NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6111023" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Because I'm not familiar with all of the dynamics of Hussar's session dynamics, I posted a complete (insofar as I could make it complete) example of a full session of mine which basically amounts to an "adventure" (in 5e terms).  I posted the example as I thought it might be constructive in terms of "player flags" of what content they wish to engage with and how techniques and system drive scene based play versus techniques and system driving serial, world exploration play. In my example above the "Badlands" in the first run through serve as the locale for a Transition Scene.  However, on the way back, those same badlands serve as the locale for an Action Scene.  Contrast this with Hussar's "Desert" locale in his game.  I think they are probably pretty interchangable in their dynamics.In my game, the players flagged the initial run through the Badlands as a Transition Scene.  They deployed resources  (Martial Practices and Rituals) to navigate it and do so with stealth and precision.  "Peerless Exploration" specifically is basically a "dicate that this potential exploration hazard/conflict" will be a Transition Scene (no random encounters, the subversion of hazards, and successful mundane navigation); it is effectively a mudane form of "Teleport without Error" that costs resources.  Now why would this locale be treated as a Transition Scene on the first go through and then later as an Action Scene on the way back?  The relevant thematic conflict being undertaken was;  (i) secure the idol, (ii) escape the serpent empire's domain with it and get it to the shaman to  (iii) perform the ritual, (iv) thus saving the village from the Wasting and a repeat occurence of what destroyed the Druid's people.  We could have certainly had "fun" with the Badlands as an Action Scene on the first go through.  I could have created content (hazards, exploration events, ancient ruins, encounters with monsters or creatures) that would have been benign relative to the current focused conflict on the table that was to be resolved.  It may have been fraught with danger, excitement, new potential conflict to be resolved and "fun."  But that doesn't mean that you must treat it as an Action Scene.  And that doesn't mean that you should treat it as an action scene if you want the session to focus solely on the current, focused conflict to be resolved.    Why was the underdark scenario an Action Scene rather than a Transition Scene?  The players lost their "Escape the snake-men pursuit in the Badlands" non-combat challenge thus there are punitive implications to that that are specifically tied to those relevant stakes; a new challenge that they must face in which the idol is lost to them and therefore they must retrieve it anew and escape this current threat that interposes itself between their goals.  In other words, they must achieve (i) and (ii) above before (iii) and (iv) can be accomplished.If the system I'm running and the playstyle at the table involves serial world exploration with deployable resources meant to be framed and ablated around such play (10 minutes/level vs 1 scene/encounter and focus on granular resource tracking and world exploration/travel tables and stats), then almost everything I run will be an Action Scene.  You will be "exploring/enduring that desert trek" to get to that city and you will be "exploring/enduring that badlands trek" to get to the snake-mens' temple and that will be that.  Transition Scenes will be extremely limited.  The players will know this.  We will have all bought-in and accepted that premise.  Conversely, if the system (such as D&D 4e or MHRP) is almost completely (or exclusively) scene-based in its organization and structure, then we will have bought into that premise...and, as such, its accepted that turning a benign badlands/desert exploration scene (not from a "danger" perspective but from a "relative to the thematic conflict the game is currently focusing on" perspective) into an Action Scene rather than a Transition Scene is anathema.  Which brings me back to my initial thoughts on this thread.  Why are players/a GM expecting a serial world exploration game and a player expecting a scene-based action game playing together...and what playstyle expectation is the system structured/organized around?</blockquote>

Verification