Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
> In article <1168563253.908371.52170@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Will in New Haven <bill.reich@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >Most people I know who find it difficult to roleplay in a campaign have
> >difficulty with the frequency of the challenges, not with the
> >difficulty of the challenges. If every day in character is a grind of
> >fighting, planning, problem-solving and then fighting again or, worse,
> >fighting, fighting and fighting again, it would be very difficult for
> >anyone to roleplay.
>
> I have trouble with this, but I also have trouble specifically with
> difficulty. The problem scenario in SCAP nearly killed the game all
> by itself: "that was seven hours of hell, my morale is broken, I never
> want to do it again."
Not knowing the scenario, I don't know how hard it was. However, this
seems more about the difficulty making the game depressing and
disappointing, rather than it making roleplaying specifically
difficult. Eventually, of course, if the game is no fun, you lose the
desire to roleplay.
>
> >If things like this happen _often_ it must be an extremely tough
> >scenario.
>
> One thing has dawned on me in writing this. It seems obvious now but I
> hadn't grasped it before.
>
> We play single-player, multiple-PC. It works for us as we're married to
> each other and it is much easier to schedule that type of game than with
> a group, and also we really like each others' play styles. But. If
> a group of 6 players hits one of these modules and one PC dies each
> session, each player has experienced one session with their PC dying
> and five without. If I do it, I have had the experience of losing a
> PC *every single session*. The impact is worse.
It has to be, if you can play six characters and stay connected to
them. I can't and I don't try. One PC death out of six per session is a
huge fatality rate in any case. My PCs don't always triumph but the
death rate is much lower than that. However, I get the impression that
these scenarios involve combat a great deal more often than my
campaign.
> In terms of emotional impact, it may be that one should count deaths
> per player and not deaths per character, and we need to drop the
> lethality level sixfold over what a multi-player group could handle.
> (No, having more than one PC doesn't buffer it at all, for me.
> I thought it might, but we've been doing this for 20 years now and I
> can conclusively re****t otherwise.)
If I could really play six characters at once, I would feel the same
way I am sure. On the other hand, multi-player games would seem to give
one more time and scope for role-playing.
> >Don't you ever get a chance to roleplay practice and asking advice from
> >fencing masters or whomever your character would consult? While the
> >campaign I am in right now, and the one that I run, features very tough
> >scenarios, the fighting occurs in a minority of sessions and I have
> >time to learn and practice.
>
> The GM is not omniscient and in general cannot give much useful advice
> on the specific tactics of my party. So there is no one available to
> do the fencing-master thing. We can have a fun conversation but it
> will not cover the fact that I don't know how to use the PCs' trickier
> abilities.
The GM I know where several "hats." It varies from campaign to campaign
but it is often useful to ask advice from one of the NPCs.
> Example: you can buy potions of Bless Weapon that will get through a
devil's
> DR10/good. But they last a *minute*, and don't work on missile weapons.
> How do you use them tactically?
This is one where the GM could well say "I have no idea how that
works," even in the persona of someone you would normally go to for
advice. Going by what I remember from pre-AD&D and First Edition D&/D,
this may be insoluble. One minute is a very short time in those rules.
> I have failed every time so far: too soon
> or too late. How to realistically practice this? I didn't even know it
was
> a problem until the first time I tried to do it in combat. And I can't
ask
> a fencing master, because the GM has no clue either. I'm not sure this
item
> *is* usable, but I doubt I'd ever have known without trying it
repeatedly
> in play.
It sounds very difficult to use to me. I guess I would assume that it
wasn't totally useless because why would they hand it out but ?quien
sabe?
>
> "It's not the things you don't know that will kill you. It's the things
> you know that ain't so" (like the idea that potions of Bless Weapon can
> be used to fight a devil). Real combats reveal this. I don't know how
> to set up a practice scenario that does, because I don't know where the
> issues *are* in advance.
>
> We could do a lot of fake combats, but I would rather do real combats
> against not-so-lethal opponents than do fake combats.
A matter of taste but practice is always available and suitably easy
opponents are not. .
> >Well, I am sorry to hear about your RL problems but I don't think
> >gleichman did an ad hominem and you are taking offense that was not
> >given. On the other hand, you never talk to me anyway. That, of course,
> >is not offensive at all.
>
> I lost net access around the time you started posting heavily, did you
> notice? I wasn't responding to anyone. But yeah, after "people who
play
> like you are crappy players and ruin the game" I wasn't all that
motivated.
> I will try to give it another chance, but no guarantees.
It is awfully easy to try to say "I prefer this" and end up saying
"this is the only way." If one tries to make a case for ones POV and
preferences, it can come out like an attack. . Frankly, I can see how
you might have taken some of my early posts in this thread personally
and I would apologize for any offense I inadvertantly gave. And I do.
On the other tentacle, I don't see how you could think gleichman was
attacking you.
Will in New Haven
--
"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail
better."
Samuel Beckett, "Worstward Ho", 1983
> Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
