Re: mechanics of surprise

On Mar 5, 3:22 pm, mkkuh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Mary K. Kuhner)
wrote:
> In article <slrneuokrn.6d4.ne...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Neelakantan Krishnaswami  <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >The number of mechanical events has no correlation with the pace of
> >decision. For example, in the game Nine Worlds, you determine who will
> >gain and lose in a scene with a card draw at the start of the scene,
> >and then play through the scene in a freeform way subject to the
> >constraint on the final outcome.
>
> My personal definition for "pace of decision":  how many chances
> does a character have to change his strategy before the outcome
> is determined?

That is pretty much the definition Gleichman uses in his articles on
the subject. The very low PoD in First Edition AD&D   gave ambush and
surprise very little advantage while a very high PoD would make them
more decisive than they generally are in the real world or in fiction,
both of which are objectionable to some people.

Systems that create a low PoD by assigning relatively low damage to
attacks and granting large numbers of Hit Points to major combatants
annoy me, partly for roleplaying reasons. I find it very difficult to
play in a milieu where a giant wielding a hammer cannot kill me (my
character) with one blow. I find it very easy to play in a milieu
where he will miss more often than not. While that was, in fact, part
of the justification for assigning characters such large numbers of
HIt Points: that there foes would miss more and more often, I found it
easier to visualize combat in with "to hit" meant "to make contact"
and where damage meant being cut or smashed or burned.

I find that the PoD in our current system, where blows and missiles
miss rather often and armor prevents some damage, tends to be quicker
than in First Edition but not as quick as the PoD in some modern
systems.

Surprise and ambush are pretty deadly in our campaigns and we put in
major effort to avoid them but they are not impossible to overcome.
This is probably almost all a product of our PoD.

>
> If two fighters are hacking on each other, each doing about 10
> points a turn, and each having about 100 hp, then a character
> has about 10 turns to decide "Screw this, I should run away/
> surrender/change weapons/yell for help/whatever."

> If two fighters are hacking on each other, each doing about
> 50 points a turn, and each having about 100 hp, then a character
> has only two turns to change his strategy.
>
> The latter situation obviously puts a higher premium on
> pre-planning as there are very few chances to change a bad
> strategy once combat has begun.  It also greatly increases the
> deadliness of anything that gives a character an extra action,
> or deprives a character of an action--such as surprise.

All true, although two hitters squared up on one another does lead to
a fairly high PoD, one would think.

> It doesn't matter how much game time is in a "turn" for these
> purposes.  A "turn" could be hours or seconds, but the effect
> (a player in the section situation has almost no leeway between
> "Hm, this is a problem" and "Damn, he's dead") is the same.

I think a middle ground should be sought. I don't think the best way
to find out that a fight is unwinnable is to get into the fight and
try to back out. That should be costly or at least risky. On the other
hand, making it quickly fatal is fairly harsh.

Gleichman's article on Pace of Decision is, by the way, excellent, he
said grudgingly.

Will in New Haven

--


 If you take in a starving dog off the street, and feed him, and make
him prosperous, he will not bite you.
This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.
- Mark Twain
> Mary Kuhner mkkuh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]