Re: Difficulty Balance

In message <LIWdndsIFYxuUzvYnZ2dnUVZ_sOknZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
          "gleichman" <Fox1_217NoSpam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> 
> "Simon Smith" <simon_smith_news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:960ec3a34e.zen44412@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> .
> >
> > Well, I intended what I said as a statement of degree.
> 
> Then it should have been stated as such- like don't run games your
players 
> think are too hard, or don't use rules they have trouble with.
> 
> Instead it comes out as "People who run difficult games don't role-play
as 
> well".


If I can ask without causing offence, do you think that if you made your
scenarios slightly harder, the quality of roleplaying for your group would
rise or fall?

And if you made them slightly easier?

Or are you exactly at a 'sweet spot'?

Or is there a reasonably wide difficulty band in which the quality of role
play stays constant?

Are you sure your players would give the same answers as you to these
questions?


Grossly harder or grossly easier, I'd expect the system to break down
quite
rapidly for almost all GMs, but it's the small changes I'm interested in.
For myself, I could probably make things a bit harder and not see a
reduction in quality of role play, but personally I'd /not/ want to make
things easier. But then I'm running at a radically different point in the
difficulty
spectrum to you.

-- 
Simon Smith

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