Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5785062" data-attributes="member: 42582">There is a big difference between the following two scenarios:(1) The PCs, cresting a hill, see a river 150' wide, spanned by a single bridge, with a giant snoozing at the foot of the bridge on their side of the river. Before they get close enough to stir the giant, they retreat back to the other side of the hill to discuss their options. They decide to have the wizard cast a teleport to get all the party over the river and too their intended destination.

(2) The PCs, cresting a hill, see a wide river, with a single bridge, with a giant snoozing at the foot of the bridge on their side of the river. Before they get close enough to stir the giant, they retreat backt to the other side of the hill. They decide that the wizard will cast teleport to get them across the river, so they do not have to either pay off the giant, or fight it while crossing. But to do this requires giving the wizard a round to get into the middle of the bridge! [In 4e, the 10th level spell Arcane Gate can connect to points, each no more than 100' from the caster. A double run let's the wizard move 80' and still have a minor action left to cast the spell.] So the plan they come up with is . . . .&nbsp; [fill in the details yourself].
4e, by removing, watering down or raising the cost of various &quot;encounter bypassing&quot; effects, increases the GM's situational authority. This is one aspect of the game's well-known focus on &quot;the encounter&quot;. It is why the DMG has the notorious &quot;guards at the gate&quot; quote - the idea, as I see it, is not that the gameworld will contain no fantasy colour, but rather there is no need for &quot;mere colour&quot; encounters because the meaty encounters will provide that colour. And part of the way they will do that is because the system requires the players to engage with them - even when, as in scenario (2) above, the relevant mode of engagement is to try to avoid a conflict.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5785062, member: 42582"] There is a big difference between the following two scenarios: [indent](1) The PCs, cresting a hill, see a river 150' wide, spanned by a single bridge, with a giant snoozing at the foot of the bridge on their side of the river. Before they get close enough to stir the giant, they retreat back to the other side of the hill to discuss their options. They decide to have the wizard cast a teleport to get all the party over the river and too their intended destination. (2) The PCs, cresting a hill, see a wide river, with a single bridge, with a giant snoozing at the foot of the bridge on their side of the river. Before they get close enough to stir the giant, they retreat backt to the other side of the hill. They decide that the wizard will cast teleport to get them across the river, so they do not have to either pay off the giant, or fight it while crossing. But to do this requires giving the wizard a round to get into the middle of the bridge! [In 4e, the 10th level spell Arcane Gate can connect to points, each no more than 100' from the caster. A double run let's the wizard move 80' and still have a minor action left to cast the spell.] So the plan they come up with is . . . . [fill in the details yourself]. [/indent] 4e, by removing, watering down or raising the cost of various "encounter bypassing" effects, increases the GM's situational authority. This is one aspect of the game's well-known focus on "the encounter". It is why the DMG has the notorious "guards at the gate" quote - the idea, as I see it, is not that the gameworld will contain no fantasy colour, but rather there is no need for "mere colour" encounters because the meaty encounters will provide that colour. And part of the way they will do that is because the system requires the players to engage with them - even when, as in scenario (2) above, the relevant mode of engagement is to try to avoid a conflict. [/QUOTE]

Verification