Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5905515" data-attributes="member: 177">No, it really isn't.&nbsp; &quot;Adventure&quot; has a meaning in and of itself, separate from gaming.&nbsp; It also has a traditional meaning within gaming.&nbsp; If your new &quot;adventure&quot; doesn't match those other meanings well, you're making up new jargon - which would make you the one calling it a smerp, not me.That is a fine solution, if all you care about is arbitrary game rules.&nbsp; My adventures also have to make sense as a piece of fiction.&nbsp; And that's where we have an issue.&nbsp; Yes it does.&nbsp; The party makes a tactical choice to retreat and recharge - it is a meaningless choice, because the encounter remains the same no matter how they approach it.&nbsp; It is recharged.&nbsp; Didn't you just say, just a few sentences before, &quot;if the party recharges, so does the threat&quot;?&nbsp; That's the exact opposite of a siege situation, isn't it?&nbsp; So now sometimes the threat recharges, and sometimes it doesn't?&nbsp; Maybe I missed something.I am presenting an issue I see with what looked like a too-simple mode of dealing with encounter/adventure design.&nbsp; No.&nbsp; But what I do with them is entirely situational, not generalized.&nbsp; It is not a simple, &quot;if the party retreats, the threat recharges&quot;, which is what I thought you were suggesting.&nbsp; My point is that we cannot generalize this.&nbsp; &quot;If the party retreats, the threat recharges,&quot; becomes implausible for the fiction in too many situations to be a root of the game design.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 5905515, member: 177"] No, it really isn't. "Adventure" has a meaning in and of itself, separate from gaming. It also has a traditional meaning within gaming. If your new "adventure" doesn't match those other meanings well, you're making up new jargon - which would make you the one calling it a smerp, not me. That is a fine solution, if all you care about is arbitrary game rules. My adventures also have to make sense as a piece of fiction. And that's where we have an issue. Yes it does. The party makes a tactical choice to retreat and recharge - it is a meaningless choice, because the encounter remains the same no matter how they approach it. It is recharged. Didn't you just say, just a few sentences before, "if the party recharges, so does the threat"? That's the exact opposite of a siege situation, isn't it? So now sometimes the threat recharges, and sometimes it doesn't? Maybe I missed something. I am presenting an issue I see with what looked like a too-simple mode of dealing with encounter/adventure design. No. But what I do with them is entirely situational, not generalized. It is not a simple, "if the party retreats, the threat recharges", which is what I thought you were suggesting. My point is that we cannot generalize this. "If the party retreats, the threat recharges," becomes implausible for the fiction in too many situations to be a root of the game design. [/QUOTE]

Verification