Re: mechanics of surprise

On 6 Mar 2007 08:03:58 -0800, "gleichman" <fox1_217@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>On Mar 6, 9:25 am, Erol K. Bayburt <Ero...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Another problem is the tendency, in many games, for a party of PCs to
>> *be* a party, outnumbering one or two "big" foes in an encounter. In a
>> D&D like system, a single big foe with 160 hit points can shrug off a
>> 40 point surprise round attack much better than a typical PC party of
>> 4 with an average of 40 hit points per character. A single surprise
>> attack by the big foe will likely put down one PC, putting the party
>> as a whole into a death spiral.
>
>Hmm. I have problems with this example...
>
>I wonder however how valid this example really is. What GM attempts to
>balance a foe against a party of four (something that takes some
>effort) and then rolls for surprise to make it a battle against a
>party of three thereby defeating his purpose?
>
>Perhaps it was player driven? The players thought with four they had
>an excellent chance and launched their assault, upon being surprised
>they find they're reduced to 3 vs. 1. Isn't this the nature outcome of
>player choice? After all, they made the decision to launch an attack
>that would only work if everything went according to plan.
>
>So on one hand, this self-defined Gamist sees bad GMing, and on the
>other bad player tactics. He doesn't see a problem with the surprise
>rules in either case.

You're assuming your conclusion: That the surprise mechanics aren't
broken and don't need fixing. You could use the same logic to "prove"
that a game system with a nasty death spiral mechanic is A-OK, and
that any problems re****ted with it are due to incompetent players or
GMs. "The GM shouldn't have set up a scenario where the PCs might be
sucked into that death spiral." "The players shouldn't have attacked
when there was a chance their PCs might be sucked into that death
spiral." 

If, given competent play on both sides, the surprise mechanics in use
make it impossible for either side to always avoid being surprised,
and if those mechanics also result in the surprised side being
lethally reamed, then "the only way to win is to not play" - at least
not until the GM and players agree to a fix for the broken surprise
rules. 

My point was that the second condition, "if those mechanics also
result in the surprised side being lethally reamed" might only apply
to the PC party in the common 4-member-party vs 1 monster scenario.
Which is the *reverse* of what most gamers want from their games. 

>
>> If a party of 4 PCs gets suprised by a dozen weaker foes, it's more
>> plausable that the surprise attacks will be spread out among the PCs,
>> which helps wrt the party being able to put up a good fight
>> afterwards.
>
>Silly weaker foes. Don't they know they need to focus their attacks in
>the D&D world to reduce the offensive potential of their victims?

In a more simulationist game, it's plausible to invoke "fog of war" -
the silly weaker foes aren't actually coordinated by a single mind &
will, and so aren't able to agree on which PC to focus on in the heat
of battle. 


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