>I think there is a lot of point missing going on here, as I think you
>are objecting more to what you think Benedict is saying than what he
>is actually saying, or at least what I think he is saying - Or maybe
>I'm missing your point�
I think Benedict is saying that the problem he thinks I have identified can be fixed by telling different/better stories. I think my stories are just fine, so I'll change the rules instead - which I think is generally good advise.
Not sure how much of that anyone else thinks... <grin>
><snip tim agreeing with me> When Benedict
>says that the challenges are relative to the abilities of the pc's
>you seem to be assuming that when the characters get to 10w2 then the
>Clan Champion will have risen to 15w3, and when the characters get to
>18w3 the Champion will be at 3w5 and so on, whereas I assumed he
>meant that when the pc's have close combat abilities of 18w3 then
>their adventures should not consist of beating up Clan Champions any
>more than starting characters would be expected to go head to head
>with Harrek.
I'm not sure what Benedict is saying about clan champions per se, if anything - the first interpretation seems to me clearly wrong, the second pretty basic. My point is that the world scale is pretty fixed in my mind and (to a lesser extent) that of my players. If I go off the top of that (bit of the) scale (that is of interest to us) then I have a problem. Benedict seems happier to be a lot more flexible with the scale. That may work for him, but for me it would be disaster.
<snip good, obvious stuff about challenging encounters>
> >Now, an important decision is how fast you wish to progress through
> >this. This isn't a decision for the GM alone - the players must also
> >want to tell the same stories, and where their characters will end
> >on this scale directly impacts on their area of control. Having made
> >this decision, and with some idea of how long the campaign will
> >last, you need to decide how to control the rate of progress.
>
>I'm sure some people do this. I'm equally sure other people start at
>the beginning and stop either when external forces break up the game,
>or "it ceases being fun" for either the GM or the Players - which is
>probably related to the levels of skills and the appropriate
>challenges. If you want to play in/run a "clan based" game and your
>characters are at the Super-hero beating, World changing level then
>it's highly likely that you will not be getting what you want/expect
>out of the game.
Well, we kind of did both. We were going along happily, assuming the rules worked correctly for us. But we reached a point where we realised that we had lots of stories we weren't going to get to explore fully because we were advancing too quickly. I just wish we had realised it sooner.
><snip>
>Again, this is not quite how I understood Benedict. Rather
>than "...using the game to encourage�", I understood him to be saying
>that a game that tests characters on a range of skills will tend to
>lead to players not overly specialising. - This seems to be little
>more than common sense to me, and fits in with the general advice
>that the group gives to anyone worried about the player who
>concentrates all his HP in one ability, - Test him in another ability
>that he hasn't improved.
I now feel this advice is (partly) wrong. I don't think that a game that tests a range of skills will stop players specialising - in fact I *know* it won't, at least not to the extent where it can't become a problem in the long term. I think that you should tell the stories you are interested in, and if the rules work against you, change them. You won't stop a player determined to pile his hero points into one ability, and you might piss him off by never telling stories he is interested in. (If you aren't interested in the same stories as him, that is an entirely different problem...)
> >By guiding the players choices through the stories you choose to
> >tell, you are breaking two meta-rules I consider important to good
> >GMing. First, you are choosing stories for meta-game reasons, not
> >for their inherent interest.
>
>I'd say you are keeping stories interesting by varying the themes and
>types of story. A good combat scenario can be cathartic, and get the
>adrenaline flowing. A whole campaign which is nothing but one combat
>after another can become a little stale.
Actually this agrees with me perfectly - tell stories because they are interesting!!!
> >Secondly, you are infringing on the players area of
> >control - their character. Instead of telling a joint story of
> >heroes challenged by their opponents, this is the GM challenging the
> >player because of the player's choices. Again, I suspect Benedict
> >has never done this, but it is the point of his essay.
Re-read my section (immediately above) carefully...
>If you are going to tell a story of heroes challenged by their
>opponents you need to take account of the players choices, how else
>do you ensure it's a challenge ("The chief will reward any man that
>can swim across Skyfall Lake, which has a resistance of 18W�.. What
>do you mean, you have 'Swim like a fish 12W3?'").
Story = heroes vs. opponents NOT GM vs. players. It is the motivation I am questioning.
>Now it is undoubtedly true that players will put points into skills
>they either think are useful, or want to be able to use, (if only to
>show off). So in some ways it is "unfair" of the GM to
>ignore "Relationship to Clan" for 12 months then suddenly make it
>pivotal, forcing them to use ratings of 13 rather than their "best
>skills" with a High mastery or two, just as it is unfair to never
>give the character who spends points every session on "Play Bagpipes"
>the chance to unleash a tune or two�
Again, story reasons for these choices. (I'd also find excuses to let him play his pipes, if it meant that much to him.)
> >A final point. Benedict makes two assumptions that aren't true in my
> >campaign, and I suspect many others. Firstly, he assumes that the
> >players measure their characters against each other. In my
> >experience, players are more likely to measure their characters
> >against the world.
>
>But the other characters are part of the world. And if it is "the
>best trader" who gets to cut the deal, or "the best debater" who gets
>to argue the point (and thus get the "spotlight" for that scene) then
>being the best in the group is a legitimate (and achievable) aim.
Fair point - I've found that the PCs all have different "best" skills. Tim's point also helps support my next point...
> >Secondly, he assumes that each character should be well rounded in
> >isolation, or that a character can be challenged in isolation. Role
> >playing is a group activity, and I find it rare to tell stories
> >where a given character is isolated for long. The party will tend to
> >support each other, with one character's weakness being made up for
> >by another's complimentary strength. Something I suspect will be
> >encouraged by the greater emphasis on hero bands that will
> >apparently be in HQ.
<snip good counter-examples>
Cheers,
Graham
-- Graham Robinson graham_at_... Albion Software Engineering Ltd.
Powered by hypermail