John Hughes:
>Now THAT is an idea worth exploring, though I'm not sure what you mean >by
the hack-n-slash model.
Somebody else said it best: in a melee, everyone gets involved, even those who shouldn't. As the saying goes, knowing you'll be executed in the morning has a way of focusing the mind wonderfully, and facing the prospect of character death has a similar effect. The cheapest way of threatening characters and getting the whole party acting together is a melee.
Then there is the simplicity of rolling to hit, as opposed to talking to the critters. In an old Dragon magazine, somebody (who was exaggerating slightly) said that his character killed everybody he met, then cast Speak with Dead to see if he should have killed them, then cast Raise Dead on them if he shouldn't have killed them. "Violence is always an option," and that seems to be the option of choice except when the characters are presented with overwhelming force or a situation in which violence is clearly not a good option.
I can't criticize my current group for this tendency, and in fact it's probably up to the GM to mold the group towards his goal. But my group, while not bloodthirsty, is also not ready for Guided Imagery Exercises where everyone is a co-creator.
Loren: Thanks for the Carmanian church. Agree on some tapping, but also agree with the poster (sorry, forgot who) who felt they'd have only hazy notions about Castle Coasters, et al. As an analogy, how much did the medieval RC church know about Abyssinian church practices?
"Mmmm, floor pie!"
Powered by hypermail