Re: Sneak Attack

"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronbourque@xxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1141863996.975375.325290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

No 33 Secretary wrote:

The idea that you have an equal chance of sneaking up behind someone
as you do in front of them is stupid.

Yes it is. But that's not what the game assumes.

Your statement is in conflict with other statements.

The game assumes that
you rarely have your head fixed in one direction, and when you do you
are considered distracted and thus suffer a penalty to your Spot
check.

Most people very, very rarely swivel their heads (or bodies) enough to look
at more than 180 degrees. If the rules do not reflect this, the rules are
stupid.

It's not a bad assumption, it just doesn't fit a modern
usually-complacent-and-content perspective.

Those who assign people to stand guard, looking for intruders - the
military - do not assign people on the basis of looking 360 degrees around
them. Soldiers look *out* when standing perimeter because there are others
assigned to watch the space *behind* them. That's why it's a perimeter.

Now, in the case of soldiers in a combat zone who needs to be alert
but still can't be expected to all the time, there are many instances
where a soldier would be considered distracted. Even when on watch, a
casual conversation could be considered a mild distraction, even if
it's just a "Cold night. Yeah. Late. Yeah. Gonna die. Yeah."
conversation. Arguably, anyway.

And soldiers are not expected to watch *behind* them, because it's
ineffective to expect them to do so. If you need to watch in both
directions, you assign (at least) two (and more likely three) guards.

The distraction thing

It's not distraction, it's how human vision and attention work. Calling it
distraction is as stupid as expecting someone to see behind them as well as
in front of them.

Boiling the game down to "there's no facing rules in D&D" is just as
stupid as claiming that rule is the whole of it all and thus stupid.

I'm only going by what the 'tard patrol is saying about the rules in this
thread.

You're not improving my opinion of the rules much. It conflicts with real
life. That's fine - it's a fantasy game, after all - but let's admit it's
utterly unrealistic on this point.

--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "official wankers party" formed in japan to oppose koizumi
    ... >>> rotfl. ... > as you realise your initial claim was too stupid even for you. ... Distraction... ... Talk about being transparent. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Sneak Attack
    ... But that's not what the game assumes. ... The distraction thing is of course easily exploitable by those who want ... to sneak past guards and sentries. ... stupid as claiming that rule is the whole of it all and thus stupid. ...
    (rec.games.frp.dnd)
  • Re: "official wankers party" formed in japan to oppose koizumi
    ... >>> as you realise your initial claim was too stupid even for you. ... Distraction. ... You have no knowledge whatsoever if I'm dishonest or not. ... abelard winning arguments... ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Cancel car insurance, pay 80% premium?
    ... >>> people out there equally or more stupid than yourself, ... and usenet provides a welcome distraction a lot ... Porn? ...
    (uk.rec.cars.misc)
  • Saturday, January 18th (for real)
    ... lazy Saturdays...What did you watch? ... It's nice to see a defense lawyer show. ... Zorro and Scarlet Whip: ... Holy crap that was stupid. ...
    (rec.arts.tv)