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

[Raven Crowking]

I guess we will just dissagree on this then.

No problem.

I don't feel it's possible to have a character that is not you, but still never conflicts with your own knowledge/ideals/abilities/tastes.

Not what I said. For example, nothing I said has anything to wo with your character's ideals/abilities/tastes. And, as your "knowledge" about the pickle might be wrong, you don't have to feel that you are playing in a sub-par manner in order to explore another possibility.




RC

 

[Scribble]

You won't know until your character does.

In which case there isn't any such thing as "smart" play.

Not attacking with a silvered weapon is just as "smart" as attackign with a silvered weapon, since there's no way of knowing if the DM decided to change things.

You still need to wait until you've encountered the problem to discover what the solution is.

Also in my view you're no longer realy role-playing a character. You're playing YOURSELF with some added tools.

To me, that's a feature. I suppose some might see it as a bug.

It's not really either.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I know the section well. It overlaps in content with a lot of other D&D writing from the period, by Pulsipher in White Dwarf for example.

But if that's your notion of sandbox play - so that any game mechanics that don't support that sort of play (in the sense that they push against it rather than render it optimal) don't support sandbox play - I think it's a little narrow. At a minimum I'd call that sort of play "dungeon sandbox + mercenary/tomb-looting motivations".

Well, they might not totally fail to support that, but their are games that would support it better. Similar to how I could use AD&D to create a fantasy/cyberpunk genre mix. But maybe it would be easier to play Shadowrun.

There is no reason, within this context, that smart play isn't taking a shot in the dark. What is not desireable is that the mechanics interfere with satisfying play, so that a player doesn't have to feel that he is making bad choices in order to have a satisfying experience.

This seems a good way to describe the idea, too.

An example for this I learned from people talking about their Call of Cthulhu preferences:
They noticed that eventually, they always decided to give every new character heavy weaponry, so that they have at least some survival chance against the horrors and cultits awaiting them.
But if you think about this - this is not really what you'd want from the game - the entire theme supposes that you are a more or less average human that gets dragged into cults and horrors, starting as an innocent investigator. Why should you then be loaded with automatic weapons, shotguns or elephant guns? But not having this kind of equipment is a bad choice for "smart play".

There could be metagame constraints that make it a less bad choice. Maybe characters get "survival points" at begin of play. Solving mysteries or uncovering evidence gets extra survival points. Starting play with a weapon costs survival points. Suddenly, smart play is figuring out the right ration of using (and having) weapons or solving the mysteries.

In Torg, the reality of Horrorsh was (as the name implies) a world of horrors. Werewolves and Vampires are waiting in the dark, and Spirits and other Undeads threaten you, as well as lunatic serial killers. The World Laws of Horrors required you (at least for sufficiently "special" monsters) to find a monsters "True Death". You could engage in as many combats as you'd liked, and used the heaviest weaponry available in the game, the only thing you got was a short reprieve (and spending a lot of possibilities). Smart play was figuring out all the clues for the "True Death" - and then you could beat the enemy once and for all. And this is exactly how you'd a horror game expect to work - you can't end the threat without investigating it. You might be able to shoot thousands of zombies in th mean while, but until you have figured out how to kill the mummified and reawakened Egyptian prince once and for, they keep coming.


Without the world law of the True Death, smart play would just be "business as usual" - shoot or stab your enemy until he doesn't move anymore. There is no point in spending resources or time on investigating. Mindless violence will do the trick every time.

 

[Lacyon]

In which case there isn't any such thing as "smart" play.

The "smart play" is to experiment with different attacks and attempt to discern a weakness.

Not attacking with a silvered weapon is just as "smart" as attackign with a silvered weapon, since there's no way of knowing if the DM decided to change things.

You still need to wait until you've encountered the problem to discover what the solution is.

Your question assumed that this was desirable - my character is not supposed to know the weakness.

Also in my view you're no longer realy role-playing a character. You're playing YOURSELF with some added tools.

?

If I'm playing a character in a world where lycanthropes exist and I am expected to be playing a character who has had NO knowledge of them from ANY source, I don't generally feel like I'm really roleplaying a character from that world.

 

[LostSoul]

Or, as I once told LostSoul in a pub, (and I paraphrase, badly) if we were all sitting in a pub, and had the benefit of voice tone and body language, most of this hackle-raising would disappear.

Most definitely!

 

[Scribble]

An example for this I learned from people talking about their Call of Cthulhu preferences:
They noticed that eventually, they always decided to give every new character heavy weaponry, so that they have at least some survival chance against the horrors and cultits awaiting them.
But if you think about this - this is not really what you'd want from the game - the entire theme supposes that you are a more or less average human that gets dragged into cults and horrors, starting as an innocent investigator. Why should you then be loaded with automatic weapons, shotguns or elephant guns? But not having this kind of equipment is a bad choice for "smart play".

Because it's fun?

In my opinion sometimes playing the character is more fun then playing the rules for the same reason sometimes in horror movies the characters do things that seem stupid when approached from the "god's eye" of the viewer. It makes the story more fun. "Don't go in the closet!"

Why were there never any lights on in the x-files? Why did they never wait for backup even when they had pelnty of time to do so?

I played a call fo cthulu d20 game, and had a character that was super rich, but also dumb as a stump. He did a lot of dubass things I as a player knew to be a pretty poor plan of action, but it was fun as hell.

 

[Scribble]

The "smart play" is to experiment with different attacks and attempt to discern a weakness.

I agree with that.

Your question assumed that this was desirable - my character is not supposed to know the weakness.

Yep.

If I'm playing a character in a world where lycanthropes exist and I am expected to be playing a character who has had NO knowledge of them from ANY source, I don't generally feel like I'm really roleplaying a character from that world.

So your character has all knowledge of all monsters and foes in the universe he lives in becvause you as a player have a copy of the MM handy? Even when the character has a pretty low intelligence?

 

[Lacyon]

So your character has all knowledge of all monsters and foes in the universe he lives in becvause you as a player have a copy of the MM handy? Even when the character has a pretty low intelligence?

No. (Not only no, but this is almost exactly the opposite of what I said).

 

[Brown Jenkin]

The "smart play" is to experiment with different attacks and attempt to discern a weakness.



Your question assumed that this was desirable - my character is not supposed to know the weakness.



?

If I'm playing a character in a world where lycanthropes exist and I am expected to be playing a character who has had NO knowledge of them from ANY source, I don't generally feel like I'm really roleplaying a character from that world.

Pretty much with you here. In a world with monsters, unless intentionally playing low int/wis then a smart adventurer should be all boy scout (be prepared) when getting ready to adventure. As soon as there is any indication in the real world, or if not then after the first encounter with, a monster has any immunity/weakness regarding different weapon types then those weapon types and probably several others would be a must have.

Only a stupid soon to be dead adventurer wouldn't go out with a regular, silver, gold, bronze, copper, cold iron, adamantine, wood, holy (or unholy), blunt, sharp, and any other weapon type that can be thought of. When running into an unknown monster that doesn't seem to take damage from your normal weapon then pull out the type that has the next most lore/experience in being useful. If that doesn't work then lather, rinse, repeat until something works or you run out of options.

 

[Scribble]

Not what I said. For example, nothing I said has anything to wo with your character's ideals/abilities/tastes. And, as your "knowledge" about the pickle might be wrong, you don't have to feel that you are playing in a sub-par manner in order to explore another possibility.

So you know The Dread Quijibo can be harmed only with a pickle because you read the MM. So smart play indicates you should in fact attack with a pickle. But that might be wrong of course because the DM decided to change that fact so attacking with a pickle is no longer the best option.

Ok... So

You know pressing on despite your wounds is the best course of action because you know you're at full HPs, and nothing in the rules says you have a problem. So the smart play indicates you should press on. But that might be wrong because the DM decided to change that fact so pressing on despite your wounds is now a HUGE problem...

Where's the difference?