Let me say this explicitly:

Sett was correct that the encounter became the basic unit of play in 4e. Whether this was true for previous editions or not is contentious and irrelevant here.

However, many people have confused this correct prediction of his with his evaluation of this change (culmination, whatever) as a bad thing. These are two distinct propositions.

So, is it a bad thing? Is this focus on encounters, whether planned or unplanned, combat or non-combat, a good or bad thing?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIs this focus on encounters, whether planned or unplanned, combat or non-combat, a good or bad thing?

I don't like it, personally.

What should be noted in that statement is that it didn't answer your question. Here's the actual answer to the actual question you asked: the focus on encounters is neither good nor bad, but value-neutral: some people will enjoy it, others will not. That is all.

I'll take individual judgments as valid, so long as they've got reasons behind them.

So why don't you like it?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineSo why don't you like it?

I prefer my games as seamless as possible, and certain of the actions taken in regards to encounters give the encounter independent existence within the game [as I understand it]. For instance, powers which can be used once per encounter, whether that encounter lasts 5 minutes or 15; that doesn't appear internally consistent to me.

Also remember I don't like XP. Or D&D. So...

Do you also object to games with hero points, "dramatic logic" and features like that?

From what I've gathered, 4e essentially describes characterisation as what goes on between "encounters".  The bulk of the rules address setup and resolution of encounters.  Encounters are resolved through what amount to miniatures skirmish rules.

In my book, the characterisation is the meat of "roleplaying", and minatures skirmishing is more "unit-playing", no matter how personally you identify with a particular minature figure.  Ergo, by my standards, 4e is a step away from roleplaying and a codified step toward the sort of characterisation-void gaming that drove me away from 1st ed AD&D decades ago.  But then, I think we can all agree that I am not 4e's target audience.

!i!

What confuses me is why some of ya'all say that codifying the fighting (and other types of "encounters"), and not "roleplaying", moves the game away from "roleplaying". This version, in this respect, is no different than the game the started "roleplaying". What kind of rules are needed for "roleplaying", that are distinct from the rules for "encounters"? I and my friends seem to have no trouble "roleplaying" with any of the sets of DnD rules so far created, so I'm wondering what ya'all are doing differently than we are to have such a perceived need that is not being fulfilled by what's there already. Hell, I doubt I'd have trouble "roleplaying" with no rules at all really, but the "encounters" would probably be less consistent.

Yep, it's a bad thing, I've stated why more than once, and general amnesia/revisionism/lazyasshattery/the fact the semester's over for Pseudo so he's got more time to babble aren't good enough reason to make me repeat it.

However.

AFAIAC the jury's still out as to whether encounterism will be the core around which everything in 4E will revolve. Only months of campaign play will show whether the RAW won't be drifted across the board by hundreds of thousands of gamers in all sorts of directions, some of which new and specifically 4E. If history is any guide, that's in fact what's going to happen.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineSo, is it a bad thing? Is this focus on encounters, whether planned or unplanned, combat or non-combat, a good or bad thing?

It is what it is. But people are upset about it because it is not what it is not. The idea of pre-planning adventures to the point where you can even have these structured encounter scenarios is distasteful to some people, who prefer to run with a great deal more info on the places and the people and only the barest setup to get the players running around in that sort of "sandbox" (conversely, instead of an extremely detailed town or other setup, there are random encounter generators for saving time while maintaining that appearance of verisimilitude).

So people who have less prep time, more complicit / less uber-independent party members, those who run at cons, etc. got this nice bonus for the way they play. Conversely, the purists think they got the shaft, and maybe they did. Truth be told, between the pregenned town and the advice on custom built random encounter tables, I'm not seeing it. But then, I wasn't there for all the crazy awesome shit that happened in the 70s and 80s. If I had seen it done better (IMO 3x did not do it any better), I might miss it.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAFAIAC the jury's still out as to whether encounterism will be the core around which everything in 4E will revolve. Only months of campaign play will show whether the RAW won't be drifted across the board by hundreds of thousands of gamers in all sorts of directions, some of which new and specifically 4E. If history is any guide, that's in fact what's going to happen.

Smartness. Wait until people play to decide what the realities at the table are going to be. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityOnly months of campaign play will show whether the RAW won't be drifted across the board by hundreds of thousands of gamers in all sorts of directions

Quote from: beejazzSmartness. Wait until people play to decide what the realities at the table are going to be. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Indeed, I have to agree with this wisdom myself.

I agree with those who say time will tell.  My concern is that the emphasis on the game and adventure design will be on crafting encounters and we will move more and more away from the open-ended imagination that is used in campaign play that is driven by the PCs and the world they are in.

All this is only a problem when people think D&D is roleplaying.  And there are still too many people who think that.

While we're at it, there's a thread on EnWorld back in 2006 when Mearls re-did the Rust Monster which Melan contributed to. Melan reminded us of that in the other "Sett is right" thread on RPGSite which Pierce kicked off by a quote from the DMG ("Definition of adventure").

If you read the old EnWorld thread you'll get people who explicitly think Mearls' redoing the monster may foreshadow the key design decisions for 4th edition, including the decision to build mechanics around the single encounter. They also discuss the merits of this approach and (various variants of) its antithesis. So instead of contributing to this thread, I'd like to remind people that on both issues raised in the OP there's this extremely long but also extremely worthwhile thread on EnWorld. Enjoy.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=168472

Melan's post (which he linked recently)

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=131786&highlight=rust#post131786

For that I tip my hat to Melan. That's a post replete with amazing insights driven to one mind blowing climax.

Quote from: beejazzSmartness. Wait until people play to decide what the realities at the table are going to be. Where do you come up with this stuff?

In the same place where this kind of thing...

QuoteIt is what it is. But people are upset about it because it is not what it is not.

...is called the blather that it is (rather than not), Captain Obvious.

An Encounter is still a broad term in 4e. For example instead of describing a dungeon room by room they take a series of rooms and describe it as a whole.

Also they seem to revert back to 1st edition in describing towns and regions.

On the other hand they only had 5 rooms in the sample dungeon in the 4th edition DMG.

In contrast everything had to be stated in 3rd edition causing even simple descriptions to be many times the size they needed to be. In the end I think the new format of encounters is going to be the same in the amount of information you will be able to pack into a product compared to 3rd edition. In some instance it is going to be fatter than 3rd and other more compact.

Rob Conley