NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4555349" data-attributes="member: 710">I think you're a little unfair towards Raven Crowking - or still don't get his point (or play style) yet.Smart play is about using the rules in a "smart" way to achieve the goals of the game (beating monsters, the clock, navigating a dungeon, travelling through the wilderness). It includes mechanical and non-mechanical elements (stocking up supplies for a mountain climbing tour is barely affected by mechanics, more by "common sense".)In the worst case, this means also exploiting loop holes. But if "smart play" was everything to RC, how can he say that satisfying play and smart play don't always match?If smart play would lead to everyone playing pun-pun in 3E, this wouldn't satisfy me, for example. Satisfying play for me means I can play somthing else as a tricked-out Kobold. Partially, because I enjoy using different mechanics, partially because the scenes I envision don't involve a lot of godly Kobolds.For sandbox play, strategic resource management is an element of smart play, but also of satisfying play. The satisfaction comes in this being a challenge that you face and beat, because you played smart. For one thing, there is no challenge in long-term resource management in 4E, since most of your resources return after each extended rest. You don't have to work for it.Another part is - sandbox play would envision scenes where the party rests. But if I play smart, there is no reason to take any rests. If the rules would have an effect that forced me to rest to gather resources for beating the next challenges, then smart play would result in exactly the rests I originally envisioned.---An example that's closer to my experience of satisfying play not matching smart play. Character Creation in D&D 3E, using 25 point buy. I like the idea of playing a charismatic fighter with a noble background. He knows how to speak with high-ranking people as well as commanding lower-ranking people. But if I really want to play a fighter smart, I shouldn't waste ability and skill points on this. A fighter played smart is a combat machine that sacrifices his charisma for a little extra strength or con. If I wanted to play a noble like character, I'd be better of with a Bard or a Rogue. I lose a lot less playing these characters with good social skills.The goals of the game-part of the role-playing game aim at a Fighter being effective at combat. Everything I do that hinders me here is not "smart play". But for my satisfaction, I want to sacrifice some of my combat ability to get more social abilities. This means I have to choose between satisfactory and smart play. The game could do things differently. For example, it could allow me to make a different type of choice. Maybe it adds a valuable "social path" for my fighter. It offers me a reward for playing the noble Fighter - maybe I really lose some combat effectiveness, but the gain I get from my social abilities mean that I am actually good at what I do then, so I can be effective - play smart - and play the character I was interested in.---Maybe "satisfying play" is the wrong term. Maybe the right term might be more "interesting play" - I play what I am interested in. If "interesting" and "smart" play match, I get satisfaction. If not, I don't. My interested would be to play a charismatic warrior. RCs interest would be to play a sandbox game, with aspects like long-term resource management (avoiding or minimizing rest periods through smart play).</blockquote>

Verification