Two blog posts I enjoyed today:
Specialization and Assumed Competence illustrates that any system where the gap between a characters with and without specialization *increases* is a system where the general competence *decreases* even if the general challenge level of the environment and the actual stats remain *unchanged*.
Specialization and Assumed Competence
On the Deadly Difference drives home a point I’ve been trying to adhere to for a while, now: announce risks and consequences before players make decisions. My Swiss Referee Style Manual ends with the very same advice, inspired by the very same blog.
The following list is from the Hack & Slash blog.
*Announce consequences* before players commit to actions. There can only be meaningful choice if players know what to expect. (”If you fail the roll, you’ll [...]. Do you want to risk it?”)
*Provide information* if players are unsure. You can wrap it in vague language, but be sure to provide the necessary information. (”It’s hard to say, but you feel a nagging suspicion that he’s probably hiding something.”)
In the same vein, *provide warnings* if players are putting themselves in danger. You’re aiming for “I knew it!” when something bad befalls player characters. (”You notice that the hanging bridge above the tar pits seems frail. Just make sure nobody cuts those ropes!”)
*Provide alternatives* if you think that what players want should be impossible. (”You can’t just buy a magic weapon but they say there’s a hidden entrance to a goblin market in the Smoke Forest.”)
*Add obstacles* whenever players are getting what they want. (”The insect trainer will teach your lizard how to spy ahead if you provide her with a living giant wasp.”)
#RPG #Old School