On 9 Jan 2007 10:42:33 -0800, "gleichman" <fox1_217@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>Erol K. Bayburt wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 22:51:46 -0600, "gleichman"
>
>> Um, what do you mean? It sounds like you're lumping together the PCs
>> having game-mechanical and resource advantages with foes being played
>> with stupid tactics as producing a cheap and tainted victory.
>
>That's what I'm saying. Not of course in Mary's specific case, but as a
>general warning that as with all things- there can be too much of a
>good thing.
>
>If the mechanical advantage is so overwhelming that foolish and
>unskilled play will still buy you victory, or if the GM's foes are so
>poorly ran that they would fall to the even the most inept tactical
>choices- the result is a cheap and tainted campaign.
>
>In days pass, this type of play was a key component in the description
>of a "Monty Hall" GM.
OK, you're lumping together two things that have very different
"feels" to me. Both can cause a game to break down if carried to
excess, but the breakdowns in each case are only superficially alike.
In one case, the players have an overwhelming power advantage - e.g.
lots of bonuses from powerful magic items, which is what I think of
when the words "Monty Hall" (or "Monty Haul") are mentioned. The
opponents may do the best that they can, tactically, but that just
isn't good enough to overcome the power & resource imbalance, even if
the players play sloppy and suboptimal.
In the other case, the players don't have an overwhelming advantage.
They may even be at a decided *dis*advantage wrt ability & resources.
But the opponents use such poor tactics that the players can always
win anyway, provided their own tactics are at least halfway decent.
The first case can be a problem, yes. But I find that there's both a
lot more tolerance, among players, for it and a lot more GMing advice
warning against it. To the point where only grognards like us remember
the term "Monty Haul" and where the tendency is now for GMs to mess up
in the opposite direction.
The second case is a lot more harrowing for me to face as a player and
a lot more disturbing in terms of not being able to enjoy the victory
afterwards. There's a lot less GMing advice against it too. In fact,
ISTR a certain amount of advice *advocating* that GMs do this.
The first case still feels like a honest victory to me, even when it
becomes a cheap and boring one. The second case has a lot of the same
bad flavor as the GM fudging in our favor. It doesn't give as strong a
sense of boredom to play through, but it does give much more of a
sense of being cheated out of a honest victory. YMMV, but I was
suprised that you find them so much the same as to lump them together
like that.
--
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
