Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9124756" data-attributes="member: 42582">I rolled on the tables as the rules dictate. If the players had not entered Town Phase, no Town Event roll would have been made. Had they not entered Camp Phase, not Camp Event roll would have been made. Had they not beaten off the bandits who ambushed them, no Loot roll would have been made.The rolls are triggered by particular sorts of events, which in turn flow from particular sorts of player action declarations.In classic dungeoncrawling, the GM typically doesn't advertise their rolls on wandering monster tables, but these aren't illusionistic either. The players know that X turns of activity will produce a wandering monster roll, and by choosing to spend time, or not, on various things can pursue a balance between the benefits of exploration and the risk of wanderers.If the GM makes the same rolls at the same rate, regardless of whether the players have their PCs choose the &quot;dangerous&quot; or the &quot;safer&quot; road, that does suggest illusionism, and also more generally a very casual approach to the relationship between colour/flavour and actual methods of framing situations.But if danger is reflected by more frequent encounter checks, then the first encounter on the &quot;dangerous&quot; road will occur sooner, in terms of ingame time.As I discussed in a series of posts on the first page of the thread, the players may or may not have agency in this situation - but if illusionism is involved, it wouldn't be in the fact that the same encounter table is being used, assuming that the &quot;danger&quot; does, indeed, produce more frequent checks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9124756, member: 42582"] I rolled on the tables as the rules dictate. If the players had not entered Town Phase, no Town Event roll would have been made. Had they not entered Camp Phase, not Camp Event roll would have been made. Had they not beaten off the bandits who ambushed them, no Loot roll would have been made. The rolls are triggered by particular sorts of events, which in turn flow from particular sorts of player action declarations. In classic dungeoncrawling, the GM typically doesn't advertise their rolls on wandering monster tables, but these aren't illusionistic either. The players know that X turns of activity will produce a wandering monster roll, and by choosing to spend time, or not, on various things can pursue a balance between the benefits of exploration and the risk of wanderers. If the GM makes the same rolls at the same rate, regardless of whether the players have their PCs choose the "dangerous" or the "safer" road, that does suggest illusionism, and also more generally a very casual approach to the relationship between colour/flavour and actual methods of framing situations. But if [I]danger[/I] is reflected by more frequent encounter checks, then the first encounter on the "dangerous" road will occur sooner, in terms of ingame time. As I discussed in a series of posts on the first page of the thread, the players may or may not have agency in this situation - but if illusionism is involved, it wouldn't be in the fact that the same encounter table is being used, assuming that the "danger" does, indeed, produce more frequent checks. [/QUOTE]

Verification