Re: Difficulty Balance

gleichman wrote:
> Simon Smith wrote:
> > 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 . . .
>
> ...
>
> > 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
>
> ...
>
> > Please expand on your own point, and/or ask me some questions to
expose the
> > holes in my own assertions.
>
> It's not an easy one to expand and I had to do some consideration of
> it. I knew the statement was horribly at odds with my own viewpoint, a
> reaction intensified by the section of your post I quoted above.
>
> Flashy moves? Luxury? We have serious disconnect on what heroism is
> here.
>
> >From dictionary.com, first and thus most common meaning: "a man of
> distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble
> qualities."
>
> Where's the courage in a easy scenario? What noble qualities are
> displayed by whacking down weaker foes?
>
> And I find the assumption that difficult adventures allowing no time
> for role-play somewhat foolish. Make time. It isn't hard of that's what
> you're interested in.
>
> Suboptimal? Yes, throwing oneself on a grenade is a suboptimal action-
> if you're more worried about yourself than you are the other people in
> the blast range. The point of selecting a Suboptimal action, and it
> being heroic is precisely because it's a suboptimal action- and it just
> happenes to be the only action that will make the difference needed.
>
>
> There seems to be the common assumption today that heroism is fla****ng
> gun play, cute one-liners, and surviving characters. That may be
> Hollywood Action-Adventure, but it's not the stuff of heroes. It's not
> even the stuff of Classical Mythology where failure and death is nearly
> always the closing result. Nor is it the stuff of classic Fantasy works
> from LotR on. And it certainly isn't the stuff of real life.

When a person I despise says something that is exactly correct, I still
despise him but I have to say: hear hear.

What others have called heroic here is best called "cinematic."
Whatsisname didn't use that term but that is what he is talking about.
Even in good cinema, some heroism ****nes through but the cinematic
style of gaming is not about facing difficulty, it is about looking
cool and feeling like a kick-ass.

Roland did not say "You didn't give me enough magic items" before
facing the enemy. Miyamoto Musa**** did not say "I want to look real
cool but don't give me any tough enemies."

Gritty is somewhat different from heroic but they are both far
different from cinematic. Whatsisname does have a good handle on this
whole issue. 

Will in New Haven

--