Re: mechanics of surprise

In message <slrneumq5u.53h.neelk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
          Neelakantan Krishnaswami <neelk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> In article <20070304125740.G55611@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, John Morrow wrote:
> > On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Neelakantan Krishnaswami wrote:
> >> These three desires are entirely compatible, if you drop the implicit
> >> requirement that mechanics are representational -- ie, that each
> >> mechanical bit corresponds directly to some fictional bit. Then it's
> >> easy to satisfy these three particular desires.
> > 
> > I'm curious how you think that's true.  Again, the conditions that
Erol 
> > specified were:
> > 
> >> In article <49ofu25erb02q7dgaejtkqjk6s567riqck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Erol K
Bayburt wrote:
> >>> 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]
> > 
> >>> 3. To have the same rules apply to both their PCs and to the
> >>> NPCs/monsters.
> > 
> > Regardless of whether the mechanics are representational or not, if
> > you apply condition 3, that the same rules apply to both PCs and
> > NPCs/monsters, then how can the Pace of Decision differ between the
> > PCs and the NPCs/monsters?  Perhaps an example of what you have in
> > mind?
> 
> I agree that the mechanical handling time is going to be the same for
> the players and the GM, but the pace of the fictional action can
> easily be varied. That is, part of the process of play can be setting
> the narrative scale and scope of action for the characters -- you
> aren't restricted to just one scale.
> 
> I'll use a Western game as an example. Here, the genre constraints
> might tell us that we should have (in the same game) high-noon
> showdowns with a single shot determining the outcome, and wild chase
> sequences where lots of shots are fired. The first is the "mighty
> blow" situation, and the second is the "lots of attacks" situation.
> 
> Now, suppose that we have a pretty typical sort of combat system, with
> each player having an attack rating, some damage rating, and some hit
> points.  In each scene, we choose an interpretation of the mechanics
> so that "taking some damage" means that you lose some fictional
> advantage or the opponent gains an advantage, and "running out of hit
> points" means that the scene ends with some negative consequence for
> the loser.
> 
> In the showdown, attacks can be interpreted as staring down the other
> guy and rattling his concentration, internal monologues about why
> you're determined to win, pretty/handsome schoolteachers looking on
> with dread, and so on. When a player's HP hits zero a shot rings out
> and their character is dead.[1]

<snip>

> If you're running a Frazetta-style post-apocalyptic fantasy, the
> warrior princess might interpret damage as bad tactical positioning,
> and the evil cyborg sorcerer might interpret damage as minions being
> hacked to bits. That way you get the princess fighting off mutant
> nasties while standing on a hill made of her victims.  Or if the
> sorcerer has an ancient war machine left over from before the Fire
> Time, then it might be the princess who interprets damage as her brave
> soldiers getting killed, and the sorcerer who interprets damage as
> using up ammunition.

<snip>

If you take the view that D&D hit points aren't hit points at all, they're
tactical awareness points, or a measure of endurance/fatigue, plus other
intangible factors, then this can work quite well. The HeroQuest game
explicitly does use this mechanic, and it seems to work well.

-- 
Simon Smith

When emailing me, please use my preferred email address, which is on my
web
site at http://www.simon-smith.org