Monsters like a challenge!

[steenan]

Umbran has it right. The best way to teach nearly every game to children is by starting it easy and gradually ramping up difficulty. Children learn fast, but you need to let them grasp the basic rules of play before you make the game challenging.

There is also another consideration nobody here seems to take into account. The game is simple and it does not allow for a lot of tactics. You don't have any good methods to protect someone from harm if monsters decide to focus attacks. That's an important, though metagame, reason for them not to do that. Monster tactics is unrealistic, but you can't get realistic result from a mechanics appropriate for children 6 years old.

 

[FireLance]

I'm all for starting simple and ramping up the difficulty. It's just that the "monster always attacks the one with the most hit points" algorithm doesn't really sit well with me.

I personally think that I would prefer some kind of taunt or distraction mechanic, even one that is automatically successful for the sake of simplicity. For example, on the monster's turn, any of the characters can choose to taunt or distract the monster and make it attack him. To encourage the characters to take turns taunting the monster, perhaps it gets a bonus to attack rolls or to damage if it attacks the same character that it attacked on its previous turn.

This puts the tactics back in the hands of the players, and you can even turn it into a lesson on taking turns to do an unpleasant job. And even though (IMO) the monster is still rather silly to be so easily taunted, it's less silly (at least to me) than the monster always automatically going for the toughest-looking character around.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The best way to teach nearly every game to children is by starting it easy and gradually ramping up difficulty. Children learn fast, but you need to let them grasp the basic rules of play before you make the game challenging.

Agreed, with the caveat that one makes the game simpler by making the scenario simpler. It is better to have easily defeated monsters that behave as they should, than difficult to defeat monsters that behave stupidly in order to facilitate their defeat.

The second teaches something that can be applied to the game; the first teaches something that damages the prospective players' understanding of the game.


RC

 

[Piratecat]

The one thing I really like about this rule is that it's fun to get hit. It's exciting. Smacking around all of the PCs makes sure that everyone gets to experience that.

Sort of an inelegant method of doing so, though.

 

[renau1g]

It's fun to get hit? Man I didn't know you were a masochist Piratecat...

 

[Fifth Element]

Agreed, with the caveat that one makes the game simpler by making the scenario simpler.

That's one way to do it, certainly.

It is better to have easily defeated monsters that behave as they should, than difficult to defeat monsters that behave stupidly in order to facilitate their defeat.

But this ignores other effects the rule might have; see below.

The one thing I really like about this rule is that it's fun to get hit. It's exciting. Smacking around all of the PCs makes sure that everyone gets to experience that.

This is true. It is inelegant, but it does also serve to make sure all of the players are involved in the combat. That in and of itself is one reason to do it. If some players don't feel engaged in the battle, that's a fail.

 

[steenan]

It is better to have easily defeated monsters that behave as they should, than difficult to defeat monsters that behave stupidly in order to facilitate their defeat.

That I cannot fully agree with. There's a different feeling you get from these situations.
If a monster concentrates attacks, but is easy to defeat anyway, it may take most of HPs from one character. If it spreads attacks, it may take most HPs from all PCs. The second one definitely feels stronger and more dangerous and, by this, makes players feel more heroic by defeating it. Sacrificing the feel for reallistic tactics is not something I would do in most adult RPGs and even less so in a game run for children.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It is inelegant, but it does also serve to make sure all of the players are involved in the combat. That in and of itself is one reason to do it. If some players don't feel engaged in the battle, that's a fail.

I guess that depends upon what one finds desireable in a role-playing game.

It also depends upon how long each "battle" takes; if a session is a single battle, or even three battles, because each battle takes a long time, and there is nothing else to do, then I agree.

Of course, then I might go play HeroClix instead.....and I can guarantee that I would do my best to make tactical choices!




RC

 

[Piratecat]

I guess that depends upon what one finds desireable in a role-playing game.

We're talking about six year olds. You aren't really the target market! It'll be important to teach tactics, but I think it's even more important to make a good first impression with the game. Keeping every kid involved helps do so.

It's fun to get hit? Man I didn't know you were a masochist Piratecat...

Heh. I'd much rather be the guy with the bouncing hit points, who gets hit and healed a lot, than the one who never gets touched. It's much more interesting and exciting. It's why I've never tried to make a super-high-AC build.

 

[Raven Crowking]

We're talking about six year olds. You aren't really the target market! It'll be important to teach tactics, but I think it's even more important to make a good first impression with the game. Keeping every kid involved helps do so.

There are two target markets here -- the kids, and those who are going to buy the game to teach the kids.

I taught my middle child 3.0 when she was 7. Somewhere around here you can find the "Heather's First Adventure" thread where I posted what I developed for her. I started my son at around the same age.

Keeping every kid involved with making choices and experiencing the game milieu (environment) helps enormously. Fights need to be in context of the environment to be meaningful. Anticipation of a monster lurking just out of sight is as important, and perhaps far more important, to engagement as combat.

Having the monsters react as they should is partly about teaching tactics, but it is also partly about engagement. For a kid's game, I would choose something fast-play, with the potential for lots of encounters, lots of space between encounters for anticipation, and a buffer to keep the PCs alive (unless they do something truly stupid).

But I would also do my best to give them an experience of "being there". Because, IMHO, that is what RPGs are about. YMMV.


RC