I'll admit that the 1 minute melee round renders a bit of sense from the segment-based Surprise Party. In all the other D&Ds that just give you a free round of surprise, the round is only 10 seconds or less, so you're effectively just giving them a free segment. If you ignore, for the moment, the "why?" of one minute melee rounds, having the surprised party stand inert for a full 60 seconds seems a bit ridiculous, and it also seems ridiculous that, with a full minute to molest the surprised party, the Surprisors would only get to attack once, so EGG broke it down to segments.
Why not just give the surprisers one free segment to act? Well, with AD&D's ridiculously slow movement rates, on most occasions they'd be too far away to take advantage of it (again: please ignore the larger question), so Gary devised the multiple segment Surprise Party, allowing the Suprisors to charge into combat and whack away at the inert dupes. But then he realized that 4 or 5 segments of surprise could easily TPK even the most seasoned of gaming parties, as Quisling and Schlomo discovered last week, so he gives a Dexterity bonus in the form of the Reaction Adjustment to allow high Dexed combatants to get out of surprise early. Surprise was going to be somewhat less deadly for PCs who were crafty enough to fudge their Dex rolls, which, given the AC, missile attack, and [universally house-ruled] initiative bonuses affiliated with a high Dex, was most of us back in the day.
...or maybe the added rows would have forced the printers to shrink the already tight margins down from 1/8" to 7/64", and they just weren't willing to go that far.
I think that table is mislabeled at the least and just plain wrong at worst. After reading about Gary's debacle with the Weapon vs. Armor Type table I suspect there's more where that came from and Surprise seems a likely candidate for such bugs. This table seems to contradict or at least confuse much of what comes after it. Deleting that table makes the rest of the 12 paragraphs easier to consume as a somewhat-coherent system because it doesn't contradict or oppose the information in the examples. Try it out!
ReplyDeleteI must have re-read those 2 examples 25 times in the last 6 months, and 3 times while writing this. I think they contain the key to the Surprise system.
The difference in surprise dice refers to the calculation made after the rolls to determine who is MORE surprised. Example 2, is especially illustrative of this. The last sentence of the example specifically where in Party A is surprised on a 1 thru 4 in 6 while Party B is surprised on a 1 thru 2 in 6:
"Assume A rolls a 4, so it is surprised for 4 segments unless B rolls a 1, in which case A party's inactive period will only be 3 segments, or if B rolls a 2, in which case surprise will last for only 2 segments (4-1=3, 4-2=2)."
B is surprised on a 1 thru 2. A is surprised on a 1 thru 4. A rolls 4, surprise (for four segments)! B rolls 1, also surprise (for one segment)! A is surprised for 4 segments (rolled a 4) minus B's 1 segment (rolled a 1) of surprise, so 3 segments of surprise for A after one segment of share surprise between A and B. In the example, when B rolls a 2, A's surprise segments are reduced by 2 -- therefore B's surprise segments must be 2 when B rolls a 2.
That's how the "difference" is calculated and used to determine not who is surprised (that's already done) but for how long. Not on the raw die roll difference, but on the number of segments determined by the die roll. That's why I think that table is wrong and/or mislabled.
Your surprise range (1 in 6, 4 in 6, etc.) determines if you're surprised AND for how long. A ranger and her party can be surprised for only 1 segment -- unless the monster/opponent pushes the range, like B above who surprises in 4 in 6.
What do you think about all that? :)
Wholly crap Carl. I think I have to sign up for brain replacement surgery.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome. I should write up a series of increasingly complex examples, starting with two mooks (2 in 6) and working up to a Barbarian versus party of invisible Halflings and a Ranger.
ReplyDeleteSo... Party A are mooks who run into party B who are invisible halfling assassins flinging envenomed daggers. Since there's no standard surprise rate for invisible halfling assassins, DM decides on the spot that they will surprise on 4 in 6. The mooks roll against Party B's chance to surprise, higher being better if they roll above a 4, but lower is better if they don't swing a 5 or 6 because if they get a 4, they're inert for 4 rounds.
ReplyDeleteI can't say that I like it.
Minor correction to your understanding of Surprise: the basic surprise is a number of segments equal to the number rolled that also is within the range to get surprise. So, if a party is surprised on a roll of 1-2 on d6, then a roll of 1 is 1 segment of surprise, and a roll of 2 is 2 segments. The only time you subtract anything is if both parties are surprised, in which case you subtract the smaller number from the larger, with the larger number being surprised for that many segments. You can envision this as: both parties are surprised. Once the first party runs out of surprise segments, then the segments of surprise remaining to the other party is how long surprise lasts. You will almost never get a "6 minus 1" situation, since no creatures surprise or are surprised on a 1-6. For example: both parties are surprised on a 1-2 on d6. Party A rolls a 1, party B rolls a 2. Party A is surprised for 1 segment, party B for 2 segments. Therefore, you subtract 1 segment (the time party A is surprised) from 2 (party B's surprise time), leaving party B surprised for 1 more segment. If party B rolled a 3, then they are not surprised at all because 3 is outside of their range of being surprised, and so party A would remain surprised for 1 segment.
ReplyDeleteWhen things get really complicated is when different parties roll different types of dice for surprise. Then everything gets converted to percent, and each 16 2/3% counts for 1 surprise segment.
I had to let go of higher == better / lower == worser and look at the die result as more of a look up, or a switch/case.
ReplyDeleteI've gone through a couple iterations on the "difference is the surprise segments" and it's just too gonzo to be right. It also punishes characters with low surprise numbers like Barbarians and Rangers. Let's pretend there's a monster who's surprised on a 1 in 8, and it rolled an 8 to a party with a ranger's 1, that's 7 segments of surprise on the party. Bull. Shit. No player group is going to stand for that and I can't see Gary or Dave pulling a TPK like that with a straight face. That would be some high school bullshit. No, I think the "Surprise Dice Difference" is a red herring. It doesn't mean that. There's more to it.
Treat the surprise roll as a lookup and a determiner, which I think the examples are trying to show us: the single die result tells you more than one thing, which is if you are surprised and for how long. The 2-for-1 roll is something that Gary did and is in many of his mechanics. If we accept this, the system is reasonably limited and calculates quickly with Barbarians and others whose surprise is better than 1 in 6. It's just pip shifts up and down then -- the more likely you are to be surprised, the longer your potential surprise period and vice versa. The "surprise dice difference" only comes into play when both parties are surprised.
I've studied ADDICT and really tried to use the system he describes there, but as I said previously, I don't think it's quite right either. Here's a whole thread on it at Dragon's Foot:
https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=79677
I haven't read all of it. It's a lot. You might get more from it than I did. :)
What I like about how I'm doing it now is that it's fast and it feels fair.
"Let's pretend there's a monster who's surprised on a 1 in 8, and it rolled an 8 to a party with a ranger's 1, that's 7 segments of surprise on the party."
ReplyDeleteNo, it would only be one segment of surprise. If a roll is outside of the surprise range, it has no other effect than that party is not surprised. The actual number rolled is the number of surprise segments against that party, if they are surprised. The only time you subtract is if both parties roll within their surprise ranges. It's a little bit like Blackjack, except that it's worse the higher you roll, but only up to the point of the surprise range.
Also, if using d8 for surprise, then to figure the actual number of surprise segments, you have to convert to percentages. Each point on the d8 is worth 12.5%. To figure the number of surprise segments, you divide the percentage by 16.67% and round up. It comes out the same in this case, because the surprise ranges are low, but if the surprise range were something like 1-4 in 8, then a roll of 3 or 4 would only count for 3 surprise segments (because 4 × 12.5 = 50, which is the same as 3 × 16.67, and 3 × 12.5 is 37.5, which is 2.25 × 16.67, rounds up to 3). Yes, that is crazy stuff, and overly complex perhaps, but it makes sense. I think that if both sides are using different dice than d6, then you're supposed to convert both dice to percentages and subtract before dividing by 16.67, though it will usually come out the same anyway (being surprised on a 1 in 8 is 12.5%, which is one segment, and being surprised on a 1 in 10 is 10%, which is one segment—the main difference being that if both roll a 1, the d8 is still surprised for one segment because 12.5 - 10 is 2.5, which rounds up to 1). Have a calculator or app nearby if there are unusual dice for surprise involved.
ReplyDeleteFaoladh has the right of it.
The surprised party (before worrying about DEX bonuses...woe betide the cleric with a DEX under 6!) is surprised for a number of segments equal to the number on the die they rolled. Usually, this is no higher than 2 (since surprise only happens on a 1-2), but when encountering a sneakier creature (say a bugbear or a ranger) that potential number of surprise segments can be higher.
The "Surprise Die Difference" table on page 61 is referencing the maximum number of potential segments of surprised based on (the two parties) ability to surprise. Sadly, it mainly serves to obfuscate the mechanic. If two groups have normal surprise chance (2 in 6) there is never even the possibility that one side would be surprised for three segments.
Once you've determined who (if anyone) is surprised...and for how many segments...only then do you apply DEX adjustments.
The 1 in 8 surprise was a negative example, meaning that's NOT how to do it and it was supposed to illustrate why you don't do it that way. I playtested the surprise system that way based on readings of the DMG and the "surprise dice difference" table that is wrong and misleading.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great argument for never commenting on anything on the Internet as you will always be misunderstood. :) It's also a great illustration of Cunningham's Law: the fastest way to a correct answer on the Internet is not to post a question, but to post an incorrect answer.
I think surprise stands out as bad system for a couple of reasons. First, surprise in B/X and OD&D are MUCH simpler -- they don't have this segmented idea of a round, and the most you get for surprise is a single round to act unanswered (I think. OD&D might have also had "complete surprise" which allowed 2 rounds in some cases, but I can't be certain). Anyone who came from one of those games to AD&D is probably going to call bullshit and just do it the easier way that was nicely explained and makes sense in the "old game"
Second, The DMG and PHB are just not well-written books in general and the Surprise system specifically is quite poorly written. It's too long, contains too much unnecessary information, never quite gets around to explaining the system in full, and has only 2 examples of system usage. It's like reading someone's notes who was told about the surprise system, and maybe played it a time or two but doesn't quite understand it enough to explain it to someone else.
Great topic, Dice Chucker.
Hey, did I make it to the party on time?
ReplyDeleteI strongly suspect that Gary wrote the essay according to his decidedly non-Euclidean math. (BTW, this proves that D&D did not encourage devil worship, It was written from the perspective of eldritch horrors.) Someone else created the surprise tables according to how normal people do math.
Ha! In time to comment on a 50-year-old ruleset? Of course.
ReplyDeleteI’ve been running an active campaign using Gary’s Game as by-the-book as I can figure for about 3 years now, every Saturday night. I think we’ve missed maybe 4 sessions due to outside issues. I’m pretty much done and ready to go back to “basic” and iterate to my own advanced ruleset from there.
I have a session Saturday. I’m angling toward a satisfying conclusion to the campaign, but the One Minute Combat round really drags things out, so it will probably take me another 3 months to wrap it all up.
How’s your game?
That was my post. ^ ^ Thanks, Google. -OC
ReplyDeleteHey OC, sorry I just saw this comment now, 7 months later, but maybe it was meant for DAO? Either way, I'll tell you how my game is: I'm not playing AD&D anymore but I tried DCC for a while, and it has a lot to offer--gritty, untamed magic being on the forefront--but I've hacked off bits from that game too, like crazy dice and luck. What's left is just basic D&D with a cooler magic system. I still feel compelled to go back to AD&D but I have so many house rules now that my players hate me.
ReplyDeleteWho knows? In dog years, that was centuries ago. I'm glad you answered!
ReplyDeleteI, too, have strayed from the True Path of Righteousness and left AD&D (and pretty much all D&D) behind. I'm now a heretic I suppose. I dragged my players along with me and we've transitioned our campaign from AD&D to a Blades in the Dark hack set in Waterdeep.
I, too, have done some experimentation with DCC. I happen to love Lankhmar and The Dying Earth and Goodman has done me well by those two properties. But lately, I've been all about the rules-lite indies. I started with Blades in the Dark, and I've now moved through Mazes, EZD6, and Troika! I also got a Without Number game and have been hacking all this stuff together along select bits from my rules build out for Dungeons & Dragons. I'm waiting for Knave 2 to show up next and see what I can steal from that for my next iteration.
My plan is to start running Club and Convention games using my own system. I'm starting an game club for grown-ups at the local library, too. It's going to be a busy year next year. :)