Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9673971" data-attributes="member: 42582">It was some other posters who introduced the notion that encounter implies combat. And therefore suggested that &quot;bypassing an encounter&quot; means not fighting the encountered/observed beings.This seems to be a departure from classic D&amp;D usage - for instance, Gygax's PHB has a heading &quot;Traps, Tricks and Encounters&quot; and explains encounters in terms of monsters, either randomly generated wandering monsters or &quot;set&quot; encounters where the PCs encounter &quot;a creature where it has been placed by the referee&quot;.But in Gygax's AD&amp;D there is no need to have any sort of clear or technical notion of an encounter, because the concept doesn't play a role in dungeon design, or in resolution, or in XP award (XP being awarded for killing creatures, capturing them and/or ransoming them, and taking treasure out of the dungeon).This makes no sense to me in multiple ways.First, who is suggesting some crucial connection between XP and combat? I've quoted the AD&amp;D XP rules multiple times now, and as is well known the bulk of XP in AD&amp;D (and other versions of classic D&amp;D) is earned for taking loot out of the dungeon. I've also quoted the 4e D&amp;D XP rules multiple times, and as should be well known, 4e D&amp;D awards XP for combat, for skill challenges, for quests and (if the DMG2 option is used) for free roleplaying that drives things forward.Second, if &quot;encounters&quot; are not just about combat, then why are you implying that doing something other than fighting counts as &quot;bypassing&quot; an encounter? That seems contradictory, or at least to be in some degree of tension.Third, and reiterating what I posted, if the &quot;encounter&quot; that is &quot;bypassed&quot; is purely something in the imagination of the GM, and the GM is awarding XP for the players making decisions whose significance, in &quot;bypassing&quot; the &quot;encounter&quot;, exists only in the GM's mind, then how is that anything but a GM-driven - or, if you prefer, GM-centric - approach to play?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9673971, member: 42582"] It was some other posters who introduced the notion that [I]encounter[/I] implies [I]combat[/I]. And therefore suggested that "bypassing an encounter" means [I]not fighting the encountered/observed beings[/I]. This seems to be a departure from classic D&D usage - for instance, Gygax's PHB has a heading "Traps, Tricks and Encounters" and explains encounters in terms of [I]monsters[/I], either randomly generated [I]wandering monsters[/I] or [I]"set" encounters[/I] where the PCs encounter "a creature where it has been placed by the referee". But in Gygax's AD&D there is no need to have any sort of clear or technical notion of an encounter, because the concept doesn't play a role in dungeon design, or in resolution, or in XP award (XP being awarded for killing creatures, capturing them and/or ransoming them, and taking treasure out of the dungeon). This makes no sense to me in multiple ways. First, who is suggesting some crucial connection between XP and combat? I've quoted the AD&D XP rules multiple times now, and as is well known the bulk of XP in AD&D (and other versions of classic D&D) is earned for taking loot out of the dungeon. I've also quoted the 4e D&D XP rules multiple times, and as should be well known, 4e D&D awards XP for combat, for skill challenges, for quests and (if the DMG2 option is used) for free roleplaying that drives things forward. Second, if "encounters" are not just about combat, then why are you implying that doing something other than fighting counts as "bypassing" an encounter? That seems contradictory, or at least to be in some degree of tension. Third, and reiterating what I posted, if the "encounter" that is "bypassed" is purely something in the imagination of the GM, and the GM is awarding XP for the players making decisions whose significance, in "bypassing" the "encounter", exists only in the GM's mind, then how is that anything [I]but[/I] a GM-driven - or, if you prefer, GM-centric - approach to play? [/QUOTE]

Verification