Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Libramarian" data-source="post: 7717193" data-attributes="member: 6688858">I remember that thread. It's <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?479509-6-8-encounters-day-how-common-is-this/page27" target="_blank">this one</a> right? Quite an interesting discussion there; I recommend a perusal to anyone still following this thread. I basically agree with your analysis of the differences between APing and the classic style of play but I don't think I'm as concerned as you are about whether gamist APing sacrifices what is distinctive about RPGing. I would give a different answer as to why the classic style is superior as a means for pursuing the gamist creative agenda ( I quite like my post <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?479509-6-8-encounters-day-how-common-is-this/page27&p=6846324&viewfull=1#post6846324" target="_blank">here</a>).I advocate a return to the classic style because I think most D&D groups are basically gamist and they would enjoy it more than the AP style (the other dominant style; Pemertonian scene-framing in my estimation is extremely niche). I think the bottleneck in uptake is not modern gamers' love of prepackaged story and dice-based exploration (I'm tending recently to think these are smokescreens by the relative minority of modern gamers who want the gamist experience but refuse to Step On Up to get it). It's just a lack of support from the game in terms of the tools and techniques needed to run it. Many modern DMs are not even aware of the concept of random encounters, much less why it's important for the DM to recuse themselves from the responsibility of putting encounters together on the fly.We need to go back to the dungeon and expand slowly and carefully from there (so I say <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />)It's an interesting question. I don't much like those expectation-thwarting monsters. I would say yes to very conservative, hidebound classic D&D, but no to OSR D&D. One of the most exciting things about the OSR is the enthusiasm for making up new monsters, spells, magic items, and settings -- more generally the belief that logical analysis of the game will not only allow one to run it better and have more fun with it, but to expand the game while preserving the appeal without resorting to self-referential tricks.I haven't played much chess but I know that getting very good at it requires a ton of brute memorization of opening sequences. Kind of like making a 3e or 4e character offline. I don't find that very compelling but I guess to some degree its a matter of taste. To me whether an exchange of play is gamist doesn't depend simply on the intentions of the participants but on whether it pursues the gamist creative agenda: the players putting their ideas on the line for judgement in front of an audience, risking at least a small amount of recognition or esteem. Grabbing a build someone else made doesn't involve sufficient personal risk.This focus on the social dynamic at the table rather than the player's intention allows me to say for example, that I also consider it good play to be fairly sanguine in the face of a random death.</blockquote>

Verification