> Ah, Jonas, I think I will have to continue butting heads with you in this
> matter.
Is there room for me, too? (I didn't follow this discussion from the beginning, so please forgive me if I say something that's already been discussed).
> Where, in HW, do you find anything to support this, that the actor in an
> exchange is the only one allowed to make a blow?
The fact that only the actor choose the risk involved in an exchange (i.e., the bid), although not a clear proof at all, at least implies to me that the opponent's intentions are less important (even form a narrative standpoint) than the actor's.
You say:
> This does not, in my eyes, in any way preclude a
> pre-emptive strike, or
> a riposte, from the other contestant.
But of course each of these defenses involve a different element of risk. Unfortunately the rules as they now stand don't model this. All the initiative and the decisions on which course the story will take are up to the actor. Yes, the opponent can describe his "defense" in as much detail as the actor describes his "attack", but this has no weight (other than modifiers/edges the GM may whish to give) on the outcome.
And IMO if something is not, someway, modeled by the game system, then it's not manifest in the game reality. If the opponent's intentions don't affect the way the action resolves itself, then quickly IMO players won't bother to describe their defense, as these descriptions don't matter.
Mmh... I guess that what I wrote is mostly obscure, but I'm confident you will understand it nonetheless. ;)
-- Regards, Alexandre "I know, for I told me so And I'm sure each of you quite agrees: The more it stays the same, the less it changes!"
Powered by hypermail