Schroedinger's Wounding (Forked Thread: Disappointed in 4e)

[Raven Crowking]

For the purposes of explaining what I mean, I am defining the terms that I am using. You can rename them "Factor A", "Factor B", etc. I used the term "smart play" to describe what I was talking about because it has a long history being used in this way with the hobby, not because of any intrinsic meaning of either "smart" or "play".

EDIT: Allow me to call the kettle black for a moment. It's what I try to do, but I am as fallable as (or more fallable than) the next guy. If you look at others' posts with the same gentle eye you would hope others would look at yours with, the InterWeb becomes a lot more pleasant. IOW, please don't allow my writing style to interfere with my intent; it has allowed me to sell my opinions from time to time!

Or, as I once told LostSoul in a pub, (and I paraphrase, badly) if we were all sitting in a pub, and had the benefit of voice tone and body language, most of this hackle-raising would disappear.


RC

 

[Scribble]

I've never encountered a lycanthrope before, but I'd certainly try to find something very silver and vaguely weaponlike if I had to fight one.

Sure you have. You might not have ever had to fight one, but you've encountered one in books and movies and popular culture. Did you somehow know lycanthropes could be hurt by silvered weapons before the very first time you'd ever seen or heard of them?

 

[Hypersmurf]

But, really, they are just terms. Rename "smart play" Factor A and rename "satisfying play" Factor B, and the argument doesn't change.

A bit like how renaming the Unconscious condition 'Condition 6' doesn't change the mechanics...

No, but if that's what you want to think, think away.

So if there is a spell I can cast that would grant a significant advantage by the rules, legal despite it being considered a 'loophole' by many, would it be 'smart' play to cast it? Would it be 'smart' play to refrain from casting it?

-Hyp.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hypersmurf,

I know that I am not the first person who has told you they have no interest in playing these games with you, and I very much doubt that I will be the last.

RC

 

[Lacyon]

Sure you have. You might not have ever had to fight one, but you've encountered one in books and movies and popular culture. Did you somehow know lycanthropes could be hurt by silvered weapons before the very first time you'd ever seen or heard of them?

That's a rather broader definition of the word 'encounter' than I expected you were using, which makes the question you asked significantly narrower than it appears.

 

[Scribble]

That's a rather broader definition of the word 'encounter' than I expected you were using, which makes the question you asked significantly narrower than it appears.

Possibly. Raven seemed to understand the intent of my question, but I'll restate:

Would acting on player knowledge (that lycanthropes can be hurt by silvered weapons) despite the character not having that same knowledge in game, be considered "smart play."

 

[Lacyon]

Would acting on player knowledge (that lycanthropes can be hurt by silvered weapons) despite the character not having that same knowledge in game, be considered "smart play."

The reason the question is narrow is because of it's assumption.

"Smart play" in this instance is to act like the lore's been changed. "Satisfying play" therefore requires that the lore be changed.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Possibly. Raven seemed to understand the intent of my question, but I'll restate:

Would acting on player knowledge (that lycanthropes can be hurt by silvered weapons) despite the character not having that same knowledge in game, be considered "smart play."

Absolutely.

Remember, in this case, "smart play" is just a term denoting what the game mechanics promote.

Although wisdom tells me I shouldn't go there, were the question

So if there is a spell I can cast that would grant a significant advantage by the rules, legal despite it being considered a 'loophole' by many, would it be 'smart' play to cast it? Would it be 'smart' play to refrain from casting it?​

the answer would be that it would depend upon the game system being used and the circumstances whether it would be smart play to cast it. Ultimately, it would be nice if a game system was worked so that Factor A doesn't interfere with Factor B, but every game system includes corner cases where Factor A does, indeed, interfere with Factor B.

In general, it would be Factor A to cast the spell. However, such a spell would also be considered by most to be a flaw in the rules. A good DM attempts to fix flaws where he can, and attempts to make rulings that unify Factors A and B, IMHO.

For example, with S's Wounding, were I planning on running 4e, I would consider it part of my job as DM to institute some of the fixes suggested on this thread (and others). I would do this because I want Factors A and B to mesh as seemlessly as possible.

"Smart play" in the sense I am using it, though, is not simply "gaming the system". It is not attempting to break the system, or seeking out the most broken combinations possible. If you really want to understand what is meant by "smart play" in this context, I would recommend reading Mr. Gygax's advice to players in the 1e PHB, which is the only edition that (AFAICT) actually tells the players what the game system considers smart play.

I believe Mr. Gygax might call it "good play"; again, this is "Good play for the game as it was intended by the author to be played" not "good play for all people at all times." Or, at least, that is what I understand Mr. Gygax to mean.


RC

 

[pemerton]

RC is from the school of thought that if the rules say I am at full hit points and has no mechanic indicating that my character might be tired or wounded, then the charcter is not tired or wounded.

And pretending to be tired or wounded is not "smart play", because you are not using your characters full capacities. Satisfying play would expect me to rest, smart play says I absolutely shouldn't do that because my character is fine and I am just wasting my characters time (which is a resource inside the game world.)

I still think that the paranthetical remark is controversial - my PC's time is a limited resource only under certain assumptions about the nature of the world, the nature of the adventures taking place in that world, the nature of my PC's motivations and the nature of my motivations as a player which are simply not true in all sandbox games. And certainly not true at all times.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I know that I am not the first person who has told you they have no interest in playing these games with you, and I very much doubt that I will be the last.

I'm not playing a game; I'm attempting to clarify why my understanding of "smart play is metagaming and playing the game's rules intelligently" receives a "No" from you.

At what point does playing the game's rules intelligently cease to be 'smart' play?

Edit:

In general, it would be Factor A to cast the spell. However, such a spell would also be considered by most to be a flaw in the rules.

Ah. Thank you - this was posted after I started replying.

So if the rules are not changed, then what I said is correct? The more mechanical advantage one can wring from the existing rules, the more that course of action fits under the 'smart' play (or 'Factor A') umbrella?

If you really want to understand what is meant by "smart play" in this context, I would recommend reading Mr. Gygax's advice to players in the 1e PHB, which is the only edition that (AFAICT) actually tells the players what the game system considers smart play.

Can you paraphrase? If 'smart' play is not, as you say, seeking the most broken combinations, then you haven't explained it clearly so far.

-Hyp.