Re: (TFT) Developed logical settings, deadly risks, and motivation

["Jay Carlisle" <selfinflicted_wounds@boardermail.com>]

> Let me dissent. Not about the game-world making sense in terms of where the
> orcs & treasure come from, but with "risky" adventuring being more compelling.

I'll ALWAYS let you decent. I really enjoy what you have to say on these topics. It really drives my thinking, agree or disagree.


> I prefer to play highly competent, larger-than-life characters who are "up to
> the challenge." Who are Just That Damn Good, so that the risks of adventuring
> are *for them* low enough to be managable without their having to be either
> bugshit crazy or utterly desperate to get into adventure-like situtations.
> 
> I can be an ordinary guy just fine in real life, thankyouverymuch.
...

No kidding! It's susposed to be a game. (as I keep having to remind myself)
I'll put together a post on this but for now can I mention situations like "Butch Casedy and the Sundance Kid"? When your that GOOD your likely to be almost forced against those of your skill level. (No one gets to be Grand Master of Flowers without beating the OLD Grand Master of Flowers and that's the guy who trained you in the first place)
When your that good you end up in a genra called Hero Questing. (I think that's a David Grouchy term. We all have people who inspired our thinking and Grouch is that person for me. Most of this stuff springs DIRECTLY from conversations we've had but that's another post) Without getting overly deep it's the hopeless cause that still must be fought. "The Magnificant Seven" "The Bridge of Birds" Corwins accent to Amber. Frodo and Sam strugeling up Mount Doom. All hopeless tasks.

Now I agree that EVERY adventure should not be a Hero Quest. As a matter of fact these should be RARE. (perhaps 1 per epoch) Again even Advanced Melee offered a 'Quick Combat' system. Effects like these are used only to advance the story. That is the job of the GM. The story will be told weather the players choose to particapate or not.
 
> I also have, as I was quoted noting earlier, a problem playing characters who
> are bugshit crazy. But if a character is in a desperately risky situtation,
> over his head and likely to die, and he isn't bugshit crazy enough 
> to enjoy it,
> then he's going to be miserable. And I roleplay my characters closely enough
> that if my character is miserable, then *I* am miserable.


Ouch.
Okay then let me say that I have NO intrest in making my players miserable. I'm actuall trying to get rid of GM's as much as possable. However the posability that a "villan" NPC could even threaten you with being miserable means that as long as I'm not abuseing the thing my "villan" is effective as motivation for your PC.
I hope this is vaguley clear...

> 
> So why in the rude words of seven different languages should I do something
> that makes me miserable for *entertainment*????
> 

Well that would be the risk/reward thing. By this I mean that your PC (and therefore you) would never play in a game where you were constantly frustrated but if your not spending at least a couple of sessions every once in a while in frustration/misery then there's no fair risk. At that point wouldn't it simpily be an exercise in finding various methods for introducing smoke into the various praticapents orifices?

The climax of a movie won't happen without tension. I'm just argueing for a logical source for the tension rather than having an unlimited supply of orcs.

VERY GOOD POINTS


-- 
_______________________________________________
Get your free email from http://www.boardermail.com
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"