Re: mechanics of surprise

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Neelakantan Krishnaswami wrote:
> You are saying that you have to have the same interpretation of the
> game mechanics for different characters in order to say that the same
> rules are being used for them. I think this is much too narrow a
> usage.

Why is it too narrow?  Because it doesn't include rules that treat PCs and

NPCs/monsters differently?

> If part of the process of play is figuring out how to take abstract
> game mechanics and interpret them for each character, of course you
> can you can get different results for different characters, even
> though you're using the same set of rules for everyone.

The issue is fundamentally one of treating the PCs and NPCs/mosnters 
differently or the same way in a very broad sense.  What you seem to want 
to argue is that so long as the bias happens within the subjective 
interpretation of how to apply the rules, it's technically applying the 
same rules for everyone.

Frankly, this sounds very much like the justification for apartheid. 
"Yeah, we apply the same rules to everyone."  Wink, wink.

> So, yes, I think a set of rules can treat everyone the same even when
> you have a situation where a character is a hit point for another
> one. This isn't a theoretical or abstract point, either -- I've played
> games where in some situations one PC "was a hit point" for another
> PC.

You've seen this, in combat, where the PC dies when the hit point they 
represent is lost like one of those NPC mutants that you mentioned 
earlier?  Somehow, I doubt that.

John Morrow