> Then why the game system should tell the difference between a risky attack
>and cautious one and not between a risky defense and a cautious one? While I
>agree that one can say which tactics is better only after seeing the results
>(i.e. after rolling the dice), I'm not talking about modifiers. I'm talking
>about AP, which only measure the risks and the possible rewards of a given
>action. If you can judge this things for an attack, and factor them in the
>measure of the "ebb and flow of advantages", as you say below, then why
>can't you when it comes to defense?
That's a reasonable point, but I think someone who is defending is by default losing the initiative. Faced with an all-out defence, it is the attacker who chooses how aggressively he presses his attack. Short of running away, there realy isn't much the defender can do to change that.
>> The Games system is not trying to mimic the mechanical
>> process of the combat, but the overall ebb and flow of advantages until
>> one character emerges as the victor. .....
I'm not quite sure I agree. It depends what you mean by mechanical process. A combat is a physical activity and so if the rules model it's ebb an flow then it is modeling physical relationships, at least in part. I have no problem with this personaly. If the description of the combat means that one side or the other has a physical advantage through dominating favourable terrain or fighting possitions, having disarmed an opponent or knocking him to the ground then I have no problem with that. I see no reason whatever why every AP exchange can't correspond to a specific physical, emotional or magical event in the game world narative.
I'm not so sure I will use weapon ranks much in my own games. For example, if in a combat an Adventurer bashes his opponent with his shield and knocks him senseless, why should the Adventurer's magical sword weapon rank have any effect on the AP exchange?
This is one reason I prefer Ability modifiers, such as the magical sword that adds +3 to Close Combat. Ability modifiers affect both 'chance to hit' (in it's broadest sense) and 'damage' (again in it's broader, AP affecting sense) by making the chances of favourable exchanges and criticals more likely. I'm then free to award other situational modifiers and even edges or handicaps for tactical or other reasons specific to the game events. If or when I do write up my own HW house rules, I think this is the way I will go.
> ....why is there this asymmetry
>between the actor and the opponent, when everyone is saying that the
>distinction is just one of simplicity and convenience?
Personaly i think it's fairly realistic. Having been in a few mass rubber sword fights, and a few Sealed Knott (English Civil War) skirmishes I know that sometimes as a defender you have no choice whatsoever about the risks involved in a combat. When the enemy charges at full tilt, all the all-out defending in the world doesn't change the fact that the first few seconds of combat are likely to be make-or-break for both sides.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail