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

hawkeyefan said:

If I had to hazard a guess. I would say he is asking because it’s hard to reconcile the ideas of encounters and how they relate to prep and how that impacts how GM- or player-centric a game may be.

Click to expand...

That’s not what @pemerton has been saying to me. He has very clearly expressed an inability to understand not engaging in an encounter—a very odd thing for someone who has actually played D&D to not understand. And this wasn’t the first time; several thousand posts ago, I off-handedly mentioned having signs of something spooky in the woods, to which a player said “I wave goodbye to the encounter and move on.” And pemerton acted as though both the player not biting the hook and me not railroading the players into engaging the encounter (but instead let them ignore it) were baffling, even completely alien ideas.

He has also very clearly been unable to understand the idea of a potential encounter—that even in improv, a GM could tell the players “here’s some footprints” and also, at the same time, think “these footprints were left by bandits.” Even though he’s done the exact same thing! Back in post 9047, he wrote about a game he ran, in which the following happened:

They filled their waterskins from the pool, but made a point of not examining it closely; as a result (as I subsequently taunted them, near the end of the session) they did not find the 6D of gold coins at its bottom, nor the body of the mountain goat that had recently fallen into it (which would be two portions of game for cooking).

Click to expand...

So here, there’s an area of water. The players deliberately didn’t look in the water. Thus, they didn’t see the stuff (coins, dead goat) that he decided was in the water. This is his players deliberately bypassing something that only existed in pemerton’s imagination, something that he claims can’t possibly happen! And he makes fun of them for doing it! And this—except for the taunting—is exactly what I’ve been describing.

Sure, ok, he doesn’t use the word encounter, but so what? He uses terms like “ob 2 test” and I can translate that into terms that are meaningful for me, like “requires a smallish number of successes to pass”, even though I’ve never played Torchbearer, the game that example is from. Is he incapable of doing that with a term he knows from having played D&D in the past? Unwilling? Just trolling? What?

hawkeyefan said:

I think the advancement angle is an interesting one, and now that you say it, i think it connects with the very idea of encounters and then prep.

I imagine that’s a very strong reason that some people simply cannot think of approaching play GMing without the idea of”encounters” being baked in. Bit my experience matches yours… I don’t think in terms of encounters in games like Stonetop, Blades in the Dark, or Spire. None of these games based advancement on resolving encounters, and all of them rely on less GM prep than trad games.

Click to expand...

If the only thing you think of when you hear the term “encounter” is “kill monsters for XP”, that’s a you problem.

I don’t, my D&D DM doesn’t, I haven’t had a D&D DM do that since the late 90s, and it isn’t even a thing in most games that aren’t D&D-inspired, and that lack doesn’t devalue encounters at all (except, perhaps, completely random encounters, which I don’t use, nor does anyone else at my table). If I have an encounter, it’s there for a reason. That reason may only be of importance to the NPCs involved, and the PCs chance upon it, but it’s a reason.

Campbell said:

That is the intended mentality for the playstyles Apocalypse World and Burning Wheel were designed to support. To stay present, focus on what is on-screen. Don't commit to anything off-screen. Think of possibilities, sure, but do not get attached to them. Because as a GM the job is maintaining the pace of play and keeping the focus on the premise of the game and the individual player characters.

We're still extrapolating, but only in the moment and always in service to the needs of the game.

Aside: I think there's this thing where we see a game tells us how it's intended to be structured and think to ourselves (based on our previous experiences with more conventional play) it cannot literally mean it. Like when Vileborn, says it expects players and GMs to embrace the three-act structure of its scenarios I did a double take. I think we should take more things at face value.

Click to expand...

I really appreciate that Daggerheart has been up front with its expectations here as well. It’s designed to be a heroic fantasy game about cinematic stories, and emphasizes thinking of the Three Act narrative structure as well (with tips on how to craft that via interlocking sub-plots, weaving backstories in & encouraging player input, etc). It’s not designed for open hexcrawl sandboxing, or really throwing narrativist “story now” play out there.

Given that, we can evaluate how the game design fulfills its intent.

Campbell said:

That is the intended mentality for the playstyles Apocalypse World and Burning Wheel were designed to support. To stay present, focus on what is on-screen. Don't commit to anything off-screen. Think of possibilities, sure, but do not get attached to them. Because as a GM the job is maintaining the pace of play and keeping the focus on the premise of the game and the individual player characters.

Click to expand...

Yes, thank you, possibilities. Exactly what I’ve been talking about.

But that’s not even the point, because the point is the players see something, like footprints, and decide to go around. Whatever caused those footprints—whether decided then or later—is bypassed.

AlViking said:

XP has no particular relevance to encounters. I haven't used XP for quite some time now, I still think in terms of encounters. It's just a difference from narrative games and traditional games which are more of a simulation generated by a GM. An encounter doesn't have to be combat, although it typically has an obstacle and/or opportunity that moves the game forward. It's just a way of categorizing scenes that GMs may want to do prep for and that will have some impact on the state of play.

Of course it doesn't really matter if we all agree or not, it's the what D&D and some other games call it.

Click to expand...

5e absolutely ties advancement to encounters (primarily combat) unless you move to milestone leveling.

Milestone leveling is GM fiat leveling unless you tie it to sessions played per level and autolevel based on that. Obviously this devalues “encounters as unit of advancement” but I’d think is also something that a sandbox style of play would disavow?

Faolyn said:

Yes, thank you, possibilities. Exactly what I’ve been talking about.

But that’s not even the point, because the point is the players see something, like footprints, and decide to go around. Whatever caused those footprints—whether decided then or later—is bypassed.

Click to expand...

In Stonetop, when I tell the players they see “footprints/tracks” or “evidence of killed game” or whatever else tantalizing thing here, what I’m really doing is telegraphing a threat (“point to a looming danger / hint at more then meets the eye, etc”) which I may bring into play as a hard or soft move depending on what they do.

Once that’s telegraphed, I can use the danger to build tension, force actions, or take a hard move if the players dither and give me a golden opportunity.

Idk if that makes any sense.

zakael19 said:

5e absolutely ties advancement to encounters (primarily combat) unless you move to milestone leveling.

Milestone leveling is GM fiat leveling unless you tie it to sessions played per level and autolevel based on that. Obviously this devalues “encounters as unit of advancement” but I’d think is also something that a sandbox style of play would disavow?

Click to expand...

Forgive me but XP is also "GM fiat leveling." The only difference is where in the chain the GM makes the decision to give the progression. With XP that decision is made when the GM picks statblocks, XP values, or decides on the encounter. In milestone, it's when the GM decides some criteria were met.

I think trying to say milestone devalues something because of the "GM fiat" is odd, when XP is functionally the same at it's core. XP advancement is just GM fiat with a calculator, milestone is fiat with a calendar.

The real difference is milestone is honest and open about the fiat, while XP is fiat dressed up as an actual mechanic. Neither serve sandbox ideals any better than the other.

DinoInDisguise said:

I think trying to say milestone devalues something because of the "GM fiat" is odd, when XP is functionally the same at it's core. XP advancement is just GM fiat with a calculator, milestone is fiat with a calendar.

Click to expand...

Well, if you’re playing classic XP for treasure, and following the distribution guidelines for placing treasure in the dungeons or whatever, it’s up to how the players delve and recover stuff.

If I’m running Stonetop, all the XP triggers are in the player’s hand’s. I’m currently debating how to implement something like that for Daggerheart so I don’t have to tie advancement to narrative beats.

zakael19 said:

5e absolutely ties advancement to encounters (primarily combat) unless you move to milestone leveling.

Milestone leveling is GM fiat leveling unless you tie it to sessions played per level and autolevel based on that. Obviously this devalues “encounters as unit of advancement” but I’d think is also something that a sandbox style of play would disavow?

Click to expand...

I don't know anything intrinsic to sandbox play that ties it to encounters or the like and forbids purely session based advancement. That entirely depends on whether you need advancement to motivate action rather than in-game motivations.

zakael19 said:

In Stonetop, when I tell the players they see “footprints/tracks” or “evidence of killed game” or whatever else tantalizing thing here, what I’m really doing is telegraphing a threat (“point to a looming danger / hint at more then meets the eye, etc”) which I may bring into play as a hard or soft move depending on what they do.

Once that’s telegraphed, I can use the danger to build tension, force actions, or take a hard move if the players dither and give me a golden opportunity.

Idk if that makes any sense.

Click to expand...

Yes, same thing in Monster of the Week, which I run, and in other PbtA games I’ve read and played. “Future Badness.” And if the players decide to track down the source of the footprints and succeed, then the future badness becomes current badness (or not, if the source of the footprints ends up as non-hostile). If they decide to do everything they can to avoid the badness, then they avoid the badness.

Same thing if the players see something guards at a checkpoint and, instead of going through the guards, they decide to find a way to sneak through without the guards seeing them. They avoided the guards and that encounter. Or if they see someone at the royal ball they want to avoid and so make an effort to avoid getting their attention.

It doesn’t matter if it was pre-planned or on the fly. Unless you want to make the claim that the footprints are there solely as a threat and can never act lead to anything more? I’ve not read Stonetop but I don’t think that’s the case, if only because it would lead to players not caring about threats once they noticed a pattern.

Faolyn said:

That’s not what @pemerton has been saying to me. He has very clearly expressed an inability to understand not engaging in an encounter—a very odd thing for someone who has actually played D&D to not understand.

Click to expand...

I think perhaps his questions stem from his inability to reconcile certain ideas from some posters rather than him being unable to understand the things you’re saying.

Like… maybe try and approach this conversation from the POV of someone who doesn’t accept that encounters are an essential unit of play? Maybe accept that, based on the many posts about what “encounter” means, there’s not some universal version that everyone accepts and understands?

Like… I could insist that your game contains a downtime phase or a town phase as they exist in other games, and then I can make comments about that… and if I did, I should just accept that you understand those comments?

Faolyn said:

If the only thing you think of when you hear the term “encounter” is “kill monsters for XP”, that’s a you problem.

Click to expand...

That’s not what I said. I said “resolving encounters”. I said nothing about them having to be solely combat encounters.

Faolyn said:

I don’t, my D&D DM doesn’t, I haven’t had a D&D DM do that since the late 90s, and it isn’t even a thing in most games that aren’t D&D-inspired, and that lack doesn’t devalue encounters at all (except, perhaps, completely random encounters, which I don’t use, nor does anyone else at my table). If I have an encounter, it’s there for a reason. That reason may only be of importance to the NPCs involved, and the PCs chance upon it, but it’s a reason.

Click to expand...

Right. And don’t you think that certainty of the purpose of the encounter is kind of a key element here? That you have a purpose for it… so it is expected. So if the players don’t engage with it, you think of it as being bypassed.

I think this is flavoring your view of things. Which is fine… but maybe allow room for alternate points of view?

zakael19 said:

5e absolutely ties advancement to encounters (primarily combat) unless you move to milestone leveling.

Milestone leveling is GM fiat leveling unless you tie it to sessions played per level and autolevel based on that. Obviously this devalues “encounters as unit of advancement” but I’d think is also something that a sandbox style of play would disavow?

Click to expand...

I do milestone XP when I run 5e, but mostly because the XP system sucks.

But even when I run that way, I’m still thinking of encounters. If anything, it speaks to much more GM control over the pace of the game. This is precisely one of the reasons I do it… in addition to the bookkeeping, characters would level up far too quickly.