Re: Re: Low bids in combat

From: Henrix <henrix_at_...>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:30:54 +0200

On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Alex Ferguson wrote:
> If you have a marginal advantage, then as a rule low bets are better,
> as the rulebook itself points out.

Isn't this true only if you don't have (or don't want to risk) any hero points? It would seem to me that betting high, and using a HP if push comes to shove, would be a winning strategy. (Betting low and using a HP seems ridiculous.) So perhaps _one_ answer to low bids is to hand out more hero points. The idea with gaining one HP at the start of each session suggests to me that, on the average, one HP should be spent _during_ the session.

On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Another Alex wrote:

> IMO it's better to have the player declare the bid, according to and after
> his description and subject to GM's approval, who is in the end the keeper
> of the setting's integrity. At least for the first few times, because the
> player and the GM may have a different idea on how much risk an action
> entails.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the GM should dictate the AP bids, except in certain cases, when you want your players to do more exciting things. If they really want to circle round their foes for *sigh* the fifth round in a row, well..

It does strike me, though, that this is exactly what happens in some japanese duelling scenes: The two samurai glare at one another (1 AP), circle round (2 AP), etc., etc., until one flinches slighly, both draw their swords and whoops! there goes the flincher's head in a nice arc (24 AP, bumped to a crit). (OR perhaps this last is just that he who lost his concentration reached -1 AP, and the other did a 1 AP parting shot/coup de grace?)

Boring to watch, though 8-(


Powered by hypermail