From: Colin Watson (watson@computing-science.aberdeen.ac.uk)
Date: Fri 26 Nov 1993 - 17:10:36 EET
Damn, I hoped you would say you got further than that. :-)
(But thanks for the info anyway.)
I never cease to be impressed by the free-climbers I see on TV. Granted,
they're climbing warm, dry desert cliffs rather than cold, icy mountains; but
to me their fumble-ratio seems much less than 1%...
(Are they HeroQuesting or what?:-)
Absolutely. But in an RPG you always have a trade-off between Realism &
Heroism. The important part of what you said above is the bit about making
the situation "perfectly clear" to the players. The warning signs to the
players have to be clear and yet subtle. Unsubtle warnings destroy the
atmosphere of the game:
eg.
My GM tempers his games with a degree of realism. Consequently, when his plot
requires us to climb a mountain we approach the task with a certain amount
of trepidation:
"Get real," we say, "We only have bronze-age equipment; we don't even know
what's up there; and besides that, we're not very good at climbing!".
What's the GM supposed to say?
"Don't worry lads, the plot requires that you climb the mountain so I'll
go easy on you *this time*." ??
But subtle warnings can be misinterpreted:
eg.
When the GM emphasises the howling gales; bitter cold; driving snow etc. is
he just building atmosphere or is he intimating: "You're all gonna die if
you persist". ?
The question boils down to: How much heroism (stupidity) do you let the
players away with?
In my case the answer is: Quite a lot.
If the players read the subtle warnings wrongly then I'd rather let them off
lightly than clout them with an unsubtle directive. I'd give them fatigue
penalties; maybe loss of a HP or so; but I wouldn't kill 'em outright (although
the next monster they meet might). That's just how I like to run things...
You and me both.
(I've always fancied running some Hyborian RQ. Has anyone tried it?)
___
CW.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:32:28 EEST