On Aug 12, 6:23 pm, psychohist <psychoh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Brian Gleichman posts, in part:
>
> No, but her approach to running D&D and her expectation
> of what a good gamist campaign would be like was. And
> there in was the source of her problems.
>
> I wonder if the problem that you noticed were the same ones that I
> noticed. Can you give some examples of how she could have handled
> things better?
I would have to go back and review the threads for details (it's been
a few weeks since they were posted), but here are three general 'after
action' thoughts on it.
Mary's inability to exchange D&D's reality for her own was something
of a surprise to me, but upon reflection something I should have
caught on to it before. Mary isn't really sim on some of these points,
but rather dysfunctional gamist as she assumes the Game Layer (http://
www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/elements11dec02.html) is the whole of
gamist (and sim I might add) play (as the Threefold says it is) and
it's not.
This caused her to focus too much on CR ratings, failed logic trips
due to over-thinking game mechanics (Sniper Rifles being one example
that recent came up), the mechanical effects of Angels rather than the
their greater role in the campaign, etc. And I might add, completely
skipping over the Paladin 'fluff' and thus missing the whole point of
how and why to play the class. The result fails even the most basic
'good play' tests, but Mary feels unable to draw any other conclusions
and further is unwilling to even consider that she should.
Additonal problems were caused by the GM's failure to review the
planned adventure and tailor it to the player(s). While some would say
that a Sim focused GM of course would never alter an adventure in that
fa****on, a Gamist one *must* taking into account the types of
encounters their players like and dislike as well as their preferred
approaches and level of skill with the system being used. In that
adventure review, plot elements that players would object to on the
grounds of logic or morality need to be addressed as well as they can
derail the adventure.
The Threefold concept of 'fair challenge" drove too much of her
thought and reaction. Anyone who fixes on 'fair challenge' is due for
disappointment. They should instead look for interesting resolution
points- which is a different matter. And realize that it isn't
uncommon to fall short and long of that target in individual examples.
Expecting each encounter to be fair and challenging is failure by
expectation, and a better goal is to shoot for one outstanding
encounter per 'storyline'. And it would also be wise to keep in mind
that it likely won't be the one you thought it would be.
|
