Re: mechanics of surprise

On Mar 2, 3:47 am, Erol K. Bayburt <Ero...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On 1 Mar 2007 17:55:18 -0800, "gleichman" <fox1_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 1, 6:34 pm, "gleichman" <fox1_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Mar 1, 5:57 pm, Beowulf Bolt <abd.al-haz...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >   It seems to me that your argument bears more upon the need to
correct
> >> > hit-and-damage rolls to match 'reality' rather than directly upon
the
> >> > real-life implications upon achieving surprise.
>
> >> I'll have to follow up on this in another post however as I need to
> >> log in to my servers at work and burn much of my evening there.
>
> >Ok, picking this idea back up.
>
> >1. You've stated the most obvious solution to the problem. Reduce the
> >Pace of Decision to something that more closely matches the real world
> >in order to reduce the effect of Surprise to that same level. While
> >this would resolve the problem, it does so at a cost. RPGs generally
> >increase strike chances in order to prevent boredom and reduce time
> >spent on uneventful use of mechanics. Most players would object to
> >rolling 6 times for every hit and unless the damage was increased to
> >match the lower hit rate- the time to resolve a combat would be vastly
> >increased. Another side effect of this is the feeling that luck and
> >not player skill drives the combat.
>
> Let me point out here that the Pace of Decision can be lowered by
> methods other than reducing "strike chances." And from previous
> discussions, I myself would prefer a Pace of Decision that runs at
> about half the speed of your prefered Pace. At least for "high level"
> & high powered PC types.

I think, however, that lowering strike chances is a better way than,
say, reducing damage. Reducing damage by having armor reduce damage is
a separate issue but simply using the piddling damage rules, and high
Hit Points, of old-style AD&D trivializes being hit with a weapon. I
find that this hurts roleplaying, at least for me and my group. Being
missed, and especially being missed because you have become hard to
hit, is more satisfying than being hit by a weapon that does D8 when I
have seventy-two Hit Points.

>
> I think that part of the problem is that many players have
> incompatable desires wrt Pace of Decision. They want:
>
> 1. To be able to slay monsters with a single mighty blow, or at least
> a small number of attacks, [high Pace of Decision]
>
> 2. To be able to withstand many attacks, or attack attempts by
> monsters against them, [low Pace of Decision]
>
> and
>
> 3. To have the same rules apply to both their PCs and to the
> NPCs/monsters.
>
> Something has to give.

I agree. However, a _moderate_ Pace of Decision seems to work ok.

Will in New Haven

--


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >So what other options are there? Here's a few suggestions...
>
> >2. Another solution is to remove Surprise completely from the
> >mechanics. This can work if at the cost of 'realism' and the risk of
> >player disconnect as they lose part of their expected world.
>
> >3. Another solution is to manage the advantages granted by Surprise
> >such that the final result more closely matches in the abstract the
> >real world. Warren to some degree has gone with this option (only one
> >or two attackers get first fire). Abstract solutions run the risk of
> >causing problems in the mental image players have of the game world,
> >as some of the response to Warren suggests.
>
> >4. Another solution is to remember that mechanics are abstractions and
> >thus may represent only part of what's being considered. Thus if one
> >defines the Surprise rules as "Worst Case" events and various results
> >of the Initiative System as lesser degrees of Surprise- one moves
> >closer Real World results without changing anything. This solution
> >depends upon rare use of Surprise (or "with Caution" as suggested by
> >another poster).  While each level of Surprise is controlled by
> >mechanics at the Game layer, determination of which case applies most
> >often is found at the Meta-Game layer which can cause problems for
> >those players who take objection to that.
>
> >I use what would be a mix of #3 and #4 for my campaigns.
>
> --
> Erol K. Bayburt
> Ero...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -