Re: mechanics of surprise

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:19:39 -0600, Ed Chauvin IV <edcfour@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>Mere moments before death, mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Mary K.
>Kuhner) hastily scrawled:
>
>>My GM, reading over my shoulder, says "In a match between even and
>>roughly similar forces, should surprise determine the victor
completely?"
>
>Yes, it should.  This is true in real life and there's no reason it
>shouldn't be true in the game.

True in real life, I'll grant, but there are good reasons why one
might not want it to be true in a game.

>
>Surprise is a hefty weapon and can level the playing field for a
>weaker foe.  As a GM, you should use it cautiously, typically to make
>an encounter with a weaker foe more interesting.  As players you
>should be prepared for it and try to be the ones using it to your
>advantage, not the other way around.

Well, in some styles of play the GM *can't* "use it cautiously" - the
GM doesn't have that kind of storytelling control, but instead is
obligated to play the foes as competently as possible. Which means
that if surprise is a hefty weapon, the foes will try to exploit it as
best they can.

And as a player it can get unpleasant to always have to play
characters who are obsessed over surprise; over gaining suprise over
their opponents and over not being surprised themselves.

So in a game, it might well be a good thing to depower surprise,
making it unrealisticly weak as a weapon in order to promote in-game
fun. 


-- 
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]