D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[zakael19]

First those are horrible definitions of the types of adventures they are describing and it is a horrible definition of an encounter. WOTC generally hasn't been good at this sort of thing IMO (it is one of the reasons I was going back to the 1E DMG in the 2000s). But I would add, an encounter is not, in my mind, a scene. An encounter is simply any interaction that occurs during play with an NPC, monster or being. Being that, encounters can have more or less definition. This is why I was asking whether you felt all encounters meant the GM was acting as storyteller or planned encounters. But that said, throwing a group of orcs at a party is not the GM acting as storyteller in my opinion

How did we go from “5e is the dominant force in the market currently so we should assume their definitions” to “well but actually we can’t use their definitions and framing for things because [reasons].”

Edit: just to be clear, when you say “encounter” to me as somebody who came up from the 5e world - you mean “pre-planned encounter via map and key or notes that has some sort of plot relevance or danger” or “random encounter rolled off a table.” Visiting a merchant is not an encounter for me, talking to random townsfolk is not an encounter, meeting the Guard Captain to get a Plot Cookie might be an encounter but probably not.

 

[SableWyvern]

I didn't say an encounter had to include a threat. I said the example you provided... tracks of a potentially hostile group... consisted only of a potential threat and nothing more. It's not really what I think people would consider an encounter.

For what it's worth (not much, perhaps), I have random encounter tables with "tracks" entries, which is a standard process under the Alexandrian hex crawl system.

(Edit: note that I'm not trying to win points for either side. It's just a random data point, take it or leave it as you will.)

 

[pemerton]

I am speaking to exploration as an activity of play here (akin to the exploration pillar and the described 5e play loop). Exploring your environment in a conflict neutral way in order to find out more about the world and its inhabitants. This free exploration comes from two places - players are not expected to engage in the world in any particular way (no binding premises, no game provided agenda) and predefined elements to explore that allow players to decide what to engage with and what to go do with fairly minimal pressure.

This is what I have described upthread as the players making low-stakes action declarations in order to prompt the GM to provide them with more information about the setting/situation/context/stakes.

It's the conception of play that sits behind criticisms of starting a BW session in the bazaar rather than at the town gates.

The only thing where I differ a bit is that this sort of exploratory play is consistent with their being a game-provided agenda. For instance, classic D&D has a game-provided agenda (roughly, extract loot from the dungeon so as to earn XP without getting killed) but it still uses this sort of approach. In a game like this, which depends on the players gaining a sense of the threats they will have to overcome to succeed at their play goal (ie extracting loot), those low-stakes action declarations are pretty important.

This is one of the ways in which Information Gathering / Free Play in a game like Blades is often misplayed. Groups who haven't internalized the game's agenda and best practices often treat it is general exploratory play when it's really meant to be used to establish stakes for the coming score (what are we doing, what could go wrong, what stands in our way).

This sounds right to me.

 

[Guest 85555]

How did we go from “5e is the dominant force in the market currently so we should assume their definitions” to “well but actually we can’t use their definitions and framing for things because [reasons].”

If the definitions have significant problems. Especially if those don't connect well to encounter as it has been used in the thread. I think most people are saying D&D is the dominant force, not that WOTC does a good job of explaining sandbox play or that has definitions of encounters that sandbox players would embrace.

Edit: just to be clear, when you say “encounter” to me as somebody who came up from the 5e world - you mean “pre-planned encounter via map and key or notes that has some sort of plot relevance or danger” or “random encounter rolled off a table.” Visiting a merchant is not an encounter for me, talking to random townsfolk is not an encounter, meeting the Guard Captain to get a Plot Cookie might be an encounter but probably not.

Certainly I don't of the PCs going to a shop and talking to an innkeeper as an encounter in this sense. I think it is more things that come up externally to the party. but the issue is, a lot of the WOTC D&D treat encounters as very meticulously planned affairs around maps and tiles, and that is not at all how I manage enounters. Even on maps, I don't have things sitting there waiting to be encountered usually (I may have a chamber a creature tends to reside in and have it there as a snap shot, but mostly I prefer things like there being a x in 10 chance of so and so being present in a given room (or simply deciding he goes to that room because of what is happening and that is where he wants to be).

 

[robertsconley]

Honestly I find it odd that this forum seems so divisive.

I am not; people are not generally good at stating or expressing their assumptions. And when you get two or more individuals with different assumptions talking about something, like tabletop roleplaying games, that has considerable overlap and sharing of techniques, it can lead to frustrations, arguments, and people talking past each other. Happens in discussions of software and hardware development all the time.

Even individuals with significant expertise or experience struggle with this.

 

[hawkeyefan]

To a point, yes it would.

That point arrives if-when one moves away from seeing the game as a series of more-or-less-set piece events or highlights and toward seeing it as a continuous [can't think of the term for it - in a movie when there's one long unbroken shoot from the same camera]. Put another way, recognizing both the existence and importance of all the bits that don't get roleplayed in detail, and allowing for more detail if-when it might affect player decisions.

A hypothetical example: the players declare their intent is to explore the Westogre Caves because rumour has it that a family heirloom of Jocasta (a PC) has somehow ended up in there.

From the way I read it, a scene-frame-style game would allow the players to prep their PCs in town and then frame them at the entrance to the Caves; that being the next scene.

A more continuous-style game would allow the players to prep their PCs in town and then determine how they get to the Caves: what means of travel they use, which route they intend to take, how cautious (or not) they plan to be, and so on; then after determining whether anything goes adrift on their journey, e.g. frm weather or wildlife, on their arrival at the Caves allows the players to decide how they approach getting in e.g. do they storm in the main entrance, do they look for a back way in, do they spend several days hiding outside watching comings and goings, do they scout the surrounding forest for tracks, etc. etc.

I simply cannot fathom why any player would prefer the first option here rather than the second. I can, however, see why GMs would like it, as there's far less GM-side work involved.

You really “cannot fathom” why anyone would want to skip past the more boring aspects of play?

All these discussions we’ve been involved in over the years where people have discussed their preferences… and you “cannot fathom” someone’s preferences differing from yours?

Do you like reboot daily or something?

 

[Guest 85555]

For what it's worth (not much, perhaps), I have random encounter tables with "tracks" entries, which is a standard process under the Alexandrian hex crawl system.

(Edit: note that I'm not trying to win points for either side. It's just a random data point, take it or leave it as you will.)

View attachment 407016

I've posted sections of tables like this before, but this is a pretty typical series of encounters for my games:

 

[Campbell]

This is what I have described upthread as the players making low-stakes action declarations in order to prompt the GM to provide them with more information about the setting/situation/context/stakes.

It's the conception of play that sits behind criticisms of starting a BW session in the bazaar rather than at the town gates.

The only thing where I differ a bit is that this sort of exploratory play is consistent with their being a game-provided agenda. For instance, classic D&D has a game-provided agenda (roughly, extract loot from the dungeon so as to earn XP without getting killed) but it still uses this sort of approach. In a game like this, which depends on the players gaining a sense of the threats they will have to overcome to succeed at their play goal (ie extracting loot), those low-stakes action declarations are pretty important.

Absolutely. There are all sorts of possible arrangements for this stuff. Like Chronicles of Darkness and the Legend of the Five Rings, Fifth Edition both have strong character and game premises reflected in the rules of the game but often include a lot of low stakes exploration, but players are still constrained by how they've defined their characters. Stuff like Bayushi Haruka's Fear of Failure (which generates strife when he ignores his duties) or Passion for Stirring the Pot (which reduces Strife when he sets his enemies against each other) will have strong impacts on a player's decisions. Even in previous editions it was assumed that if a character had a flaw in Failure of Bushido - Compassion they would be held to playing that out.

The assumed arranged I was speaking to is just my sense of where most conventional play lands.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, the hints are not the encounter. Following the hints leads to the encounter. Deliberately avoiding those hints is bypassing the encounter—or potential encounter, if you prefer.

I know the hints are not the encounter.

So… what is the encounter? To me, there doesn’t seem to actually BE any encounter.

I agree that’s how the DMG puts it. I agree that’s how a lot of GMs, regardless of system, do it (even if, famously, nobody reads the DMG). What I disagree with is the idea that prep necessarily causes this conflict, or that’s the only way to define what an encounter.

I never said it was the only way to define an encounter. I said that for D&D, “Encounter” has a specific meaning… as we can see by comparing what the DMG defines to the dictionary definitions you provided. The one the DMG provides is clearly unique to D&D. It is an example of the often maligned jargon.

Though in this case, the jargon is accepted or not even seen as being jargon because it’s been adopted so wifely and deeply by so many,

And again, it’s not that all prep is “bad” or that all prep reduces or removes player agency. Just that there’s possible conflict between the two given their nature.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Are those things encounters?

No those are the cutely-named moves that D&D uses!