Schroedinger's Wounding (Forked Thread: Disappointed in 4e)

[Scribble]

I am of the school of thought that says

"Smart play is based upon the game rules, satisfying play is based upon the players' expectations. When these work together, the game is fun. When these do not work together, the game is not fun.

There is no such thing as a game that can be played without metagaming. Therefore, the metagaming -- playing the game's rules intelligently -- must be taken into account in game design."


RC

So then attacking the lycanthrope with a silvered weapon despite your character never having encountered one before = smart play?

(I'm honestly trying to wrap my head around what you consider smart play.)

 

[Mallus]

"Smart play is based upon the game rules...

So investing your PC with a personality isn't smart play, since character personality is not addressed in the game rules? How about naming your PC? Is that smart? Relevant? Are you sure you want a definition of "smart play" that's pegged so tightly to game mechanics?

Or are there other dimensions of "smart play"?

 

[Raven Crowking]

So then attacking the lycanthrope with a silvered weapon despite your character never having encountered one before = smart play?

(I'm honestly trying to wrap my head around what you consider smart play.)

Sure is.

I tell my players, "Treat the monster books as lore you might know; just don't be surprised if some of that lore turns out to be wrong."


RC

 

[Hypersmurf]

Isn't that skirting on, if not entirely meta-gaming?

100%.

RC's 'smart' play is entirely about gaming the system. The more people would call a particular mechanical loophole 'broken', the higher it ranks on the smart-o-meter.

-Hyp.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So investing your PC with a personality isn't smart play, since character personality is not addressed in the game rules? How about naming your PC? Is that smart? Relevant? Are you sure you want a definition of "smart play" that's pegged so tightly to game mechanics?

I'm just going to answer this for others, in case anyone was actually confused, and not just interested in an argument about semantics.

If you go back and read my long-winded post ("shudder", I know.....) you will see that what Mallus is talking about here is what I call "satisfying play".

But, really, they are just terms. Rename "smart play" Factor A and rename "satisfying play" Factor B, and the argument doesn't change.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC's 'smart' play is entirely about gaming the system. The more people would call a particular mechanical loophole 'broken', the higher it ranks on the smart-o-meter.

No, but if that's what you want to think, think away.

You know, as a mod you should maybe not engage in this kind of snark?

Just saying.......!

 

[Lacyon]

So then attacking the lycanthrope with a silvered weapon despite your character never having encountered one before = smart play?

(I'm honestly trying to wrap my head around what you consider smart play.)

I've never encountered a lycanthrope before, but I'd certainly try to find something very silver and vaguely weaponlike if I had to fight one.

 

[catsclaw227]

:rollseyes:

cute.

Please. I've run multi-group and single-group, and both are fun. But multi-group has a depth that single-group doesn't have, IME.

And our experiences are different. But one is not better than the other.

"Best", though, is always a matter of opinion. If you want to be insulted, though, I guess you will be. I wonder why you might want to consider that some form of insult?

Maybe it is because i have sensed an elitist tone throughout your arguments on this topic. This may have triggered my need to point out that your best isn't the best. Then again, I could be wrong.

If you want to feel X is invalid because something involved with X hurt your feelings (however spurious the reasons), then that is what you are going to feel and and nothing is going to change your mind.

Hmmm... you are assuming hurt feelings. Interesting.

I would venture to guess that all over the world, people are making personal judgment calls about the validity of another's statements based upon what they have stated previously.

If a teacher, politician, sports figure, whoever, makes a statement about something that smacks of something totally off-base (to the listener), it more often then not causes that person's arguments prior to the offending remark seem invalid. I am not the first nor the last to experience this. I am guessing that you have done it yourself before, as most people have.

I won't lose any sleep over that, though. And I suggest that you don't, either.

Believe me, I won't lose sleep.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Believe me, I won't lose sleep.

Great!

Really, there was no intention to insult anyone else's preferences, and I tried to include words to that effect, as well as to the effect that my explaination was far from perfect. I was also specifically answering LostSoul's request to elaborate on what I meant by "sandbox"....and I would hope that my remarks would be taken with that understanding.


RC

 

[Scribble]

Sure is.

I tell my players, "Treat the monster books as lore you might know; just don't be surprised if some of that lore turns out to be wrong."


RC

Hrmmm Ok then. Your definition of smart play is at odds with mine. Well, not really "at odds" but defined by different ideas I guess.

In my games metagaming gets you the stern DM "dude don't be a dick" look at best.

So in my book smart play = utilizing your skills and abilities in the best possible fashion but still taking into account your character and his view of the world around himself.

Shrug, to each his/her own.

One thing I might recomend though? Sometimes your posts come across as indicating your view of something = THE view as opposed to simply your own view... If that makes sense... IE Smart play = X as opposed to my idea of smart play = x. (I'm sure all of us are guilty of that at points though.)

It's a small nitpick, but I think one that might go a long way towards helping you get your point across without provoking a large string of people dissagreeing with you not about your actual issue, but about whether or not your issue is an issue in the first place?

Does that make any kind of sense?