Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9125348" data-attributes="member: 42582">But it wouldn't be, would it, if the rolls on the &quot;dangerous&quot; road were made more frequently? Frequency of rolls would be one way of trying to give danger some mechanical expression.Sure. But as D&amp;D is often played, I would expect the danger here to be a function of keyed areas of the map (eg traps) rather than random encounter rolls.If the danger is being expressed by rolls, then again I would expect there to be some other variation for the dangerous path - eg more frequent wandering monster checks.I'm not seeing the illusion here. The GM has made an encounter roll in advance (I think [USER=467]@Reynard[/USER] flagged this upthread, and Lewis Pulsipher wrote about a version of this approach back in the late 70s, in White Dwarf), and noted the outcome.But the GM has told the players that one road is more dangerous than the other; has implemented this via frequency of encounter checks; and has rolled those encounter checks in advance. The GM isn't pretending to the players that some different form of encounter determination is being used; hasn't manipulated the background fiction to negate a player choice; etc. So I'm not seeing the illusionism here.That's not to say it's necessarily high agency play (see my posts on the first page for my thoughts on that). But pre-rolling of encounters doesn't make a difference in that respect.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9125348, member: 42582"] But it wouldn't be, would it, if the rolls on the "dangerous" road were made more frequently? Frequency of rolls would be one way of trying to give [I]danger[/I] some mechanical expression. Sure. But as D&D is often played, I would expect the [I]danger[/I] here to be a function of keyed areas of the map (eg traps) rather than random encounter rolls. If the danger is being expressed by rolls, then again I would expect there to be some other variation for the dangerous path - eg more frequent wandering monster checks. I'm not seeing the illusion here. The GM has made an encounter roll in advance (I think [USER=467]@Reynard[/USER] flagged this upthread, and Lewis Pulsipher wrote about a version of this approach back in the late 70s, in White Dwarf), and noted the outcome. But the GM has told the players that one road is more dangerous than the other; has implemented this via frequency of encounter checks; and has rolled those encounter checks in advance. The GM isn't pretending to the players that some different form of encounter determination is being used; hasn't manipulated the background fiction to negate a player choice; etc. So I'm not seeing the illusionism here. That's not to say it's necessarily high agency play (see my posts on the first page for my thoughts on that). But pre-rolling of encounters doesn't make a difference in that respect. [/QUOTE]

Verification