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

[Raven Crowking]

Hyp,

There is no doubt in my mind that, if you had written my posts, and I had written yours, I would be enjoying a three-day vacation from EN World right now.


RC

 

[Scribble]

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.

Dissagree. Yeah a lycanthrope is a pretty well known bit of lore in our world, but what about the dreaded Quijibo?

Should the fact that the player read throught he MM and knows the Quijibo can only be harmed by pickles influence his decision making for his dumb as a stump 2 intelligence thwack monkey character?

In my opinion, no it should not. The thwack monkey should approach things in the same manner he/she always approaches things. By Thwackin them, as opposed to suddenly arming himself with a pickle.

In Raven's opinion this would not be smart play.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Dissagree. Yeah a lycanthrope is a pretty well known bit of lore in our world, but what about the dreaded Quijibo?

Should the fact that the player read throught he MM and knows the Quijibo can only be harmed by pickles influence his decision making for his dumb as a stump 2 intelligence thwack monkey character?

In my opinion, no it should not. The thwack monkey should approach things in the same manner he/she always approaches things. By Thwackin them, as opposed to suddenly arming himself with a pickle.

In Raven's opinion this would not be smart play.

Sure, but in Raven's game the players would know aforehand that, if they faced something rare, their lore is not necessarily reliable. This is because, in Raven's game, Raven doesn't wish the players to have to choose whether to engage in "smart" or in "satisfying" play.

So, Raven says that the thwack monkey arming himself with a pickle might be in trouble.

Also, Raven says that the monster you describe is a fat, balding North American ape. He has a short temper, too.

 

[pemerton]

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 know the section well. It overlaps in content with a lot of other D&D writing from the period, by Pulsipher in White Dwarf for example.

But if that's your notion of sandbox play - so that any game mechanics that don't support that sort of play (in the sense that they push against it rather than render it optimal) don't support sandbox play - I think it's a little narrow. At a minimum I'd call that sort of play "dungeon sandbox + mercenary/tomb-looting motivations".

 

[Scribble]

Sure, but in Raven's game the players would know aforehand that, if they faced something rare, their lore is not necessarily reliable. This is because, in Raven's game, Raven doesn't wish the players to have to choose whether to engage in "smart" or in "satisfying" play.

So, Raven says that the thwack monkey arming himself with a pickle might be in trouble.

So how does a player know iof his play is smart or just a shot in the dark?

Also, Raven says that the monster you describe is a fat, balding North American ape. He has a short temper, too.

Why you little!!! (We need a strangle smiley)

 

[Raven Crowking]

So how does a player know iof his play is smart or just a shot in the dark?

There is no reason, within this context, that smart play isn't taking a shot in the dark. What is not desireable is that the mechanics interfere with satisfying play, so that a player doesn't have to feel that he is making bad choices in order to have a satisfying experience.

Why you little!!! (We need a strangle smiley)

Nah. It would get too much use.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

100%.

RC's 'smart' play is entirely about gaming the system. The more people would call a particular mechanical loophole 'broken', the higher it ranks on the smart-o-meter.

-Hyp.

I think you're a little unfair towards Raven Crowking - or still don't get his point (or play style) yet.

Smart play is about using the rules in a "smart" way to achieve the goals of the game (beating monsters, the clock, navigating a dungeon, travelling through the wilderness). It includes mechanical and non-mechanical elements (stocking up supplies for a mountain climbing tour is barely affected by mechanics, more by "common sense".)

In the worst case, this means also exploiting loop holes.

But if "smart play" was everything to RC, how can he say that satisfying play and smart play don't always match?

If smart play would lead to everyone playing pun-pun in 3E, this wouldn't satisfy me, for example. Satisfying play for me means I can play somthing else as a tricked-out Kobold. Partially, because I enjoy using different mechanics, partially because the scenes I envision don't involve a lot of godly Kobolds.

For sandbox play, strategic resource management is an element of smart play, but also of satisfying play. The satisfaction comes in this being a challenge that you face and beat, because you played smart.
For one thing, there is no challenge in long-term resource management in 4E, since most of your resources return after each extended rest. You don't have to work for it.
Another part is - sandbox play would envision scenes where the party rests. But if I play smart, there is no reason to take any rests. If the rules would have an effect that forced me to rest to gather resources for beating the next challenges, then smart play would result in exactly the rests I originally envisioned.

---

An example that's closer to my experience of satisfying play not matching smart play. Character Creation in D&D 3E, using 25 point buy.

I like the idea of playing a charismatic fighter with a noble background. He knows how to speak with high-ranking people as well as commanding lower-ranking people. But if I really want to play a fighter smart, I shouldn't waste ability and skill points on this. A fighter played smart is a combat machine that sacrifices his charisma for a little extra strength or con. If I wanted to play a noble like character, I'd be better of with a Bard or a Rogue. I lose a lot less playing these characters with good social skills.

The goals of the game-part of the role-playing game aim at a Fighter being effective at combat. Everything I do that hinders me here is not "smart play". But for my satisfaction, I want to sacrifice some of my combat ability to get more social abilities. This means I have to choose between satisfactory and smart play.
The game could do things differently. For example, it could allow me to make a different type of choice. Maybe it adds a valuable "social path" for my fighter. It offers me a reward for playing the noble Fighter - maybe I really lose some combat effectiveness, but the gain I get from my social abilities mean that I am actually good at what I do then, so I can be effective - play smart - and play the character I was interested in.

---

Maybe "satisfying play" is the wrong term. Maybe the right term might be more "interesting play" - I play what I am interested in. If "interesting" and "smart" play match, I get satisfaction. If not, I don't. My interested would be to play a charismatic warrior. RCs interest would be to play a sandbox game, with aspects like long-term resource management (avoiding or minimizing rest periods through smart play).

 

[Lacyon]

So how does a player know iof his play is smart or just a shot in the dark?

You won't know until your character does.

To me, that's a feature. I suppose some might see it as a bug.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But if "smart play" was everything to RC, how can he say that satisfying play and smart play don't always match?

I'm certainly not suggesting that 'smart' play is everything to RC. He's distinguishing between the two.

But it still reads to me that Pun-Pun ranks highly on the 'smart' play scale, regardless of where he ranks on the satisfying play scale.

-Hyp.

 

[Scribble]

There is no reason, within this context, that smart play isn't taking a shot in the dark. What is not desireable is that the mechanics interfere with satisfying play, so that a player doesn't have to feel that he is making bad choices in order to have a satisfying experience.

I guess we will just dissagree on this then. I don't feel it's possible to have a character that is not you, but still never conflicts with your own knowledge/ideals/abilities/tastes.