)
Powered by hypermail