Re: Difficulty Balance

In message <1168439933.110061.284300@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
          "Will in New Haven" <bill.reich@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> 
> Del Rio wrote:
> > In article <eo0q1f$48p$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > Mary K. Kuhner <mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >
> > >I have, in the last ten years, heard a lot of complaints about
> > >too-hard scenarios.

<snip>

> In hundreds of sessions over thousands of hours, I don't think there
> was a single suggestion from the players that would have led to making
> the game EASIER when we were playtesting a scenario.

<snip>

However, it is always less work to make a scenario easier than it is to
make
it harder. So I'd always rather have a hard scenario I can tone down than
an
easier one I have to beef up.

Following up on my own post - well, the point fits here as well as
anywhere
else - the ease of a scenario also affects its tone, and the ease of a
series of scenarios will significantly affect the overall tone of a
campaign. Easier scenarios make for a more heroic tone. Harder scenarios
make for a grittier tone. That, I think, is another good reason to
specificially mention the issue and even legislate for it, thus giving GMs
the tools and the licence to adjust scenarios in the desired direction.
Players should probably have chances for input too. If some players
specifically wanted a heroic game while some others had no such
preference,
a gritty game is likely to make the former players unhappy, while the
latter
group may not think there's anything much wrong. Plainly not good.

-- 
Simon Smith

When emailing me, please use my preferred email address, which is on my
web
site at http://www.simon-smith.org