Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 9350153" data-attributes="member: 7035894">That's not a fun way to introduce brand new players to the game. My in-school campaigns for beginners are one term each. Making a student play with a lame character only to die a few games in would be terrible design.Should we apply this philosophy to all games? Okay kids, we're going to play tag. Some of you get to run, but if you were born in a winter or summer month, you have to walk. Enjoy it for what it is!Or imagine a Super Mario 2 game where your jumping distance is randomly determined at the start of each game, and you have to stick with it until the game is over. What do you think 99% of players will immediately do if they start with a low "jump" ability? Enjoy it for what it is, or immediately kill off Mario so that they can try again with a better jumping ability?There is quite a body of research concerning lesson plans that try to teach "life lessons" through activities that emulate real world inequities. They are generally a bad idea that create resentment and division amongst students and can do serious psychological damage. Quite a few real life controversies have resulted from (typically inexperienced) teachers implementing lessons intended to emulate real world inequities only to have the whole thing backfire horribly.If a teacher proposed such an idea to me, I would tell them, "It's a disaster waiting to happen."A) see above.B) Most people don't play games to learn life lessons. I play D&D for fun. Also, students are perfectly aware that the world is full of injustice and inequity. It's not like some big revelation they get from their elders. They're at school. They get differences in looks and aptitude and talent and everything else rubbed in their face all day long, half the time while getting assessed on it. Maybe they could use a break from it?C) There are other games that start with a similar design philosophy so that initial bad or good luck largely determine the rest of the game. Monopoly comes to mind. One of the main changes in modern game design was to move away from structural inequity based on luck and towards systems that are more dependent on player skill.I do agree that luck is an important aspect of D&D, as it adds narrative randomness. But relying on it to an extent that can feel relentlessly punishing is not for me.</blockquote>

Verification