Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="P1NBACK" data-source="post: 5655872" data-attributes="member: 83768">I admit my evidence is largely anecdotal and from reading 4E DMs online. But, I think a large majority of players play 4E that way. You cite experience points as being poor at simulationist play. How so? In early D&amp;D, experiences were a measure of progress, a scorecard if you will. They were handled as individual rewards and each type of character had a certain amount they needed to reach the next level. That's pure gamism. However, what we see a lot nowadays is people not using experience points like that. Instead they use it as &quot;campaign pacing&quot; mechanic; they only hand out XP in a hand wave fashion so that it levels up the characters &quot;after so many sessions&quot; or &quot;when it feels right&quot; or &quot;when the story requires it&quot;. That is NOT gamism. That's simulationism at its best. It &quot;feels like the heroes should get stronger, to fight these stronger enemies&quot; so they do. Now, no doubt you can play 4E in a gamist way. I ran two long-running 4E campaigns. One of them was the former, they leveled up every other session as a pacing mechanic. The other was a sandbox game, where they earned XP for doing specific tasks, and earned it individually (we had a player base of 11-15 rotating players). One was high on simulating action heroes saving the world. The other campaign was straight up competition at the highest level. Guess what? They both had XP, levels and hit points. Has nothing to do with that. GNS is about instances of play. Like I said, it may be largely my observation, but I feel like more people do the &quot;set piece encounters&quot;, linear storylines from one to the other, and trash traditional experience accumulation for more of a &quot;campaign pacing&quot; mechanic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="P1NBACK, post: 5655872, member: 83768"] I admit my evidence is largely anecdotal and from reading 4E DMs online. But, I think a large majority of players play 4E that way. You cite experience points as being poor at simulationist play. How so? In early D&D, experiences were a measure of progress, a scorecard if you will. They were handled as individual rewards and each type of character had a certain amount they needed to reach the next level. That's pure gamism. However, what we see a lot nowadays is people not using experience points like that. Instead they use it as "campaign pacing" mechanic; they only hand out XP in a hand wave fashion so that it levels up the characters "after so many sessions" or "when it feels right" or "when the story requires it". That is NOT gamism. That's simulationism at its best. It "feels like the heroes should get stronger, to fight these stronger enemies" so they do. Now, no doubt you [I]can [/I]play 4E in a gamist way. I ran two long-running 4E campaigns. One of them was the former, they leveled up every other session as a pacing mechanic. The other was a sandbox game, where they earned XP for doing specific tasks, and earned it individually (we had a player base of 11-15 rotating players). One was high on simulating action heroes saving the world. The other campaign was straight up competition at the highest level. Guess what? They both had XP, levels and hit points. Has nothing to do with that. GNS is about [I]instances of play. [/I] Like I said, it may be largely [I]my [/I]observation, but I feel like more people do the "set piece encounters", linear storylines from one to the other, and trash traditional experience accumulation for more of a "campaign pacing" mechanic. [/QUOTE]

Verification