Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7462274" data-attributes="member: 6779196">If by "milestone XP" you mean "Ignoring XP and telling the players when to level up," then no, XP is not a reward system in those games. Those games just don't have a reward system. They're also not using milestone XP as it's actually described in the DMG.That's true, though 4e is a very different beast. 4e's reward system is magic items.Again, we are operating under different definitions of "gaming the system" here. You're using it to mean "breaking the system" or "playing in a way that is outside the designers' intent." I'm using it to mean "finding and exploiting the optimal strategy." So, in Monopoly, gaming the system by your definition would probably look something like sneaking money out of the box when your opponents aren't looking, whereas in my definition it would look like <a href="http://www.amnesta.net/monopoly/" target="_blank">this</a>.Those are much more complex systems and don't have single predefined victory conditions, which makes it harder to devise a single optimal strategy. However, generally speaking, gaming these systems will look like determining the most efficient way to achieve the victory condition, and then doing that.I'm not familiar with Traveller, is combat the primary mode of play? Is it how you advance your character?Generally speaking, RPGs tend to have a heavy focus on character advancement, either through unlocking new abilities with levels/XP/etc., obtaining loot, or a combination of both. I would say that the "victory condition" for most such RPGs, in as much as there can be a single defined victory condition in such games, is such advancement. That's how you know you're "winning" at D&D: When you're winning, your character gets stronger. Ergo, when your character gets stronger, you know you're winning. The optimal strategy, then, is whatever makes it easiest to get XP and/or loot fastest. This makes the means of XP distribution a very powerful tool in the DM's toolbox, allowing them to reward the modes of play they want to encourage. If you want a game where players attempt diplomacy first and resort to violence only when all attempts at nonviolent resolution have failed, simply give more XP for resolving conflicts without engaging in combat than you give for monsters slain, captured, or routed.Why is it strange to you to call that "power gaming?" because it was in accordance with Gygax's intended mode of play? If play has to go against design intent for it to be considered "power gaming," then the term is only useful for shaming modes of play you don't like. I think it's more useful to define "power gaming" as... well... gaming for power. As doing everything you can to play as efficiently as possible. And I think it speaks to the strength of Gygax's design that power gaming lined up with his intended modes of play. It shows that he had a good understanding of player psychology and the power of incentives. It's clear that we're speaking very different languages here. This has next to nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make. </blockquote>

Verification