Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8338785" data-attributes="member: 42582">Well, I don't generally play classic D&amp;D either. I prefer &quot;story now&quot; RPGing. I was simply pointing out that there is a well-known, even classic, approach to RPGing which makes random encounter determination an important aspect of play.I do use encounter procedures in my Classic Traveller game, but it serves a completely different purpose from classic D&amp;D.Well, it probably helps to bridge the gap of &quot;alien-ness&quot; by thinking about the rationale for the technique within the broader context of play. As I posted, it's not about &quot;being enslaved&quot; to some notion of &quot;purity&quot;: it's about honest bets and the associated payoffs.The rationale in Classic Traveller is closer to a notion of &quot;purity&quot; but it's not anything to do with a check on tyranny. It's part of presenting an imagined world. (The rules also discuss when the referee might make decisions about encounters rather than rely on dice; these come close to more modern principles of scene-framed play.)I find that it's almost never helpful to frame discussions of play techniques in terms of &quot;trust&quot;. It's generally better to look for parallels in one's own play, and then project to the new case.For instance, most D&amp;D players use dice rather than unbridled GM decision-making to determine what happens when a PC attacks a NPC. There are various reasons for that. Some of them are about fair play - those can be generalised to the use of random encounters in classic D&amp;D. Some of them are about presenting a dynamic and engaging sense of the back-and-forth of melee - those can be generalised to the use of random encounters in Classic Traveller.When you say &quot;in my opinion&quot;, are you talking about your own experience? Or are you generalising to others' games? I can't gainsay your experience, obviously. But if you are making the more general claim then I'm pretty confident it's false. (It may not be false for 5e or 3E D&amp;D play, because those systems do not have a way of generating consistently interesting events other than pre-authorship. But many other RPGs do.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8338785, member: 42582"] Well, I don't generally play classic D&D either. I prefer "story now" RPGing. I was simply pointing out that there is a well-known, even [i]classic[/i], approach to RPGing which makes random encounter determination an important aspect of play. I do use encounter procedures in my Classic Traveller game, but it serves a completely different purpose from classic D&D. Well, it probably helps to bridge the gap of "alien-ness" by thinking about the rationale for the technique within the broader context of play. As I posted, it's not about "being enslaved" to some notion of "purity": it's about honest bets and the associated payoffs. The rationale in Classic Traveller is closer to a notion of "purity" but it's not anything to do with a check on tyranny. It's part of presenting an imagined world. (The rules also discuss when the referee might make decisions about encounters rather than rely on dice; these come close to more modern principles of scene-framed play.) I find that it's almost never helpful to frame discussions of play techniques in terms of "trust". It's generally better to look for parallels in one's own play, and then project to the new case. For instance, most D&D players use dice rather than unbridled GM decision-making to determine what happens when a PC attacks a NPC. There are various reasons for that. Some of them are about fair play - those can be generalised to the use of random encounters in classic D&D. Some of them are about presenting a dynamic and engaging sense of the back-and-forth of melee - those can be generalised to the use of random encounters in Classic Traveller. When you say "in my opinion", are you talking about your own experience? Or are you generalising to others' games? I can't gainsay your experience, obviously. But if you are making the more general claim then I'm pretty confident it's false. (It may not be false for 5e or 3E D&D play, because those systems do not have a way of generating consistently interesting events other than pre-authorship. But many other RPGs do.) [/QUOTE]

Verification