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

[CreamCloud0]

Which of these two propositions is correct?

i think any disparity between the two is solved by considering the original context of @Maxperson 's quote and assuming it probably should have been stated as 'Encounter hasn't solely meant combat for decades' rather than taking it at literal word-for-word value minus context.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Yes. 3e lists 7 or 8 different encounter types I think. Encounter hasn't meant "combat" for decades.

Technically encounter is all of that but in casual conversation when someone says "the PCs bypassed the encounter" we tend to think it's a combat encounter which was bypassed/avoided.

 

[AnotherGuy]

It's like there are two parallel games going on: the one in the GM's head, and the one at the tatable.

This becomes even more prevalent when you have multiple storylines the PCs can engage in particularly in sandbox. It is not just an encounter or even a series of encounters bypassed but entire storylines.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's like there are two parallel games going on: the one in the GM's head, and the one at the table

Yes, in the sense that stuff happens in the world that the players are unaware of, and (depending on their actions) may never become aware of. That’s why VTTs like Roll20 have a separate “player view” and “GM view”.

It’s also possible for one or more of the players to be aware of things that other players are not aware of. So, in a sense, there are as many parallel games as there are players.

 

[aco175]

Although our table does have milestone levelling when certain story or party goals are achieved (player-facing) we also have individualistic awards based on focusing on the character's TIBF.

If the TIBF goes against the party decision then yes to earn that XP and satisfy the TIBF the PC would have to "abandon" the party otherwise it would reveal that there are certain things that are more important to the PC, which is fine, and then perhaps the TIBF would need to be re-examined/altered. That's the test PCs are put through.
Now to be clear not all TIBFs run opposite or contrary to party decisions/goals. I'm only speaking of the ones that do.

Do Narrative games not have characters with opposing goals?

TIBF? I'll keep asking people to spell out the acronym the first time they use it in a thread, although I admit I skipped 300 pages catching up on the back and forth. I tried to look this up and only found Tokyo/Tehran International Book Fair and something about Tibetan Breastfeeding. Either of these certainly makes the thread interesting, but I doubt they are correct.

 

[pemerton]

Everything the GM creates in an attempt to capture the players' interest is a hook.

There are plenty of games out there that do low-stakes back and forth without significant scene framing until you're suddenly at a moment of high stakes. Stonetop is not one of them. I'm not trying to "capture interest," I am punctuating their lives with adventure and being a fan of their characters (by giving them explicit moments that a) let them demonstrate their own agenda and b) interrogate their instincts/relationships/hit the other XP triggers). I am directly imposing the premise of the game and the things they've indicated they want to explore during play (via the choices on their character sheets, Wishes at end of Session, or explicit goals of the session). Hinting at the presence of a danger portrays a rich and mysterious world, and punctuates their lives with adventure.

What they do next, we play to find out.

Although the games I tend to prefer - BW, TB2e, Prince Valiant, MHRP and variants - aren't the same as Stonetop, speaking with a level of generality they are pretty similar to what you describe here.

The players have provided signals - formal and/or informal - about what is interesting to them, and how they want their PCs to be challenged. And I frame scenes that speak to those things.

This is why @Faolyn's example of the ignored hook is strange to me. If I frame a scene and it fizzes, that isn't about the players just making a choice: rather, it means that communication between player and GM has broken down (at least for the moment) and I as GM need to find a way to get my scene-framing back on track.

 

[pemerton]

i think any disparity between the two is solved by considering the original context of @Maxperson 's quote and assuming it probably should have been stated as 'Encounter hasn't solely meant combat for decades' rather than taking it at literal word-for-word value minus context.

@Faolyn says its primarily combat, when used in D&D. @Maxperson disagrees. Which is correct?

Technically encounter is all of that but in casual conversation when someone says "the PCs bypassed the encounter" we tend to think it's a combat encounter which was bypassed/avoided.

You seem to agree with @Faolyn. @Paul Farquhar agrees with @Maxperson.

To me, this is making it all the more difficult to work out what is meant by "bypassing an encounter".

 

[AlViking]

This is based on the usual all or nothing assumptions I've taken issue with every time it came up, so I don't see any point in addressing it again.



And I don't think explaining that yet one more time is useful either.

I've been in games where having a GM that had a different role in the game lessened the impact of the bad apple at the table far more often than I've had bad GMs. I've played games, not just RPGs, where one person at the table made the game less fun for other people at the table.

Meanwhile you never explained anything other than saying your preferred game somehow makes it better. You have a preference. That's fine. These declarations that somehow a different structure makes for a better game.

 

[pemerton]

This becomes even more prevalent when you have multiple storylines the PCs can engage in particularly in sandbox. It is not just an encounter or even a series of encounters bypassed but entire storylines.

To me, this seems a description of GM-centred play.

 

[pemerton]

TIBF?

Trait, ideal, bond, flaw. This is a 5e D&D thing.