Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 5644965" data-attributes="member: 17106">I don't know that I have an easily operational game term that I would say is similarly a core unit. I'd say a game session can probably be boiled down to "scenes" not "encounters". A subtle distinction, but an important one. A scene may or may not involve encountering anything, and it may or may not involve dice rolls; it's just a subjective unit of time before the narrative jumps.There are two things about the encounter concept that stand out (to me). One, rounds have always been measurements of real time (6 seconds in D&D; different in other rpgs). That isn't abstract. Two, "encounter" implies that there is a concrete goal to each scene., either winning a battle or accomplishing something with skilll checks or the like. My experience is that the things I would describe as encounters-even loosely-take up only a minority of session time. Thus I see building a game around them as a rather large paradigm shift.I have no doubt the concept predates 4e. However, consider that pubished adventures are not the core of the game, and neither is the XP system. I'd postulate that a majority of gamers use neither of those things (and I have <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/301355-do-you-use-xp.html" target="_blank">evidence</a> for the latter). Despite being in the core rulebooks, I wouldn't describe CR/EL as a core part of the game, more like an optional rule for advancement if you don't already have and prefer have your own ideas on the subject. Similarly, published adventures are optional and don't necessarily represent the way people play the game.What has changed is the proscriptive aspect of the rules. Before, you might have some encounters, 4e is built around them. Similarly, the concept of roles frequently rose out of play in other editions, but now each character is explicitly built to perform a rather gamist role. If you were going to make a 5e, you'd have to choose whether the rules used these concepts or not, and you'd likely be choosing between pleasing one group of players or another.I'd agree that's true of adventures, and that 3e/PF focus more on adventures. Most people don't use them; but they're good for people who don't have time to prep.Setting those aside, the rules of earlier additions have much more of a "toolkit" feel that let you do what you want, while the 4e mentality is much more (again) proscriptive. I'm still not seeing where preplay vs. play is a point of difference. I'd agree that 4e focuses on a "different sort of play", but I'd also say that improvisational storytelling (i.e. playing on the day) isn't it.So, oddly, I'm saying that this preplay vs play distinction is not one of the many difficulties of "reunification" with a putative 5e.</blockquote>

Verification