Re: Difficulty Balance

In article <45ac08fe$0$336$e4fe514c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Irina Rempt  <irina@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>If that's the Gathering game, which seems likely, yes. It didn't feel
slow
>at the time (at least not for *this* player) but it must have been,
>because what I remember about it is immensely detailed.

>It was probably easier because, whatever else it was, it was an exercise
>in immersion.

You know, it's funny.  I remember the Gathering game that you ran in
immense detail, but have just about totally blotted out the one I ran.

I was thinking of _Haven Hill_, a three-player game that ran for about
a year till two of the players decided to have a baby.  It took an
amazing amount of "two players sit and listen while the third does
something", more than I think most groups would tolerate; one had to
cultivate an enjoyment of listening.  It helped that the inter-PC
dynamics were quite funny.  (That was the game where a PC discovered
how to turn into a lynx in mid-leap, without knowing (a) how to get
rid of his armor, or (b) how to turn back.)

More than any game I've ever run, that one actually took some of its
energy from the contrast between player knowledge and character
knowledge.  The other two players would sit and listen to one of
Linnick's solo forays, and then demand when he got back that he tell
them what had happened:  the gross disconnect between the two was
a large part of the entertainment value.  

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]