I think there is not always sufficient distinction made in much roleplaying material between "here are the ways a GM can be helpfully willing to work with someone new to the hobby, or new to the system, when they are getting the hang of it" and "here are the ways a GM should go relatively easy on low-level characters in situations where a small number of bad rolls can be lethal"; some games seem to be built on actively opposing the latter, which is far more adversarial a way of approaching the game than I am interested in.
It seems to me that the best way to get reasonably good campaigns out of existing zero-to-legend paradigm games requires a certain degree of going easy on low-level characters however experienced the players, and conversely, willingness to be remarkably ruthless at high levels when the PCs' capacities have exploded (with the underlying presumption that players who have been playing along to the point have acquired a reasonable handle on the system), which leaves playing the system exactly as written covering a range of whatever the middling levels are in the game.
no subject
Date: 2019-01-26 12:42 am (UTC)It seems to me that the best way to get reasonably good campaigns out of existing zero-to-legend paradigm games requires a certain degree of going easy on low-level characters however experienced the players, and conversely, willingness to be remarkably ruthless at high levels when the PCs' capacities have exploded (with the underlying presumption that players who have been playing along to the point have acquired a reasonable handle on the system), which leaves playing the system exactly as written covering a range of whatever the middling levels are in the game.