D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Micah Sweet]

Well as I said, for many games, I wouldn’t ever think of those as encounters. It’s not defined in any way other than as a signaled threat.



You realize you’re defending jargon here, right?

Not sure what you mean. "Encounter" has had a meaning quite close to the dictionary definition in this hobby for quite some time. If you mean something else please illuminate me.

 

[JConstantine]

d20 is just another generic system

It doesn't seem any better or worse than any other "generic" system.

Sounds like you agree with me.

Generic systems are just not very successful. Usually there's one or two core games they arise out of where they work well, and attempts to expand beyond that fail.

Frankly, I haven't found any generic system to be good at multiple genres.

Definitely sounds like you agree with me.

Honestly, the main one that is pretty successful? PbtA, followed by FitD

You might be an outlier, because from what I've witnessed, there's a prevailing attitude in the PbtA community that it's not a generic system but a "game design philosophy". I'm also not so sure about them being any more successful than generic systems. Seems like there's a few break out games that gain and maintain popularity, while others wither on the vine, like you allude to with generic systems, and even then it's more of a cult following. For example, BitD has remained quite the indie darling for it's current lifespan, but other FitD games haven't even come close, not even Scum & Villainy which seem like it should have a broader appeal based on a more recognisable premise.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think Narrativist game assumes Narrativist play is not any more One True Way than the described D&D play loop and description of the GM as Master of Worlds, Master of Adventures and Master of Rules. Especially when it goes out of its way to say this is how you play this game, not all roleplaying games. 5e does not even contemplate other ways or arrangements. That's not a knock on it by the way. It has no obligation to describe or enable other ways of playing.

What do you mean "doesn't contemplate other ways of playing"? You can play D&D and similar games in many different ways, and for the most part those different ways are generally honored. Narrativist games, on the other hand, seem to have a single path to proper play and tend to be very clear about the dangers of departing from it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Because games use different terminology than real life does. You don’t seem to have a problem with the terms used in BW, even though they aren’t used the way they are in real life.


You would be wrong. What I know is that you’ve played RPGs for a while, post to a forum wherein multiple types of games are discussed, and are fluent in English. My only assumptions are that you know we’re using bypass as a verb and not a noun, and that you’ve paid at least a modicum of attention to games outside your preferred systems.

There are encounters. Sometimes, for any number of reasons, players deliberately avoid them. Those are bypassed encounters. If you, when running BW or TB, say there are signs of orcs in the east and the players say “I don’t wanna fight them, let’s go west,” they have bypassed an encounter.

And what this description tells me is that, in the process of play/style in which you are discussing this definition, there are sets of fixed preplanned encounters to be bypassed. In a Dungeon World game I might run this is much less true! I might have a map which I prepped in response to things the PCs did, the players said, or which are on character sheets. I might even do this indirectly, say by inventing a front in response to some of the above, and then building a threat within that front.

In the vast majority of cases though an encounter is basically a GM move. Probably it does draw on prep or other stuff that is already part of the fiction. Maybe it can be addressed by some actions that are best described as 'bypassing'. However, look at the way this game works. Combat and avoiding a fight are both going to involve declaring actions, triggering moves, and the resulting fiction. Certainly each course of a action may have advantages and disadvantages, so one may be optimal in terms of the agenda and goals of play.

There's thus a bit different meaning between types of games. Beyond that BitD or TB2e will present these things a bit differently as well, so we'd really want to dig into each game, maybe each table's specific play, to fully analyze these things.

 

[JConstantine]

Unfortunately, some games—like D&D—don’t have social-specific resources to be drained, which undoubtedly leads people into thinking that social events aren’t encounters.

Hmm. Considering how easy it is to regain hit points in D&D, maybe social events should cause damage.

Yeah, the only one really is spell slots for enchantment spells or buffs like guidance and enhance ability.

Vampire allows for social conflict to damage Willpower, and The Witcher has a social combat subsystem so the non-combat characters can a similar crunch experience. In BitD, I'd have social conflict apply (temporary) harm, like "ostracised" (which the Deep Cuts supplement essentially confirms I was right to do, though I disagree with limiting it level 1). So clearly, I'm not opposed to social combat/damage in general, but I'm not sure it quite fits in D&D.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

i'm not seeing the black box either, i don't think this was an issue with sandbox or living world play, i think it was an issue with the GM not wanting to spend any more time on this side-venture of yours and for you to get on with the module already, i get the feeling your henchmen weren't actually idiots until after you already left and no matter what you did or who you might've of hired to run your castle while you were away something would've occurred to bring it all down to make it moot and give you no reason to return, it gives me 'you spent too long lounging around in safety at the inn so now it spontaneously burned down, now you'll HAVE to go on the adventure' vibes.

just my interpretation of the situation.

Well, the thing went far beyond the module, but I guess? I can't read the GM's mind. But how is what you describe NOT the GM engineering the flow of events? This all is what I label GM-directed play!

 

[CellarHeroes]

Well as I said, for many games, I wouldn’t ever think of those as encounters. It’s not defined in any way other than as a signaled threat.

Would it make more sense to you if we took away the threat?
During my RPG upbringing, an encounter was anytime the PCs interacted with the world. Talking to the innkeeper is an encounter. Fighting the bandits is an encounter. Opening the door is an encounter. The PCs did something and progressed their story.

 

[Faolyn]

Well as I said, for many games, I wouldn’t ever think of those as encounters. It’s not defined in any way other than as a signaled threat.

An encounter doesn’t have to include a threat. A social encounter is an encounter that can be avoided, even though the only threat might be being bored because of dull conversation.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The OSR has been quite successful in taking D&D/d20 and reshaping it to fit a concept. That is much of the point of the newer waves of the OSR: taking the D&D engine and then fitting it to something new. The reason it works is because that core system is very gameable and it is very well known (so there is less system mastery to hurdle). Granted OSR is leaning into earlier versions of D&D but there is still often some amount of d20 in there.

Right, you can hack D&D in various ways, and you end up with 'Other D&D'. I'm not sure why that's taken to be flexibility. As soon as you go much out into the vast universe of the RPG world, my perception is that D&D is just one tiny niche and its system is not good for much else!

But to clarify, I don't think any system is very general.

 

[Emerikol]

Also speaking to generic systems. GURPS is not a juggernaut but it is a very long lived RPG. You can hardly dismiss it out of hand. I wouldn't dismiss Savage Worlds either or the system underlying Numenera. You can't state that to be successful you have to meet the largest gorilla on the blocks numbers.