Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by greyorm, June 05, 2006, 10:43:19 PM
Quote from: Larry Lade on June 08, 2006, 10:19:08 PMMaybe there's more to be learned about good design by breaking down RPGs so that kids can grasp them, more than just a "dumbing down" effect.
Quote from: charles ferguson on June 09, 2006, 04:28:45 AMSo you could be like, "These are for the it's teeth, and see this big green one? That's for it's death-cloud breath!"...Or if you want to up the suspense, "and see these dice? You don't know what they do just yet... are you sure you want to find out?"
Quote from: Calithena on June 09, 2006, 07:05:36 AMHowever, no rolls sometimes decrease a sense of drama......this is how I use that stat resolution system I linked you to......you'd then listen to her description, and decide whether it was just good enough by itself or whether you wanted the additional drama of die rolls...
QuoteSo then the DM has to 'pay' if he wants to create adversity through stuck doors, difficult-to-leap chasms, etc., and you get at least a mild DM resource limitation through that.
Quote from: greyorm on June 09, 2006, 01:21:46 AMWith all due respect, I am more concerned with my failure to have indicated the odds to him than I am with his ability to deal with losing, because the latter simply hasn't cropped up as a big problem in play. After all, he didn't throw a huge fit when his character died, he didn't pout and stomp his feet or quit the game, or anything of the sort that I've seen in some gamers twice his age. He had a very healthy, natural reaction for a nine-year old boy: a bit of disappointed whining on his part, but overall he handled it well given his nature and particular problems. So I'm not worried knowing the huge disaster it could have been.
QuoteI am instead concerned with my having misled him (or so I feel) with the bear. If he knew one hit could take him down, that the game could work that way, too, would he have gone at it? I didn't give him that choice, though, and I don't believe that was at all fair of me in the circumstance. It was like asking him to pick between two doors, and then having a tiger kill him without ever having indicated the possible outcomes included being killed by a tiger.
Quote from: greyorm on June 09, 2006, 11:12:48 PMThat's what you're supposed to do, in fact: it is implicitly part of D&D-style systems that as the characters gain levels, they fight level-equivalent opponents, and dangers scale to their current level, functionally meaning they never actually -- in play -- become more powerful (ie: more able, more successful), except through numerical and number-of-options sleight-of-hand...it's a sort of illusory "if we ignore this stuff over here and how we actually play" power gain.
Quote from: Callan S. on June 10, 2006, 01:01:19 AMFrom my perspective in reading your AP, he enacted alot of displacement activity.
Quotehe made the whole thing go away by switching quickly to another character.
QuoteHe could just leave the challenge from the start, automatically at will. You applied no force to him to take it on, yet your acting like you did. If you offer two doors, yes it's force, because they have to open one. If you offer two doors and the option to just move on to other stimulating stuff, no, it's not force. That's my opinion, of course. Ask him 'Who does that put in charge?'