Re: Difficulty Balance

In message <7pCdnYugQYcRtzvYnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
          "gleichman" <Fox1_217NoSpam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> 
> "Simon Smith" <simon_smith_new@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:81bc47a34e.zen44412@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Easier scenarios make for a more heroic tone. Harder scenarios
> > make for a grittier tone.
> 
> I completely and strongly disagree with this.

Oh? O-kay . . .

Do you believe the reverse? That seems even more unlikely to me.

How can you be heroic when you're scrabbling to survive? In heroic
scenarios, characters almost always all survive, and if one of them dies
it's usually by choice - a heroic sacrifice. In gritty scenarios
characters
die, and if a heroic sacrifice is necessary the characters will rarely get
the chance to choose who makes it. I consider Star Wars D6 - very low
mortality - to be heroic, and tough/killer DnD scenarios as discussed here

- higher mortality, possible TPKs, characters dying simply due to bad dice
luck - to be gritty. Being heroic is a luxury over and above surviving. If
the characters can barely survive, they have no margin in which to act
heroic - they may even have to minimax the rules and their characters in
all
sorts of ways just to achieve the edge they need to survive. Make the
scenario easier, and characters get the chance to look beyond their own
immediate round-to-round survival and do more stuff that would generally
be
considered heroic - such as sparing villainous NPCs, and performing flashy
but probably suboptimal combat moves during the fight. That sort of
behaviour makes for a heroic tone in my eyes, scrabbling merely for
survival
doesn't.

Please expand on your own point, and/or ask me some questions to expose
the
holes in my own assertions.

-- 
Simon Smith

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