Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 6066867" data-attributes="member: 463">Thanks guys, I think this thread is helping me to understand 4e a lot better (and by an extension not-4e, eg Labyrinth Lord). My 4e Forgotten Realms game has been going very well, but I occasionally worry that by using scene-framing* rather than a traditional simulation approach I am violating the tenets of good GMing. Manbearcat & Pemerton are giving me confidence that what I am doing is correct, for 4e.*Scene Framing - the thing Pemerton taught me to do. Set up an engaging situation, but let the players determine how it turns out, based primarily on 'let's make a good story' Dramatist play. It's not linear AP type play because scenes/encounters are created more or less ad hoc, per session or within the session, and are not pre-determined. It's not sandboxy Simulation because scenes are determined more by 'what would be cool' than by process world-simulation. It has a Gamist element because scenes are crafted to challenge the players; there is game-conflict at the encounter level. But this is different from other forms of Gamism such as 0e-1e 'combat as war' strategic play ("the greatest victory is not to fight - just get the gold!") or 3e victory-through-effective-character-build play. The tailoring of encounters means it's very much combat-as-sport Gamism.</blockquote>