Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6113748" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Swimming a bit upthread as I've been unable to stay up to date in my reading of this thread.  Apologies in advance.  I think I addressed much of this in a later post about "niche protection."  My primary concern when it comes to "having the in-character resources to deploy to transition a scene" lies primarily with that concern.  If I'm playing a game whereby the system is built upon (and the players expect) a method of play which projects open, serial world exploration (primarily) rather than closed scenes (primarily) as the default, then PC's will (likely) be built with travel and exploration tools premised upon that default.  You will have wizards, druids and clerics with travel spells that either outright fast-forward (transition) scenes or perpetuate expedience of travel dramatically beyond mundane modes.  You will have Rangers with things like Peerless Exploration above (in the Ritual/Martial Practice system; the avenue for 4e play to drift from closed scenes/encounters to serial, open world play).  You will have Fighters/Paladins with resources that are purchased to expedite travel via mounts, caravan, etc.  If this is the case (expediting travel or transitioning exploration scenes is a purchased resource upon which a PC must invest), handing out free "transition scene buttons" can be problematic without strong social accord at the table.  If - the gameplay is all Action Scene/Transition Scene (such as the Cortex Plus games or default 4e), without any "expedite travel resources" purchasedor- the gameplay is serial, open world exploration but none of the PCs have invested in any "expedite travel resources"then I have no problem with a table veto to turn such travel into a transition scene.Peerless Exploration is the only "expedite exploration/travel" ability in my game.  It was invested in by this particular PC for two reasons:1 - Thematic broadening.  The player is an Eladrin Bladesinger so his fundamental PC build resources are spent as a master of sword and spell.  However, Background, Theme and multiple Feats were invested by this character to play up a particular backstory; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron" target="_blank">wild boy lost in the Feywild woods riff off Victor_of_Aveyron</a>.  2 - As insurance against dangerous, resource draining Exploration/Travel as Action Scene.  I will do this now and again to them.  They've had 2 extremely dangerous wilderness "Acts" (Lost in the Frozen North Without Supplies and Locate the Medicine Woman/Swamp Hag Before You Die of Pestilence) that almost TPKed the group both times.  In this case, the player was not expecting anything terribly dangerous to happen during the Badlands crossing.  He said at the table before deploying Peerless Exploration that he expected it to be a Transition Scene.  However, he didn't want to risk the possibility that there would be something dangerous (and resource depleting) in the crossing when he expected that the effort to get the idle from the temple and back to the village would be extremely taxing/dangerous (and it was). As such, the investment of a few Healing Surges of his own as insurance against the prospect of multiple Healing Surges per character and the possibility of loss of Dailies and APs was well worth it.  Moreover, it fit the character and let him actualize his thematic protagonism.  Good stuff.If he had not had Peerless Exploration as insurance against dangerous travel, and I was planning on including dangerous travel to the temple, and no one at the table would have had their niche invaded by a fast forward, and people expressed their urge to "cut to the temple", then I would have gladly done so.  My framing of the idol conflict as chase scene, rather than stealth mission, was predicated upon (i) advance notice by all of my players (Rogue included) of yearning for a chase scene and (ii) the fact that the Rogue just recently expressed his character as a master infiltrator in-game.  The framing of the chase scene was basically a collective, player-authored kicker so its in the same strain; framing versus re-framing via veto.We have our wires crossed on terms here or on concepts.  Your "sea transit" here is not "exploration" in the way that I am using it.  Its basically akin to "drive to and from work" or "walk to the baker every morning, get muffins and come home".  Even in a serial, world exploration game you are going to hand-wave that.  This is basically where the 4e PHB advice "skip the guards and get to the fun" generated so much rancor.  They could have (should have) explained the game theory concepts with much more substance (see the MHRP advice upthread which basically addresses the same premise) and avoided the powderkeg that offended so many serial, world exploration players that often treat "gate guard" scenes as Action rather than Transition.  This is where the primacy of serial, world exploration (explore the established setting which is a living, breathing world) is different with respective to hard scene-frame games.  You're in a town for the first time?  "Explore" the new stuff in the established setting and the GM will show you that you're in a "living, breathing world" to immerse yourself in.  After that is done, you aren't going to repeat it ad nauseum; eg you aren't going to "hand over your papers" or do the "state your business" thing every time you go through that same gate in the future.  Conversely, the "gate guard" scene will never, ever, ever be an Action Scene in a hard scene-framed game.  If it is not charged with conflict (specifically conflict relevant to the current Act), then it will always be framed as a Transition Scene.  And regardless of the playstyle (serial world exploration or hard scene-framing), you aren't going to frame the "just another drive to work" as an Action Scene unless, the "drive to work" involves something "charged with conflict".  Furthermore, in a hard scene-framed game you want the "charged with conflict" aspect to be immediately framed, or foreshadowed, as relevant to the ongoing conflict.The same applies to sea transit or anything else.  I've just recently had a "Sea Transit" Action Scene because it was "charged with conflict" and was immediately framed as relevant to the ongoing conflict as they had to evade a naval blockade which forced them to navigate pirate infested (and other dangers) waters; eg it wasn't "the desert."  On the way home, all events (except one) of the conflict (with the navy and therefore the dangerous waters) were resolved and, as such, the transit was completely benign, cuing a transition scene back to the port (which turned the sea into "the desert") and the Action Scene (a social conflict) to ultimately resolve things one way or another.Conflict (immediately relevant or foreshadowed as such) + Lack of exposure to/familiarity with cues Action Scene.No.  I'm not.  I'm saying a transition scene posing as an action scene in the context of a journey is anathema to a hard scene-based game (eg MHRP...you can play this way in 4e but it is more driftable between the two with Martial Practices, Rituals and a few other "extra-scene" based tools).  See above.  I'm saying that in a hard scene-based game, there is a difference between travel charged with (immediately relevant or foreshadowed as such) conflict (the first sea voyage) versus that which isn't (the second voyage, the initial badlands trek, and "the desert").  In serial world exploration, you're typically engaging that gate guard ("show me your papers", "state your business") in real time as Action Scene, rather than color/Transition Scene, the first time through, to establish and explore GM-produced setting and immersion within a living, breathing world.  Its benign in nature (not charged with conflict) but you're playing it out as Action Scene; you're experiencing the world.You said above you "hate logical fallacies".  You know what I hate?  I hate it when someone continuously uses the definition of logical fallacy incorrectly (presumably because if not then I really don't know where we are on this) and then ironically charges me with committing it.  This is the second time you've cried foul with "strawman".  In no situation have I  ignored anybody's actual position on any subject and then substitute a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of their position and attribute it to them so I could defeat that distorted, and willfully, wrongly attributed argument.  I'm not aware of anyone present (not you nor anyone else) taking any position nor invoking anything in the same area code that references "action scene in the context of a journey is an anathema to 4e".  I said:which I elaborated on directly above.  As far as I can tell, that is the only invocation of the above material so far in this thread.  Seeing as how I'm not "misrepresenting my own argument and then attributing the distorted version to myself so I can defeat my distorted version and make myself look foolish/wrong" (a self-strawman?), I have no clue what you're talking about with your "strawman" indignation (this time nor the last).  Not a clue.  You may not be at either of the poles so perhaps that makes you draw the conclusion that the reality of poles is nonsense.  Just like you I am not either in my D&D play, but I recognize those poles exist and I've seen them in play (with myself and other GMs while gaming with other systems; DitV, FATE, Socerer, MHRP primarily on one pole and Classic Traveller, and my D&D 3.x was pretty close as well, on the other).  As I wrote earlier, I'm somewhere between @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?42582-pemerton" target="_blank">pemerton</a> and @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?99817-chaochou" target="_blank">chaochou</a>'s various spectra on the spectrum with my D&D.  However, I'm sure that my game has more "exploration" than pemerton's as he admits that he prefers social conflict to exploration.</blockquote>

Verification