Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!brunix!cs.brown.edu!man
From: man@cs.brown.edu (Mark H. Nodine)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: RPG opinions (was Re: Programmer...)
Message-ID: <55634@brunix.UUCP>
Date: 7 Nov 90 15:25:29 GMT
References: <QbB2aqm00WB381m2ZV@andrew.cmu.edu>
Sender: news@brunix.UUCP
Reply-To: man@cs.brown.edu (Mark H. Nodine)
Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 24

In article <QbB2aqm00WB381m2ZV@andrew.cmu.edu>, ck31+@andrew.cmu.edu (Christopher Bruce Kidwell) writes:
|> On a different note, have any games dealt with the problem of a group of
|> about six characters defeating hundreds of enemies without being killed?
|> In Bard's Tale (I forgot which one) the party has to fight four groups of
|> 99 Bezerkers.  It seems to me that if about 20 of them came charging from
|> all directions, the party wouldn't stand a chance.  I seem to remember
|> someone mentioning a rule like this from AD&D to the effect that if a
|> character is surrounded by more than four enemies, he is automatically
|> defeated.

I'm not convinced that this is a problem that needs fixing.  History is replete
with examples where a few people held off entire armies.  For example, II Samuel 23
lists some pretty great accomplishments, like Eleazar, who routed an entire army
after the rest of the Israelites had fled.  There are modern-day examples, too,
like during the Mexican-American war, where a few sharpshooters turned away the
Mexican army by lying low in a reedy field and standing up only to shoot.

The problem with your argument is that even if 20 people came from all sides, you
probably couldn't get more than 4 of them close enough to do any damage at any
given time.  If a single fighter is enough better than his opponents that he can
hold off four at a time (especially after the bodies start piling up), then he
can hold off indefinitely and keep smiting his foes until he tires.

	--Mark