Re: Difficulty Balance

"Mary K. Kuhner" <mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:eo6cl7$m7m$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The best solution for me is not to think about it at all:  suppress
> the roleplaying.  I am not willing to consistently make decisions for
> which all outcomes are negative, and to me that's what this is.

Yes, I understand this response. I have it in different areas myself with 
much the same reaction- screw the player campaigns or even events, graphic

rape, etc. etc. Well, my reaction is perhaps more extreme- I remove the 
player who was the cause of it from the group or from GMing.

But I didn't say you (or anyone) was foolish for this reaction. I said
that 
anyone who feels they don't have *time* to role-play while playing a rpg
is 
foolish. Unless one is doing the rpg version of Speed Chess, it doesn't
make 
logical sense.


> I guess I don't roleplay well if my freedom of action is too limited.
> Surely this is not universal, but I don't think it's rare either.

I think that's not stated correctly unless I'm not reading you right.
Surely 
you're saying that there are some results you are not willing to roleplay.

As for it being far less than rare, previously I commented that I thought 
easy campaigns were very common.

> I know.  I'm not putting forward a general formula.  I know that
> you and Warren both have groups who are okay with this; but I feel as
> though I ought to be able to say that I, personally, am not okay with
> it.

You can, and I certainly wouldn't call you on it (nor would I invite you
to 
one of my games except perhaps as a one-shot because I know you'd hate
it).

The *time* issue on the other hand, that would need some explaining. I
could 
perhaps see a rules-overload issue, but even that isn't really a function
of 
time directly.