Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9673383" data-attributes="member: 42582">No, it's others who are quoting dictionaries etc. I'm trying to understand a process of play.I'm asking - where, in play, do those other people "exist"? The answer seems to be in the GM's notes or in the GM's imagination. Is that right?Where did those encounters exist? What have they avoided?To me it looks like you are saying the players declared actions that did not trigger/activate/enliven a good chunk of the GM's prep. Is that what you do mean?I'm not unsure about Gygax;s process of play. He's clear about it:* The GM maps and keys a dungeon. Some of what's in the key is architecture and furniture. Some of it is creatures, tricks, traps. Those creatures, and maybe some of the tricks and traps (he's a bit loose in respect of those) are "set encounters". * As the players declare actions to move their PCs through the dungeon, open doors, look at things, etc, the GM keeps track of (i) time and (ii) noise, and on that basis rolls wandering monster dice. Some of those rolls will result in encounters too. * Gygax advised players who wish to have successful adventures in dungeons to (i) minimise noise and time-wasting so as to minimise wandering monster rolls, and (ii) to avoid wandering monsters that they encounter, and (iii) to avoid opening doors or otherwise enlivening "set" encounters which do not pertain to the particular goal that they have set for their particular foray into the dungeon.There is a clear account, in Gygax, of how and what the GM needs to prep, of how that is used in play, of what the goal of play is from the players' side, and of how the GM decides whether or not the PCs encounter something (ie wandering monster roll, or enlivened/activated "set" encounter).But [USER=6906980]@AlViking[/USER] didn't seem to be talking about Gygax-style play. [USER=6915329]@Faolyn[/USER] has expressly averred talking about such play. I'm expressing curiosity about what process of play they are using.TOK, so the GM has told the players about the barricade. It is already part of the established situation. And now the players are deciding how their PCs will deal with the narrated obstacle.I see that it is bypassing the defenders. I see that it is avoiding a confrontation with the defenders. Is it encountering and then avoiding the defenders? Or avoiding an encounter with them? Either seems acceptable in English.But as I posted, my interest is in the process of play. When someone says the players bypassed an encounter what do they mean? If they mean rather than fighting, the players had their PCs sneak past then OK - that seems a fairly simple explanation but it seems to be hard to find someone who's willing to say it.And if the players haven't been told about the guards - eg as might be the case in your teleport example - then how does anyone know what the encounters are that were bypassed? Is it because the GM's notes, or imagination, have a record of what those would have been? OK - but it seems hard to get clear on that as well!OK. I believe you are the only poster to have posted this. I have read other posters as denying it. Upthread, [USER=6790260]@EzekielRaiden[/USER] seemed to share my reading of other posters as denying it, so I don't think my reading is completely idiosyncratic.Somewhat similarly, I've asked why we don't talk about the players/PCs avoiding encounters with the lice in the castle rushes, with the grooms in the castle stables, etc.In Gygaxian play, the answer is because those are not written up in the key as "set" encounters. They are just flavour/window-dressing, like the description of the lichen at the base of the castle walls.In terms of what you posted that I quoted just above, the answer is because the GM wasn't expecting or caring about the grooms or the lice; but was expecting the players to have their PCs fight (or talk to, or whatever) the guards.Do you have any thoughts on how that sort of GM expectation relates to the idea of a "sandbox"?</blockquote>

Verification