Re: Re: Asymmetry between actor and opponent

From: Henrix <henrix_at_...>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 02:50:26 +0200

On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Alexandre Lanciani wrote:
> Tim Ellis
> ---------
>
> > If you had to bid AP's in order to defend (with a high bid
> > representing a "more risky" defence) then in general, as time went
> > on, your defence would get worse and worse, as your AP's went down.
> > Since this same mechanic also reduces the effectiveness of your
> > Offence, you are being hit with a "double whammy".
>
> Does that mean that since you have to bid APs in order to attack, then as
> time goes on your attack gets worse and worse, because your APs go down?

Oh, yes. Your tactical situation has obviously become worse, you are more tired and just want the combat to end. Even if you are in a winning position, i.e. have more action points than your opponent, you are not as fresh and bloodthirsty as you were when the combat started.

> If this would be the case I'd rather leave everything to Narrator's call
> and in case some randomness is needed flip a coin.

Prince Valiant!?
(Stafford's old storytelling (pre-WW) system where you, if memory serves me right, flipped coins rather than rolled dice ;-)

>This is why I'm arguing
> that the bid should represent both opponents' actions, and not only the
> actor's.

While I agree in principle, I think it could easily become too clumsy a game mechanic.
On the other hand, over a round of combat both participants have had the chance to influence the total bid. Remember that an exchange can be a very short lapse of time.

-- 
Henrix