Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5576772" data-attributes="member: 27160">Not quite entirely what I said <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I originally said one other thing and I now can think of a third.&nbsp; The original &quot;extra gamist element&quot; was the &quot;step on up&quot; aspects surrounding extended rests.&nbsp; I think the capacity to have the players decide just how many encounters they will tackle before replenishing resources is an important &quot;dare you&quot; element - our run this weekend showed it off quite well.&nbsp; Due to an enemy raid on the inn the party were resting in after an intentionally &quot;stretched&quot; day, one player character began the raid encounter with 1 hp and no healing surges. I (as DM) gave him a squad of (minion) guards that the townspeople had assigned to protect the sleeping heroes to play in the encounter (as well as his somewhat depleted character).&nbsp; Upon realising that &quot;hey, I am the same as them - I am a minion!&quot; another player helpfully pointed out that, in fact, he was worse, since a miss never damages a minion...The second aspect that I think supports a &quot;gamist&quot; style is the way in which 4E can reward tactical play.&nbsp; What I mean, here, is not the commonly quoted mirror of &quot;you need good tactics or you die&quot;, but rather that good tactics can give rewarding moments - moments when the other players go &quot;ooooh - neat!&quot; or &quot;oooh - that's gonna smart!&quot;&nbsp; The players in our game have got pretty good at creating &quot;gotcha!&quot; situations for monsters; the point of several &quot;optimiser&quot; builds I see is also to create impressive &quot;nova&quot; results.&nbsp; The real &quot;reward&quot;, here, I think is not so much the damage done in the encounter (although, obviously, that's nice, too), but the kudos gained from other players seeing the neat moves pulled off.&nbsp; The explicit rules of 4E (as opposed to page 42) play to this particularly, I think, because the results are achieved not through persuasion (or even entertainment) of the DM, but through the simple logic of the game rules.&nbsp; 4E play in our group is replete with these &quot;gotcha!&quot; moments. Since the players (including the DM - the monsters can play the same game!) explicitly get kudos for tactical play, I recognise this absolutely as &quot;gamist&quot; support.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5576772, member: 27160"] Not quite entirely what I said ;) I originally said one other thing and I now can think of a third. The original "extra gamist element" was the "step on up" aspects surrounding extended rests. I think the capacity to have the players decide just how many encounters they will tackle before replenishing resources is an important "dare you" element - our run this weekend showed it off quite well. Due to an enemy raid on the inn the party were resting in after an intentionally "stretched" day, one player character began the raid encounter with 1 hp and no healing surges. I (as DM) gave him a squad of (minion) guards that the townspeople had assigned to protect the sleeping heroes to play in the encounter (as well as his somewhat depleted character). Upon realising that "hey, I am the same as them - I am a minion!" another player helpfully pointed out that, in fact, he was worse, since a miss never damages a minion... The second aspect that I think supports a "gamist" style is the way in which 4E can [I]reward[/I] tactical play. What I mean, here, is not the commonly quoted mirror of "you need good tactics or you die", but rather that good tactics can give rewarding moments - moments when the other players go "ooooh - neat!" or "oooh - that's gonna smart!" The players in our game have got pretty good at creating "gotcha!" situations for monsters; the point of several "optimiser" builds I see is also to create impressive "nova" results. The real "reward", here, I think is not so much the damage done in the encounter (although, obviously, that's nice, too), but the kudos gained from other players seeing the neat moves pulled off. The explicit rules of 4E (as opposed to page 42) play to this particularly, I think, because the results are achieved not through persuasion (or even entertainment) of the DM, but through the simple logic of the game rules. 4E play in our group is replete with these "gotcha!" moments. Since the players (including the DM - the monsters can play the same game!) explicitly get kudos for tactical play, I recognise this absolutely as "gamist" support. [/QUOTE]

Verification