TheRPGSite

4e brought us an era of feeding all sorts of classic features to the woodchipper as supposedly "quaint outdated concepts". Just last week, someone pointed out a post in meals' blog about how he confessed ignorance at why Wandering Monsters were there, then came up with (equivalent) logic for putting them back in:

http://kotgl.blogspot.com/2008/08/in-praise-of-wandering-monsters.html

Now, I've just been directed to another of his blog entries about "making powerful monsters important in non-combat situations again":

http://kotgl.blogspot.com/2008/10/skill-challenges-as-tool-for-putting.html

Say wha? There was a big flameout on ENWorld about how powerful monsters like Pit Fiends were SO MUCH BETTER now that they have nice trim little stat blocks that never make you crack open the PHB, and those simulation fans and "there's more to D&D than combat" mantra-speakers were poo-pooed for suggesting there was anything wrong with that. And yet NOW we have some concern about how players might face such creatures in non-combat situations?

I don't get it. Either Mearls isn't as influential in the 4e design as I imagined, or he's having a bit of regret in hindsight that there just might have been some healthy tissue in the mound of game-flesh they hewed away during their steadfast vivisection of the game.

Quote from: articleHere's a stray thought about skill challenges. Back in the 1e days, you'd hear all sorts of stories about dungeons where Orcus and Tiamat stomped around on level 1. Meeting those monsters is, obviously, instant death.

The fuck?

IMHO, these suggestions by Mearls are just lame.  

Wandering Monsters:  
Adding random wandering monsters while a group is resting to restore Healing Surges, Encounter Powers, and possibly other Powers will more than likely spell doom for that group.  Wandering monster are a random element, and not part of the balance of play concepts outlined in the 4e mechanics.

Powerful monsters on level 1:
Umm, what Stormbringer said.  What asswipe DM would have a party run into Orcus or Tiamat in a level 1 dungeon?  That is just so WTF?

His not understanding why wandering monsters were in the game in the first place provided my major WTF moment reading these.  Orcus/Tiamat on Level 1 is just icing on the fuckupped-ness cake.

First they justify cutting it so it's not in the first book they sell you.  They tell you "No, the book is fine."

Then after you bought the book, they say "Oh wait, we were wrong, we should have kept all that stuff.  Here, we'll put it a new book."

Ka-Ching.

Yup, the concept of multiple Player's Handbooks is still hard for me to swallow, and that's not even considering the money issue.

Reasons 353, and 354 why the 4e minatures games can take a flying leap in my opinion.:muttering:

Of course they're taking stuff out to put it back in. That's how you sell books upon books upon books.

I really don't think that a blog post a couple paragraphs long constitutes "putting something back in".

So Mearls idea of certain playstyles is a little flawed. At least he threw something out there, even if it was more of an afterthought than anything else.

Besides, the posed solution blows and I doubt you'll see it in any official WotC product.

Quote from: Drohem;261897Umm, what Stormbringer said.  What asswipe DM would have a party run into Orcus or Tiamat in a level 1 dungeon?  That is just so WTF?

I've done something like that. The large room at the end of the first level of a small dungeon had (an illusion of) a coven of powerful magic-users summoning Demogorgon. The Illusionist who used level two as a headquarters set it up. It had the desired effect. Intruders fled and did not come back. Unfortunately, he was a lazy fellow and who just reset the same illusion every time it was triggered. Eventually the players heard about other parties encountering the exact same scene they had -- including apparently the exact same people as recent sacrifices -- and got suspicious.

I've had other (real) way too powerful monsters roaming the upper levels of dungeons -- but parties were not intended to fight these monsters. They were to bargain with them, run from them, or the like. The idea that every monster encountered should be one the characters have a fair chance of beating if the players choose to fight it simply never caught on with my groups. If you are first level and decide to make a frontal attack on a vampire just because you encountered him, you deserve the death you have earned.

Quote from: RandallS;261932I've done something like that. The large room at the end of the first level of a small dungeon had (an illusion of) a coven of powerful magic-users summoning Demogorgon. The Illusionist who used level two as a headquarters set it up. It had the desired effect. Intruders fled and did not come back. Unfortunately, he was a lazy fellow and who just reset the same illusion every time it was triggered. Eventually the players heard about other parties encountering the exact same scene they had -- including apparently the exact same people as recent sacrifices -- and got suspicious.

I've had other (real) way too powerful monsters roaming the upper levels of dungeons -- but parties were not intended to fight these monsters. They were to bargain with them, run from them, or the like. The idea that every monster encountered should be one the characters have a fair chance of beating if the players choose to fight it simply never caught on with my groups. If you are first level and decide to make a frontal attack on a vampire just because you encountered him, you deserve the death you have earned.

I like the illusion gag!  

I also feel the same way about characters meeting creatures that are too powerful.

However, it was written as Orcus and Tiamat themselves were encountered.  This is just too stupid to consider.  Now, an illusion of Orcus or Tiamat is sheer genius; especially since the group discovered the ruse and that they were duped.

We bumped into Tiamat on our first Astral plane jaunt in ad&d way back in the day. We were 9th level, mind you. We still got duffed and imprisoned. Luckily my MU got, erm...stranded on the Astral plane instead of being taken away. Met up with a Titan who agreed to help me hatch an escape plan. One of the best unplanned sessions ever. One tip - never smack a slave overseer in the head with a shovel unless you're totally sure it isn't a polymorphed Blue Dragon.

Not 1st level, though.

Things like this is why I'm sticking to RPGs that give you a complete product upon release in one solid book.  I like to buy supplements to add to my game, not to complete my game.

Quote from: Idinsinuation;261938I like to buy supplements to add to my game, not to complete my game.

QTMFT!

Quote from: StormBringer;261892The fuck?

Heh.

I don't remember the level our characters were at, but I remember back in Junior High, a erstwhile DM obviously just paging through the MM and picking out whatever looked cool uttered a phrase that will live forever in my memory:

"You encounter a Demogorgon."

Quote from: Drohem;261936I like the illusion gag!

Me too, I had a gnome Illusionist NPC who would use a dragon illusion to scare his cat out of hiding.  He never found his cat but he scared more than a few groups of PCs through the years.

Yeah, props to RandallS.  Brilliant ruse.  I'm swiping that gag for something I've got cooking....

It's pretty crazy stuff.  I mean, the guy in charge of the new edition doesn't even fully understand the older editions, but made changes all over the place anyway.

I think that was a large part of the frustration over announcements for 4e.  Just baffling what they decided to change, and without really good reasons.

Apparently drinking the kool aid damaged Mearls' recollection of the past.

Quote from: Drohem;261897IMHO, these suggestions by Mearls are just lame.  

Wandering Monsters:  
Adding random wandering monsters while a group is resting to restore Healing Surges, Encounter Powers, and possibly other Powers will more than likely spell doom for that group.  Wandering monster are a random element, and not part of the balance of play concepts outlined in the 4e mechanics.

Powerful monsters on level 1:
Umm, what Stormbringer said.  What asswipe DM would have a party run into Orcus or Tiamat in a level 1 dungeon?  That is just so WTF?

I recall clearly playing in some dudes dungeon and running into Thor around level 3 or 4, I think. It was on an extensive wandering monster table.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;261993I recall clearly playing in some dudes dungeon and running into Thor around level 3 or 4, I think. It was on an extensive wandering monster table.

Well, that settles it.  It was obviously hard coded into the rules, then.

Most of what he says is pretty basic stuff to anyone who's played a few sessions and started tinkering with the encounter system. The main thing I'd do in his place is simply use wandering monsters in two ways:

1) Wandering monsters are the result of failing a skill check. I wouldn't really use it in the way he says. What I'd do is make the consequences for failing a skill check to do something else result in both failing to accomplish the goal and encountering a wandering monster crew.

2) Simply set aside 1/4 or more of your total daily XP budget and pick some monsters at random to attack whenever the PCs start dicking around or whenever it would be most appropriate.

My Ashlands of Dlak adventure was going to include a couple of pre-designed monster sets that DMs could choose from / roll on a table for and then plunk down wherever they wanted.

Quote from: StormBringer;261994Well, that settles it.  It was obviously hard coded into the rules, then.

Dude, you're never going to stop being retarded. I don't know know why you even still draw breath.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;261999Dude, you're never going to stop being retarded. I don't know know why you even still draw breath.

Well, did you really think your one example of horrible DMing was going to make a point of some kind?

EDIT:  Aside from once again conflating your experiences with universal experiences?

Fortunately, neither Mike Mearls nor Abyssal Maw made a "universal" claim of any sort.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262006Fortunately, neither Mike Mearls nor Abyssal Maw made a "universal" claim of any sort.

"Powerful monsters on level 1:
Umm, what Stormbringer said. What asswipe DM would have a party run into Orcus or Tiamat in a level 1 dungeon? That is just so WTF?"

"I recall clearly playing in some dudes dungeon and running into Thor around level 3 or 4, I think. It was on an extensive wandering monster table."

Or:

"Powerful monsters on level 1:
 Umm, what Stormbringer said. What asswipe DM would have a party run into Orcus or Tiamat in a level 1 dungeon? That is just so WTF?"

"No shit, dude.  I recall clearly playing in some dudes dungeon and this total cocksmock had us running into Thor around level 3 or 4, I think. It was on an extensive wandering monster table, the remaining contents I don't even want to think about"

Because everyone else in the thread related an anecdote that was clearly intended to show that Orcus on level 1 reached a new level of fucked-up, and claims that it was common in anyway were equally fucked-up.

Now, if you are able to show that, in fact, Orcus on level 1 was pretty common, or that Mearls' was clearly exaggerating (I think) and Thor at level 3 were in any way common, or showed up in a published product, or were advised to appear on a wandering monster list, please, do so.

Until then, you are cordially invited to shut your fucking gob.

Quote from: StormBringer;262019"Powerful monsters on level 1:
Umm, what Stormbringer said. What asswipe DM would have a party run into Orcus or Tiamat in a level 1 dungeon? That is just so WTF?"

"I recall clearly playing in some dudes dungeon and running into Thor around level 3 or 4, I think. It was on an extensive wandering monster table."

Or:

"Powerful monsters on level 1:
 Umm, what Stormbringer said. What asswipe DM would have a party run into Orcus or Tiamat in a level 1 dungeon? That is just so WTF?"

"No shit, dude.  I recall clearly playing in some dudes dungeon and this total cocksmock had us running into Thor around level 3 or 4, I think. It was on an extensive wandering monster table, the remaining contents I don't even want to think about"

Because everyone else in the thread related an anecdote that was clearly intended to show that Orcus on level 1 reached a new level of fucked-up, and claims that it was common in anyway were equally fucked-up.

Now, if you are able to show that, in fact, Orcus on level 1 was pretty common, or that Mearls' was clearly exaggerating (I think) and Thor at level 3 were in any way common, or showed up in a published product, or were advised to appear on a wandering monster list, please, do so.

Until then, you are cordially invited to shut your fucking gob.

I'm still merely giving my recollections from a game I played in around 1979.

You still won't ever fit in here.

I'm sorry about that.

Stormbringer> Your post is so tortuously phrased, probably due to autism or another serious learning disability similar to gleichman's, that it's unclear what exactly you're talking about. You appear to be talking to yourself, inventing quotes, and demonstrating a middling-to-poor ability at interpreting ordinary statements in plain English.

Are you trying to say "I think Mike Mearls is exaggerating. I think his exaggeration is a pernicious representation of the way people used to play D&D,"? If so, please say so instead of spitting out strings of nonsense like the above post.

My question is: are Orcus and Tiamat only "skill challenges" if the DM decides beforehand...or if the PCs are low-level...or can a 20th-level PC access the skill challenge system to deal with them? (And, presumably, have an easier time of it, being 20th level and all...)

(Obviously this isn't a rules question, but a probe into Mearls' baseline DMing philosophy.)

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;262035My question is: are Orcus and Tiamat only "skill challenges" if the DM decides beforehand...or if the PCs are low-level...or can a 20th-level PC access the skill challenge system to deal with them? (And, presumably, have an easier time of it, being 20th level and all...)

(Obviously this isn't a rules question, but a probe into Mearls' baseline DMing philosophy.)

DM decision based on whatever factors he pleases. Skill challenges are a tool to represent the efforts of a group of PCs working together to accomplish a specific goal whose success or failure would affect them all.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;262035(Obviously this isn't a rules question, but a probe into Mearls' baseline DMing philosophy.)

I just wanted to say, Elliot, you sound so sexy when you write like this.

Regards,
David R

I have used Wandering Monsters in 4e.   I make it a weak encounter based on a failed skill challenge or the PCs taking an extended rest in an obviously dangerous zone.

Remember, there is no rule that says the PCs need to fight everything.  I have had players defuse combats with skills and roleplay and sometimes with outright fleeing of the area.  

How much fun you have with 4e depends on how much you uplift the game beyond the minis and the board.   We have 70 people attending our monthly D&D Meetup and I just gotta try this Orcus at 1st level skill challenge thingie!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;262027I'm still merely giving my recollections from a game I played in around 1979.

You still won't ever fit in here.

I'm sorry about that.

If this site is ever run on your judgment alone, it will be well and truly fucked.

Which isn't to say your whiny opinion will mean much then, either.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262028Stormbringer> Your post is so tortuously phrased, probably due to autism or another serious learning disability similar to gleichman's, that it's unclear what exactly you're talking about. You appear to be talking to yourself, inventing quotes, and demonstrating a middling-to-poor ability at interpreting ordinary statements in plain English.

Are you trying to say "I think Mike Mearls is exaggerating. I think his exaggeration is a pernicious representation of the way people used to play D&D,"? If so, please say so instead of spitting out strings of nonsense like the above post.

Shouldn't you change your handle to 'Pseudointellectual'?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;262035My question is: are Orcus and Tiamat only "skill challenges" if the DM decides beforehand...or if the PCs are low-level...or can a 20th-level PC access the skill challenge system to deal with them? (And, presumably, have an easier time of it, being 20th level and all...)

(Obviously this isn't a rules question, but a probe into Mearls' baseline DMing philosophy.)

Good point.  As the first response to the blog notes, skill challenges are a problematic set of rules on their own merits, without having to hammer them into an encounter that really shouldn't be taking place anyway, except as a bit of exposition, perhaps, or a means of advancing the plot.

Even so, Orcus?  At first level?  Unalloyed asshattery.

Quote from: Spinachcat;262064I have used Wandering Monsters in 4e.   I make it a weak encounter based on a failed skill challenge or the PCs taking an extended rest in an obviously dangerous zone.

I think the blog suggested interrupting short rests with wandering monsters.  I don't see how interrupting extended rests is really any better.  I mean, don't you find those to be rather asshole moves?  

Drohem had a good point, healing surges and encounter powers are fairly tightly integrated into the other balancing mechanisms.  You can't just start tossing spanners in the works and expect things to run smoothly.  Especially the encounter powers, which are typically used first in a fight, followed by spamming at-wills until things get ugly, then dropping the daily bomb and heading back to camp.  If you cut out the encounter power phase, there is a short time between spamming at-wills and things getting ugly.

Of course, as you say, the party can run away, but they have still lost out on a short rest.  Which means they still need to take one before the next encounter, or we are back to square one.  Unless they just run away the rest of the day.

Quote from: StormBringer;262083Shouldn't you change your handle to 'Pseudointellectual'?

Only once I start producing the same kind of gibberish that you do.

Quote from: StormBringer;262084Good point.

That's a question, not a point. The question was answered. Are you going to answer the question I asked earlier? Are you trying to say that Mike Mearls exaggerated when he said that he'd heard stories about PCs facing gods as wandering monsters?

Quote from: Drohem;261897What asswipe DM would have a party run into Orcus or Tiamat in a level 1 dungeon?  That is just so WTF?

No shit.  I killed Orcus with an Arrow of Demon-Slaying on the third level of a dungeon.

!i!

Quote from: StormBringer;262090I think the blog suggested interrupting short rests with wandering monsters.  I don't see how interrupting extended rests is really any better.  I mean, don't you find those to be rather asshole moves?  

If you camp in the dungeon, the monsters may interrupt your nap.

If you are hunting down an assassin who learns that you are hunting him, he may strike at you after your night of drunken carousing.

I do not run encounters.  I run an adventure.   Adventures mean drama and drama means risky situations with high tension.

Quote from: StormBringer;262090If you cut out the encounter power phase, there is a short time between spamming at-wills and things getting ugly.

I played the RPGA event Weekend in the Realms last week and we had two solid encounters back to back with no rest.   It was brutal and we were down to blowing dailies and unleashing dailies in our magic items in the hope we could win.   It was awesome fun.

If players work as a team, they can handle two full encounters back to back.

Quote from: StormBringer;262090I think the blog suggested interrupting short rests with wandering monsters.  I don't see how interrupting extended rests is really any better.  I mean, don't you find those to be rather asshole moves?  

Drohem had a good point, healing surges and encounter powers are fairly tightly integrated into the other balancing mechanisms.  You can't just start tossing spanners in the works and expect things to run smoothly.  Especially the encounter powers, which are typically used first in a fight, followed by spamming at-wills until things get ugly, then dropping the daily bomb and heading back to camp.  If you cut out the encounter power phase, there is a short time between spamming at-wills and things getting ugly.

Of course, as you say, the party can run away, but they have still lost out on a short rest.  Which means they still need to take one before the next encounter, or we are back to square one.  Unless they just run away the rest of the day.

Exactly, if the group has already burned up a majority of their powers, then more than likely all they'll have left to deal with a random encounter is the at-will powers.  

Now, I like Spinachcat's take on random encounters where the encountered monster(s) are weaker than the PCs.  If the group has used up all its major powers, then it still may have a chance to defeat the encountered monster(s) by spamming their at-will attacks.

I also like the idea of throwing random encounters at the group when they are resting in an obviously dangerous place, but that's really not part of the discussion.

Quote from: Spinachcat;262112If players work as a team, they can handle two full encounters back to back.

This is true, but that's not really the point here.  What if, after the second full encounter, the party goes to get some needed rest to recover their used powers and they are attacked by a random encounter of the same power level of the party?  Is the group able to deal with the random encounter effectively with only their at-will powers, or a depleted power list?

You can also just introduce "recharge" points in the middle of the fight depending on the structure of the encounter. Because the concept of a "short rest" is just an arbitrary recharging point, it doesn't necessarily have to be represented in game by PCs sitting around drinking tea or whatever.

For example, PCs might have to assault the walls of a castle while defenders try to stop them. Rather than run this as two or three separate encounters, it makes sense to mash them together and simply identify the brief pauses where it would make sense of PCs to recuperate slightly.

Frex, when the PCs defeat the guys at the top of the ladders or whatever they're using and actually get up onto the walls, simply declare a short rest, or at least that their encounter powers recharge, while the remaining enemies notice the gap in their line and maneuver to confront them.

You could alternately link it to their second wind if you really wanted to - in this kind of super-encounter, when a PC uses their second wind, they also get all their encounter powers back. This allows PCs to control the point at which they recharge, and lets them pace their powers more effectively.

These are fairly simple ideas that could be parachuted into any sort of 4e game with minimal modification of the underlying mechanics.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262091The question was answered.

I'm not sure it was...you gave a very general response that (unless I'm misunderstanding you) amounts to "the DM does whatever he deems appropriate". My question is, what does Mearls deem appropriate--assuming it can be described according to some principle.

Quote from: Drohem;262116This is true, but that's not really the point here.  What if, after the second full encounter, the party goes to get some needed rest to recover their used powers and they are attacked by a random encounter of the same power level of the party?  Is the group able to deal with the random encounter effectively with only their at-will powers, or a depleted power list?

It would count as having passed a milestone, and they were get a new AP, a new use of a magic item daily power, and possibly various other bonuses from items or abilities.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;262121I'm not sure it was...you gave a very general response that (unless I'm misunderstanding you) amounts to "the DM does whatever he deems appropriate". My question is, what does Mearls deem appopriate--assuming it can be described according to some principle.

Why does it matter in the first place? I don't think that's a very important question, and I don't think answering it would say very much interesting or important about 4e.

If you will recall our conversations right after 4e came out: As I said I hoped would happen, we are seeing a very vibrant "culture of play" emerge in 4e. The only people who seem to be hanging off of Mearls' every word are people who are not playing the game (Stormbringer, for example, appears to read Mearls' blog frequently; I, who play 4e weekly, don't pay attention to it in the slightest).

It took my group two sessions into our "We're going to play everything by the book to get a feel for it" campaign before we were already making rulings, fiddling with the encounter system and adapting the skill challenge system in ways amenable to our preferred style of play. We are by no means exceptional, as the testimony of 4e players all over the internet is demonstrating.

As I've pointed out in this very thread, there are plenty of ways of introducing wandering monsters into 4e if one wants them. There are Mearls' methods and there are other methods. Unless you find his methods particularly compelling or interesting (I don't), I do not see why it matters whether he prefers that wandering monsters interrupt a short rest or merely follow one.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262122It would count as having passed a milestone, and they were get a new AP, a new use of a magic item daily power, and possibly various other bonuses from items or abilities.

The point that I am making is that it still may not be enough if the group were matched up with a random encounter of equal power level to the group when the group is seriously depleted of their powers above the at-will powers.

Quote from: Drohem;262128The point that I am making is that it still may not be enough if the group were matched up with a random encounter of equal power level to the group when the group is seriously depleted of their powers above the at-will powers.

It's too contingent to call. They might blow dailies sooner than they would otherwise, but especially once they've hit paragon and start having magic items like rings, any sort of milestone can be a boon for them. While lacking encounter powers is an obvious deficit that would make any fight more challenging, I don't think it would be an unfairly difficult encounter. It could potentially be boring though, unless the PCs and enemy make interesting use of terrain or possess the gear and powers to make good use of the additional AP, magic item daily powers etc.

As I mentioned earlier in regard to short rests, I would also expect a DM who is going to ram encounter upon encounter on the PCs without short rests on a regular basis to give the PCs an in-game way to recharge their powers, either by using second wind or by coming up with an event the PCs could provoke during the fight that would recharge their powers (at least partially) or some sort of terrain feature they could interact with to recharge their powers. For example, a magic circle that recharges the arcane encounter powers 1/encounter of anyone who steps into its zone, whether PC or foe, might work.

Clever DMing here can quite simply prevent most of this from being a problem.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262126If you will recall our conversations right after 4e came out: As I said I hoped would happen, we are seeing a very vibrant "culture of play" emerge in 4e. The only people who seem to be hanging off of Mearls' every word are people who are not playing the game (Stormbringer, for example, appears to read Mearls' blog frequently; I, who play 4e weekly, don't pay attention to it in the slightest).

Nice to see you falling back on the play/don't play dichotomy.  The surest sign that your argument is utterly without merit.

I read Mearls' blog precisely when, and only when, someone points it out to me, like most blogs.  From what little I have read, his opinion of the history and evolution of D&D is only slightly less uninformed than yours.

Aside from being one of the most self-indulgent phrases I have heard in a number of years, this 'culture of play' you refer to has existed for about 30yrs.  Sad that it has to 'emerge' from 4e, when it should have been extant to begin with.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262131As I mentioned earlier in regard to short rests, I would also expect a DM who is going to ram encounter upon encounter on the PCs without short rests on a regular basis to give the PCs an in-game way to recharge their powers, either by using second wind or by coming up with an event the PCs could provoke during the fight that would recharge their powers (at least partially) or some sort of terrain feature they could interact with to recharge their powers. For example, a magic circle that recharges the arcane encounter powers 1/encounter of anyone who steps into its zone, whether PC or foe, might work.

Clever DMing here can quite simply prevent most of this from being a problem.

In other words, once it actually becomes challenging, the DM needs to frantically break the rules to make up ways for it not to be particularly challenging anymore.

Quote from: StormBringer;262155Aside from being one of the most self-indulgent phrases I have heard in a number of years...

No, we have 'The Tyranny of Fun' for that.

Quotethis 'culture of play' you refer to has existed for about 30yrs.  Sad that it has to 'emerge' from 4e, when it should have been extant to begin with.

He's talking about a cultures of play specific to the games they emerge from. The 4E culture of play will differ from those of 3E, 2E, Vampire: the Masquerade and Tunnels & Trolls.

Quote from: Spinachcat;262112If you camp in the dungeon, the monsters may interrupt your nap.

If you are hunting down an assassin who learns that you are hunting him, he may strike at you after your night of drunken carousing.

I do not run encounters.  I run an adventure.   Adventures mean drama and drama means risky situations with high tension.

But it doesn't necessarily mean you deny the players their ability to interact with the game as defined in the mechanics.

In other words, since everyone has spell-like powers that only refresh in a certain manner, you aren't just handicapping the Magic User for the day if they don't get a rest.  Now the Warlord and the Cleric also are missing their daily/encounter powers, many of which involve healing.

See what I mean by carelessly tossing around spanners in the moving parts?

QuoteI played the RPGA event Weekend in the Realms last week and we had two solid encounters back to back with no rest.   It was brutal and we were down to blowing dailies and unleashing dailies in our magic items in the hope we could win.   It was awesome fun.

If players work as a team, they can handle two full encounters back to back.

So, what do you suppose would have happened if the dice went south, and you had another encounter?  And another immediately after that?

Precisely because of the way powers are refreshed for all classes now, interruptions to that refresh period is paramount to limiting the players ability to actually play the game.  It's rather like the banker arbitrarily denying players from collecting the $200 for passing Go several times.  The exact complaint people level against older editions, i.e., 'my fighter is just swing-hit-swing-miss', is exactly what makes random encounters viable.  Keep the Magic User in the back to watch for re-inforcements/sneak attacks while the characters that don't need six hours rest to recharge their ability to swing their swords in a certain, more damaging way take care of the pack of orcs.

This is almost exactly like the skill challenges gig.  Everyone was praising skill challenges up and down when the previews came out, then when the books hit, no one could heap enough praise on them.  Well, until Stalker0 over on ENWorld showed that the skill challenges worked in almost exactly the opposite manner than the rules stated.  At which point,  WotC quickly amended them to 'three strikes and you're out'.  The lead up to all this was WotC promising thorough play-testing and a mathemetician type on-staff.

So, you are certainly free to swallow the whole load, if you want, but when a designer who admits to not quite understanding what wandering monsters were for - and in fact seems to think there were "all these stories" about gods and demon lords randomly encountered at first level - suddenly decides they are a good idea again, I am going to remain highly skeptical.  Especially when his proposal includes meeting Orcus at 1st level, but using the dubious skill challenge mechanics to resolve it.

Quote from: Drew;262158He's talking about a cultures of play specific to the games they emerge from. The 4E culture of play will differ from those of 3E, 2E, Vampire: the Masquerade and Tunnels & Trolls.

Which is going to end up being some ridiculously convoluted attempt to describe what is starting to sound like an import from the vast reservoir of Forge double-speak and obfuscation.

Which you have started out in grand style by re-stating rather than explaining.

Quote from: StormBringer;262156In other words, once it actually becomes challenging, the DM needs to frantically break the rules to make up ways for it not to be particularly challenging anymore.

Psuedo's soloution is simple and easily implemented. There's nothing "frantic" about altering an abstract period between encounters, the length of which has no real bearing on anything other than letting the players know how much time in the game world has elapsed.

It's also a demonstration of the play culture Pseudo describes. When talking to a gamer who was dissatisfied with lengthy encounters, one of the designers instantly advised him to "halve the monsters hit points." That such a practical and easy-going approach to solving perceived problems is so enthusiastically supported by Wizards goes a long way to undermine the online scare stories about how the hobby is being choked to death by one-true-wayism. There's plenty of scope for odd suggestions, backed by a willingness to try stuff that may or may not work. The system can take an awful lot of manipulation before it even shows signs of buckling. Hence Mike Mearls blog.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;261887Say wha? There was a big flameout on ENWorld about how powerful monsters like Pit Fiends were SO MUCH BETTER now that they have nice trim little stat blocks that never make you crack open the PHB, and those simulation fans and "there's more to D&D than combat" mantra-speakers were poo-pooed for suggesting there was anything wrong with that. And yet NOW we have some concern about how players might face such creatures in non-combat situations?

My apologies to my esteemed colleague from Limbo, this point was rather missed in the initial level one Orcus and Tiamat confusion.  I touched on this a bit two posts up, hopefully that will spark some conversation, as I think this point is the equal of the first raised by Caesar Slaad in the original post.

QuoteI don't get it. Either Mearls isn't as influential in the 4e design as I imagined, or he's having a bit of regret in hindsight that there just might have been some healthy tissue in the mound of game-flesh they hewed away during their steadfast vivisection of the game.

My mind keeps running through the first pilot of Star Trek, The Cage.  Vina is poorly put back together after the horrible mutilation of the crash landing, then given the permanent illusion of being a healthy, beautiful young woman again.  ;)

Quote from: StormBringer;262162Which is going to end up being some ridiculously convoluted attempt to describe what is starting to sound like an import from the vast reservoir of Forge double-speak and obfuscation.

Which you have started out in grand style by re-stating rather than explaining.

Yet you're quite willing to accept a a thirty-year-old ur-culture of gaming yourself.

It is kind of funny, though, watching you swirl around the plughole like this. Yell "FORGE" and hope the opposition go away? Please.

Quote from: Drew;262163It's also a demonstration of the play culture Pseudo describes. When talking to a gamer who was dissatisfied with lengthy encounters, one of the designers instantly advised him to "halve the monsters hit points." That such a practical and easy-going approach to solving perceived problems is so enthusiastically supported by Wizards goes a long way to undermine the online scare stories about how the hobby is being choked to death by one-true-wayism. There's plenty of scope for odd suggestions, backed by a willingness to try stuff that may or may not work. The system can take an awful lot of manipulation before it even shows signs of buckling. Hence Mike Mearls blog.

Wow, I wish we would have had that kind of thing back when I was playing.

Quote from: Drew;262165Yet you're quite willing to accept a a thirty-year-old ur-culture of gaming yourself.

In other words, you want eight months of 'culture' to be given the same measure as three decades worth.  A 'culture' that specifically and pointedly eschewed the previous thirty years, then lauds its own cleverness for inventing this new-fangled "wheel".

QuoteIt is kind of funny, though, watching you swirl around the plughole like this. Yell "FORGE" and hope the opposition go away? Please.

Good Lord, no.  I want you to keep posting these gems.

Quote from: StormBringer;262166Wow, I wish we would have had that kind of thing back when I was playing.

So now you're saying that nothing has really changed? That you were getting your knickers in a twist over fuck all? Cool!

Quote from: StormBringer;262168In other words, you want eight months of 'culture' to be given the same measure as three decades worth.  A 'culture' that specifically and pointedly eschewed the previous thirty years, then lauds its own cleverness for inventing this new-fangled "wheel".

Good lord, you change tactics more often than Koltar does avatars. The basic picture remains though. You mischarcterise. Then, when challenged, you denounce. Then, when your denunciations are ignored you make a call to history, and by doing so directly contradict your original mischaracterisation. All that's left is ad hominen, which I expect we'll be seeing anytime now.    

QuoteGood Lord, no.  I want you to keep posting these gems.

Then please, keep denouncing people as "Forgist" the moment you run out of argument.

Quote from: Drew;262169So now you're saying that nothing has really changed? That you were getting your knickers in a twist over fuck all? Cool!

Well, except for the whole ossification of the rules to the point that people have to be reminded that they can do stuff outside of what is written in the books.

Oh, yeah, I guess I was saying that for those with some historical perspective - ie, those whose first version was prior to 3.5 - this really isn't anything new, no matter how breathlessly folks like Spinachcat pretend it is.

Again, Mearls and 4e didn't introduce the wheel.

Quote from: Drew;262171Good lord, you change tactics more often than Koltar does avatars. The basic picture remains though. You mischarcterise. Then, when challenged, you denounce. Then, when your denunciations are ignored you make a call to history, and by doing so directly contradict your original mischaracterisation. All that's left is ad hominen, which I expect we'll be seeing anytime now.    

So, were you going to wander back to the topic at hand anytime soon?

QuoteThen please, keep denouncing people as "Forgist" the moment you run out of argument.

I will specifically denounce you as Forgist the moment you present an argument, assuming it falls along those lines.

But the whole 'culture of play' specific to certain games?  I am getting a whiff of GNS from that emergent nonsense.  Please, rather than re-iterating another dozen times a vague re-statement of 'culture of play', I invite you to go ahead and start describing exactly what it entails.  Because that is what a person who has a point to make would be doing.

Quote from: StormBringer;262173So, were you going to wander back to the topic at hand anytime soon?

So you've decided to huff and puff your way back up to the high ground? I love how you keep shifting stances, it's almost like being to win an argument is all that actually matters to you.

QuoteI will specifically denounce you as Forgist the moment you present an argument, assuming it falls along those lines.

Back to the cheap ploys. You already have /I] denounced without evidence, presumably in the hope that the term 'Forgist' is loaded enough to annihilate meaningful discourse and thus cover your own ignorance of 4E and how it actually plays.  

QuoteBut the whole 'culture of play' specific to certain games? I am getting a whiff of GNS from that emergent nonsense.  Please, rather than re-iterating another dozen times a vague re-statement of 'culture of play', I invite you to go ahead and start describing exactly what it entails.  Because that is what a person who has a point to make would be doing.

GNS doesn't own the idea of emergent behaviours. Stop trying to implicate by association. I think you're quite aware of what Pseudo meant when he said culture of play, but right now all you want to do is associate his ideas with other, unrelated theories that have very low currency around here. It's pretty obvious, and pretty fucking spineless to boot.

Anyway, on to the question at hand: play culture is the full range of learned, play-based behavior patterns that are specific to a particular roleplaying game. It describes how a game is organised, played and amended by an informed userbase who are in regular contact with one another.

Now, let's watch you push for more precising definitions as you scrabble around for something - anything - that helps you keep up with the denunciations. Whatever it takes to hide you woefully thin undrstanding of 4E.

Quote from: Drew;262178So you've decided to huff and puff your way back up to the high ground? I love how you keep shifting stances, it's almost like being to win an argument is all that actually matters to you.

And yet, you keep bitching about it, as though you will be able to use this as a distraction for not having presented an argument.

QuoteBack to the cheap ploys. You already have /I] denounced without evidence, presumably in the hope that the term 'Forgist' is loaded enough to annihilate meaningful discourse and thus cover your own ignorance of 4E and how it actually plays.

I've denounced what, exactly?  Your vague and undefined terminology?

QuoteGNS doesn't own the idea of emergent behaviours. Stop trying to implicate by association.

No, I was saying that your 'culture of play' is emergent nonsense.  In fact, I was unaware that particular set of theories even considers emergent behaviour.  I would say it is a mistake if they do, the topic is a good deal more complicated than I would guess they are able to handle.

QuoteI think you're quite aware of what Pseudo meant when he said culture of play, but right now all you want to do is associate his ideas with other, unrelated theories that have very low currency around here. It's pretty obvious, and pretty fucking spineless to boot.

Well, no, because you are just now scrambling for a description of 'culture of play'.  How would I have any idea what that is supposed to mean when you make it up as you go?

Oh, and hey, there is that ad hominem you were looking for.

QuoteAnyway, on to the question at hand: play culture is the full range of learned, play-based behavior patterns that are specific to a particular roleplaying game. It describes how a game is organised, played and amended by an informed userbase who are in regular contact with one another.

So...  following the rules?  Talking to other players occasionally?

Seriously?  That's all it is?  Pseudo thinks it is some act equivalent to the Oracle at Delphi to 'predict' people would follow the rules and talk on the internet.  What's next in your collective bag of tricks, are you going to guess my username?

No wonder you were stalling on that one.

QuoteNow, let's watch you push for more precising definitions as you scrabble around for something - anything - that helps you keep up with the denunciations. Whatever it takes to hide you woefully thin undrstanding of 4E.

No, that definition is quite pitiful enough without having to press you to further embarrass yourself.  I am sure you consider it quite clever, but really, 'learning the rules'?

You certainly have a keen grasp of the obvious.

Of course, 3e never had large mounds of books that were intended to be essential to play.

And, of course, no conspiracy theorist could ever think that maybe the secondary books brought out ever more powerful stuff to provide even more incentive to buy them.

Here's a theory of mine: I don't need to know WotC's motives. If they bring out stuff I don't want to play, I won't buy it. If they bring out stuff most people don't want to play, they will fail.

If they continually produce sub-par, 'oh, here's another bit that should have been in a main book' stuff, then people won't buy them because they cost too much money and they will fail.

Or, you know, they could be trying to replace mounds of secondary books with once-a-year essentials and then a few secondary works to flesh them out.

Either way, I don't have to theorize ahead of actions on what or why they are doing. Fail motives produce fail books, which ends in fail for them. Screaming and yelling at them just produces a lot of verbiage.

I have yet to see any sort of positive result from screaming and yelling - Including mine.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;262187Of course, 3e never had large mounds of books that were intended to be essential to play.

And, of course, no conspiracy theorist could ever think that maybe the secondary books brought out ever more powerful stuff to provide even more incentive to buy them.

Agreed.  The trend can be said to have started with the original Unearthed Arcana, but it really kicked into high gear with 2nd edition.  The ideas were actually damn good ones, but the implementation was oftentimes very sub-par.  The Monstrous Compendiums were a good example.  One monster per page, loose-leaf so you can organize them how you wanted.  Well, it ended up being one monster on the facing page, then one monster on the obverse page more often than not.  As much of a woolly-pated environmentalist nut as I have been called, I think adding a bit to each entry to get some data on the back, or some supplemental information, or when necessary, just leave the back page blank for notes or something was a good deal less wasteful than the actual product ended up being.  Same with the Complete Handbooks.  Great idea, but the kits were all over the map, some had good information, others had garbage, and after they covered all the classes and races, they really should have started on another line of books.

4e is not the first, nor is it the greatest offender in this regard.  3.x continued the trend from 2nd edition in a big way, more or less out of the gate.  If I recall, the 3.0 books were followed quickly by Sword and Fist, then Blood and Tome within six or eight months.

The funeral meats did coldly furnish the wedding table, as it were.  :)

Quote from: StormBringer;262181And yet, you keep bitching about it, as though you will be able to use this as a distraction for not having presented an argument.


I've denounced what, exactly?  Your vague and undefined terminology?


No, I was saying that your 'culture of play' is emergent nonsense.  In fact, I was unaware that particular set of theories even considers emergent behaviour.  I would say it is a mistake if they do, the topic is a good deal more complicated than I would guess they are able to handle.


Well, no, because you are just now scrambling for a description of 'culture of play'.  How would I have any idea what that is supposed to mean when you make it up as you go?

Oh, and hey, there is that ad hominem you were looking for.


So...  following the rules?  Talking to other players occasionally?

Seriously?  That's all it is?  Pseudo thinks it is some act equivalent to the Oracle at Delphi to 'predict' people would follow the rules and talk on the internet.  What's next in your collective bag of tricks, are you going to guess my username?

No wonder you were stalling on that one.


No, that definition is quite pitiful enough without having to press you to further embarrass yourself.  I am sure you consider it quite clever, but really, 'learning the rules'?

You certainly have a keen grasp of the obvious.

As obvious as your continual attempts to shift position. You have no argument to speak of, no analysis to offer, nothing beyond a wildly contradictory set of avoidance tactics.

If you're seriously claiming that "Learning the rules" represents the totality of summation I offered then I have nothing more to say to you. I'm done wasting my time on someone unable to construct anything beyond his desperate need for personal validation via groupthink.

Go back and denounce more people who have nothing to do with GNS of being "Forgist." Then pretend you didn't. Then argue about how things are simulteaneously exactly the same and completely different from thirty years ago. Try laying blame at the feet of the designers, then shifting the same hollow accusations to the userbase - or even individual members of this site - when it's demonstrated that you haven't even the loosest grasp of what you're talking about.

In short, continue behaving in the wildly inconsistent and intellectually bankrupt way you have in this thread, and remember that "no, YOU are!" is always there in case you need to crack out the really big guns. Toodle pip.

Drew> Thanks for the assistance. It's unfortunate that Stormbringer is an intellectually dishonest troll.

:popcorn:

Quote from: CavScout;262203:popcorn:

The talk is so hot because the stakes are so low :).

IMO, Mearls is a guy with old-edition sensibilities that works on a game that may not fit with them anymore. However, I would never begrudge a game designer the urge to treat any game like their own personal lump of clay. That's definitely rocks and glass houses territory.

Quote from: CavScout;262203:popcorn:

Agreed, but this one comment is so very true when typing at 4e fanatics.

Quote from: StormBringer;262172Mearls and 4e didn't introduce the wheel.

Quote from: CavScout;262203:popcorn:

Oh, the fucking irony...

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262202Drew> Thanks for the assistance. It's unfortunate that Stormbringer is an intellectually dishonest troll.

So, no point to make either, then?  Not even going to try to expand on the 'culture of play'?

You could lack the courage of your convictions, but you have none.  Just this latest ploy to appear thoughtful, and oh so 'too cool for school'.

Please, display this vast intellectual honestly, and make something like an argument.

Quote from: Drew;262201As obvious as your continual attempts to shift position. You have no argument to speak of, no analysis to offer, nothing beyond a wildly contradictory set of avoidance tactics.

Yes, shifting the focus to the other weak parts of your statements is an avoidance tactic.

QuoteIf you're seriously claiming that "Learning the rules" represents the totality of summation I offered then I have nothing more to say to you. I'm done wasting my time on someone unable to construct anything beyond his desperate need for personal validation via groupthink.

You didn't actually have anything to say in the first place, clearly.

Also, that isn't the sum total of my interpretation of your doublespeak, but it was clear you weren't actually reading the posts in this thread sometime ago.

"play culture is the full range of learned, play-based behavior patterns that are specific to a particular roleplaying game. It describes how a game is organised, played and amended by an informed userbase who are in regular contact with one another."
"So...  following the rules?  Talking to other players occasionally?

Seriously? That's all it is? Pseudo thinks it is some act equivalent to the Oracle at Delphi to 'predict' people would follow the rules and talk on the internet. What's next in your collective bag of tricks, are you going to guess my username?"

QuoteGo back and denounce more people who have nothing to do with GNS of being "Forgist." Then pretend you didn't. Then argue about how things are simulteaneously exactly the same and completely different from thirty years ago. Try laying blame at the feet of the designers, then shifting the same hollow accusations to the userbase - or even individual members of this site - when it's demonstrated that you haven't even the loosest grasp of what you're talking about.

Yes, please keep bitching about presentation rather than content,  That is doing wonders for your "argument".  Well, it might be, if you had one.  But here, check this out:  "Then argue about how things are simulteaneously exactly the same and completely different from thirty years ago"  We still pay taxes, like we did 30 years ago.  But the amount is different.  Holy shit!  The government doesn't even have the loosest grasp of what they are talking about!

QuoteIn short, continue behaving in the wildly inconsistent and intellectually bankrupt way you have in this thread, and remember that "no, YOU are!" is always there in case you need to crack out the really big guns. Toodle pip.

Certainly, because the height of intellectual richness is bitching about the way your opponent presents points you are unwilling or unable to answer.  Escpecially after pulling some ad hoc, tautological, complete bullshit answer out of your ass.

"play culture is the full range of learned, play-based behavior patterns that are specific to a particular roleplaying game"
Learning the rules.  Your towering intellect is truly breathtaking.  I am assuming you will use it to further demonstrate how you are unable to grasp the intricacies of normal debate rather than supporting this poor, ragged point you have introduced.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;261943Heh.

I don't remember the level our characters were at, but I remember back in Junior High, a erstwhile DM obviously just paging through the MM and picking out whatever looked cool uttered a phrase that will live forever in my memory:

"You encounter a Demogorgon."

Way back in Lotsoftimeago, there was a rather infamous AD&D club in Budapest, where, in addition to inventing the +7 vorpal mace, it was a common test for high level characters to slay their Orcus and take its wand. Some folks were running around with two or three of those things.

Needless to say, they were an anomaly, although an entertaining one. Still, by all accounts, they had fun, and the games were challenging.

+7 works, if it's +5 and bane. Maces can have sharp edges - Add magic and Vorpal isn't impossible.

Also, if Manshoon can have hundreds of clones strewn everywhere, so can Orcus.

Quote from: StormBringer;261892The fuck?

Seen it happen. I usually DMed, but occasionally I wanted to play and one of my players would try his hand at DMing. Very inexperienced, but he actually wasn't that bad a DM overall. He had Asmodeus show up when our PCs were 1st level. No illusion. It was the Big A himself. It was actually kinda fun in a horrifying way. Sure, it was a "WTF?!?" moment, but it's stuck with me for 25 years or so, so I can't say it ruined my play experience.

I've always liked wandering monsters. What I did to save time, though, was determine ahead of time exactly what critters or other types of encounters would show up, then determine when and where they showed up randomly during the game. I put the stats on index cards and kept them ready. I just recently unearthed some of these cards while cleaning out stuff at my parents' place. They ranged from lost mules laden with supplies to skeletons to the Ghostbusters to a potion dispensing machine that looked like a Coke machine.

Quote from: StormBringer;262019Because everyone else in the thread related an anecdote that was clearly intended to show that Orcus on level 1 reached a new level of fucked-up, and claims that it was common in anyway were equally fucked-up.

Certainly not commonplace, no, and yes, it was fucked up (though fun at times). Over the years, I've heard of such stuff happening in various groups, and have seen even more such reports with the advent of the internet. It's all anecdotal, sure, but apparently it happened enough to become a trope - much like the tales of groups plowing through Deities & Demigods like it was the Monster Manual. I'd always assumed that was unique to my group until I went online almost ten years ago now and ran across a number of other people relating the exact same thing happening in their groups. I'd guess it must be a solid minority of groups that had such things happen, especially the younger ones.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;262306+7 works, if it's +5 and bane. Maces can have sharp edges - Add magic and Vorpal isn't impossible.

Back Then (tm), a +7 weapon was considered utterly ridiculous. Guess times have changed. :D

Depends on the campaign Melan. I saw many such things back in the day. Especially in the free wheeling junior high period of the very late 70's. FWIW, I have yet to give away any magic items whilst using 4e.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;262319Certainly not commonplace, no, and yes, it was fucked up (though fun at times). Over the years, I've heard of such stuff happening in various groups, and have seen even more such reports with the advent of the internet. It's all anecdotal, sure, but apparently it happened enough to become a trope - much like the tales of groups plowing through Deities & Demigods like it was the Monster Manual. I'd always assumed that was unique to my group until I went online almost ten years ago now and ran across a number of other people relating the exact same thing happening in their groups. I'd guess it must be a solid minority of groups that had such things happen, especially the younger ones.

That kind of thing makes my brain hurt.  I know tales of killing Thor with a push spell from Dragon magazine and such, but the wandering monster deal is something new.

Which turns the question itself rather around:  For the groups who were encountering Demogorgon and Orcus playing poker with Tiamat and Thor on the first level, were they necessarily complaining about it?  I don't doubt some were having great fun at the time, and others were groaning at the thought of rolling up more characters for the third time that session.

All in all, though, I don't see this as an indictment of the concept of wandering monsters as a whole.

Quote from: StormBringer;262244So, no point to make either, then?  Not even going to try to expand on the 'culture of play'?

You could lack the courage of your convictions, but you have none.  Just this latest ploy to appear thoughtful, and oh so 'too cool for school'.

Please, display this vast intellectual honestly, and make something like an argument.

You're not only a troll, you're a troll who can't use the search function on these forums. I'm not going to waste my time talking with an idiot.

I though that was the entire point of the internet.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262397You're not only a troll, you're a troll who can't use the search function on these forums. I'm not going to waste my time talking with an idiot.

In other words, you don't really have anything to offer the discussion.

I only wish that were surprising.

Quote from: StormBringer;262400In other words, you don't really have anything to offer the discussion.

I only wish that were surprising.

Actually, I've got quite a bit to say, just not to you troll. I've already proposed a way of integrating short rests and wandering monsters in 4e. Should you ever try 4e, instead of just complaining about it vociferously on the internet, you might even want to try my method.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262404Actually, I've got quite a bit to say, just not to you troll. I've already proposed a way of integrating short rests and wandering monsters in 4e. Should you ever try 4e, instead of just complaining about it vociferously on the internet, you might even want to try my method.

Then point to that thread and shut your cockholster.  Despite your protestations to the contrary, you have been quite interested in maintaining this conversation with me in particular.  Of course, your interest has nothing to do with engaging in this conversation, but simply to demonstrate your pseudo-intellectual superiority.

As to the conversation in general, I am awaiting something more to 'culture of play' than 'learn the rules and talk about them'.  Unless you agree with that definition, in which case, I won't need to peruse any other of your drooling ramblings, as they will be as useless to any kind of discussion as your current involvement.

And in case I forgot, you are a douchebag.

Quote from: StormBringer;262388All in all, though, I don't see this as an indictment of the concept of wandering monsters as a whole.

To be clear, the "demogorgon on level one" article and the "re-inventing wandering monsters" article were in different blog entries. In my OP I cited them not as a means to link them, but as two different instances of design bits (being "wandering monsters" and "noncombat powers of powerful monsters") that were IMO carelessly discarded from the ruleset, and saw the fact a designer addressed these two "bits that got axed under his watch" in his blog  as somewhat interesting.

Quote from: StormBringer;262407Then point to that thread and shut your cockholster.

It was on this very thread.

QuoteDespite your protestations to the contrary, you have been quite interested in maintaining this conversation with me in particular.  Of course, your interest has nothing to do with engaging in this conversation, but simply to demonstrate your pseudo-intellectual superiority.

What "conversation"? We've already established that you have severe problems with reading comprehension and basic reasoning skills, have a limited and deficient understanding of how 4e is played, and have trouble confusing the rules of the game as written with Mike Mearls' toss-off ideas in his personal blog.

QuoteAs to the conversation in general, I am awaiting something more to 'culture of play' than 'learn the rules and talk about them'.  Unless you agree with that definition, in which case, I won't need to peruse any other of your drooling ramblings, as they will be as useless to any kind of discussion as your current involvement.

That's a rather tortuous way of saying that you don't know how to use the search function.

QuoteAnd in case I forgot, you are a douchebag.

That remains the single lamest verbal tic on these forums.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;262408To be clear, the "demogorgon on level one" article and the "re-inventing wandering monsters" article were in different blog entries. In my OP I cited them not as a means to link them, but as two different instances of design bits (being "wandering monsters" and "noncombat powers of powerful monsters") that were IMO carelessly discarded from the ruleset, and saw the fact a designer addressed these two "bits that got axed under his watch" in his blog  as somewhat interesting.

Certainly.  However, what I find even more interesting is at one point excoriating the 1st level Orcus notion, he thereafter posits the idea of using Orcus with 1st level characters as a skill challenge.  Which carries its own problems, as noted by Mr. Wilen previously.  Of course, the skill challenge idea also fails to address the idea of wandering monsters, rather presenting it as a kind of 'wandering skill challenge'.

Quote from: StormBringer;262413Certainly.  However, what I find even more interesting is at one point excoriating the 1st level Orcus notion, he thereafter posits the idea of using Orcus with 1st level characters as a skill challenge.  Which carries its own problems, as noted by Mr. Wilen previously.  Of course, the skill challenge idea also fails to address the idea of wandering monsters, rather presenting it as a kind of 'wandering skill challenge'.

That's because you're confusing two different blog entries.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262411It was on this very thread.

I hope you aren't referring to this:

QuoteIf you will recall our conversations right after 4e came out: As I said I hoped would happen, we are seeing a very vibrant "culture of play" emerge in 4e. The only people who seem to be hanging off of Mearls' every word are people who are not playing the game (Stormbringer, for example, appears to read Mearls' blog frequently; I, who play 4e weekly, don't pay attention to it in the slightest).

It took my group two sessions into our "We're going to play everything by the book to get a feel for it" campaign before we were already making rulings, fiddling with the encounter system and adapting the skill challenge system in ways amenable to our preferred style of play. We are by no means exceptional, as the testimony of 4e players all over the internet is demonstrating.

Because that is in the top ten mealy-mouthed 'too cool for school' exercises in masturbation.  Your whole point of 'culture of play' is 'learn the rules and talk about them'.  You tweaked a few things here and there.  Whoopty-shit.  Were you expecting a medal of some kind?

Especially in your case, 'more words' does not equal 'more content'.

QuoteWhat "conversation"? We've already established that you have severe problems with reading comprehension and basic reasoning skills, have a limited and deficient understanding of how 4e is played, and have trouble confusing the rules of the game as written with Mike Mearls' toss-off ideas in his personal blog.

Yes, but you are still describing my actions rather than engaging the thread.  Douchebag.

QuoteThat's a rather tortuous way of saying that you don't know how to use the search function.

No, it's a rather direct way of saying your diarrheaic self-aggrandizement isn't worth searching for.

QuoteThat remains the single lamest verbal tic on these forums.

Not as long as the archive keeps everything you have posted.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262415That's because you're confusing two different blog entries.

Two different blog entries by the same person.  Hence, continuity of thought.

Douchebag.

I don't blame you for not being able to find the passage where I talk about short rests and wandering monsters in this thread. I know it's difficult to do so with the level of reading disability you have.

I mean, an ordinary person would simply have scanned through the perhaps twenty or so posts I've made in this thread and looked for the words "short rest" and "wandering monsters" occurring in the same post. Evidently that's too difficult to do though.

And you still don't know what a "culture of play" is.

Quote from: StormBringer;262388That kind of thing makes my brain hurt.  I know tales of killing Thor with a push spell from Dragon magazine and such, but the wandering monster deal is something new.

Which turns the question itself rather around:  For the groups who were encountering Demogorgon and Orcus playing poker with Tiamat and Thor on the first level, were they necessarily complaining about it?  I don't doubt some were having great fun at the time, and others were groaning at the thought of rolling up more characters for the third time that session.

All in all, though, I don't see this as an indictment of the concept of wandering monsters as a whole.

I love wandering monsters. I was sad to see them gradually fade from D&D, especially during the 3e era. It puzzles me when guys like Mearls (and believe me, I'm a fan of Mearls' work, so I'm not a basher) or Ryan Dancey seem not to fully get what made wandering monsters cool, or at least not understand why such an element of the game came about in the first place.

Even as a 13 year old, I understood that wandering monsters lent an air of verisimilitude to an adventure, even if only on an intuitive level. They made the adventure seem like part of a living world, even when the wanderers were strange or seemingly out of place. They made players think - "why the hell are these goblins here, now?"

Dancey (another guy whose contribution to gaming - and D&D, specifically - I esteem) made some statements about having wandering monsters be commensurate with the power level of the PC party. Again, even as 13 year olds in 1979, my gaming group felt somewhat differently. In a dungeon, the wandering critters would be roughly equivalent to the "level" of the dungeon they appeared on. It just seemed logical to us - things got tougher as one descended, but it was a gradual thing - otherwise the dungeon, being an enclosed space, would have been depopulated by the disproportionately powerful critter(s). In the outdoors, though, all bets were off, especially way out in the wilds. Ancient red dragons could fly over 1st level parties, for example. The outdoors allowed more room to both spot such monsters before they spotted the PCs, and more room to run from obviously tougher wandering monsters. Press the issue and pick a fight with that terrasque instead of hightailing it away, though, and you'd pay the consequences. Such stuff also indicated to us as PCs that the world was a living, breathing place that didn't change just to accommodate us.

Overall, we enjoyed wandering monsters, even when they were way too tough. The oddball over-the-top encounters, like Asmodeus, were fairly rare, and became more so as we got older, so they never got annoying. Besides, we knew to run when we were in over our heads. Sometimes the running could be as fun as the fighting.

Quote from: StormBringer;262421Two different blog entries by the same person.  Hence, continuity of thought.

Douchebag.

HAH! That's just about the lamest excuse I've seen you make yet.

Two different blog entries don't have to directly address the same topics. One is on using skill challenges with monsters that are too difficult for PCs to defeat in combat, and the other is about wandering monsters.

As Caesar Slaad himself pointed out, the only link between them is that they're information that Mearls wished he could have included in the DMG. That you're consistently confusing them and talking about them as if they were a single text is hilarious.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262425HAH! That's just about the lamest excuse I've seen you make yet.

Two different blog entries don't have to directly address the same topics. One is on using skill challenges with monsters that are too difficult for PCs to defeat in combat, and the other is about wandering monsters.

As Caesar Slaad himself pointed out, the only link between them is that they're information that Mearls wished he could have included in the DMG. That you're consistently confusing them and talking about them as if they were a single text is hilarious.

Seriously?  And you think I have reading comprehension problems?

Quote from: StormBringer;262431Seriously?  And you think I have reading comprehension problems?

Yes I do. And yes, you are confusing the two separate blog entries. Anything else you need clarified and simplified?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262423I don't blame you for not being able to find the passage where I talk about short rests and wandering monsters in this thread. I know it's difficult to do so with the level of reading disability you have.

Oh, no, I found it.  It was more useless blather, but I found that one.  You'll notice no one else cared enough about it to make comments, either.

QuoteI mean, an ordinary person would simply have scanned through the perhaps twenty or so posts I've made in this thread and looked for the words "short rest" and "wandering monsters" occurring in the same post. Evidently that's too difficult to do though.

You are just about the only one talking about that, however.  The rest of us are talking about wandering monsters in general.

QuoteAnd you still don't know what a "culture of play" is.

That is because I don't involve myself in pseudo-intellectual fappery.  At least Melan put together a thoughtful concept and defended it when asked.  He certainly didn't just respond with "And you still don't know what the Tyranny of Fun is".

I think you need look no further than yourself for this intellectual dishonesty you are on a witch hunt after.  But of course, you really aren't interested in that kind of thing, just the cache of accusing others of falling prey to it.

Here's the deal, you have refused on every occasion to re-define or attempt to defend this 'culture of play'.  Therefore, anyone reading this is going to use my definition, 'learning the rules and talking about them'.  Hence, you have not presented a counter-point, so my point stands.

:popcorn:

:combust:

Quote from: StormBringer;262433Oh, no, I found it.  It was more useless blather, but I found that one.  You'll notice no one else cared enough about it to make comments, either.

Drew did. Once again, you're showing serious problems with actually reading people's posts, whether here or on Mike Mearls' blog or anywhere else.

QuoteYou are just about the only one talking about that, however.  The rest of us are talking about wandering monsters in general.

People are discussing both issues, and several others as well. Try to read what people are writing. I know you have serious problems with that, but do try.

QuoteThat is because I don't involve myself in pseudo-intellectual fappery.  At least Melan put together a thoughtful concept and defended it when asked.  He certainly didn't just respond with "And you still don't know what the Tyranny of Fun is".

Actually, he does as well, should you care to use the search function to find the thread where he defines the "Tyranny of Fun". Once again, you're showing yourself ignorant. Heck, if memory serves, one of the places I defined the term "culture of play" was _on_ the "Tyranny of Fun" thread, which shows how closely you read that.

QuoteI think you need look no further than yourself for this intellectual dishonesty you are on a witch hunt after.  But of course, you really aren't interested in that kind of thing, just the cache of accusing others of falling prey to it.

Here's the deal, you have refused on every occasion to re-define or attempt to defend this 'culture of play'.  Therefore, anyone reading this is going to use my definition, 'learning the rules and talking about them'.  Hence, you have not presented a counter-point, so my point stands.

I'm perfectly willing to define the term "culture of play" to anyone, other than you, who asks, and have done so on a couple of occasions previously, and will happily do so in future.

You're simply not worth my time, because you're a vile, intellectually dishonest troll who especially merits my contempt. Also, it appears to drive you hilariously bugfuck nuts that I won't and I take a great deal of enjoyment from that.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262450You're simply not worth my time, because you're a vile, intellectually dishonest troll who especially merits my contempt. Also, it appears to drive you hilariously bugfuck nuts that I won't and I take a great deal of enjoyment from that.

No, what irritates me is your intellectual laziness, while you attempt to impugn people with claims of intellectual dishonesty.  So keep responding, contrary to your claims to despise doing so.

Douchebag.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262450Actually, he does as well, should you care to use the search function to find the thread where he defines the "Tyranny of Fun". Once again, you're showing yourself ignorant. Heck, if memory serves, one of the places I defined the term "culture of play" was _on_ the "Tyranny of Fun" thread, which shows how closely you read that.

Oh, look, I found some stuff.

QuoteAnyhow, various groups balance these two options (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=221547&postcount=189) as they see fit, with some tending more towards one extreme or another. Various systems may have features that encourage one style of play over another, but ultimately, the culture of play (individuals, groups, conventions, public discussions between those entities, etc.) surrounding a game is far more important than specific features of the system.

Huh.  So, 'learn the rules and talk about them'.  Good thing I went to the trouble of finding that.  That's five minutes of my life I won't be getting back.

Oh, look, other people think you are a douchebag, too:

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221531Having read this three times, I don't understand how "an imaginative world models modular components interacting according to their own internal logic."

A world models components. No idea whether that's bad English, faulty logic or both. It does sound boardgamey to me-he?

Other than that, do me a favor, Pseudo.

If you have a fundamental disagreement, state it up front rather than engage in a discussion as though there's this basic consensus and you're just arguing a detail. For that IS called muddying the waters, passive-aggressive, obtuse, take your pick.

Simple question of debate culture, kid.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;221555You see, PI, the rules are the physics of the world, which is why a game of Othello played on January 10, 1982, between Stephen H. Moss and Andrew Gundersen, in the den of Gundersen's parents' house in Kankakee, IL, is the bestest most epic imagined fantasy world ever.

More seriously, once we get past the "who's marginalizing whom" whining, the point as I see it is that the specific features of the system are strong evidence of the culture of play under whose influence the game was designed, and whom it's designed to cater to.

Yet Pseudoephedrine can't accept commentary on how the game has changed over the years unless it's from a uniformly appreciative perspective. If the change isn't liked, well then, it turns out it wasn't a change after all.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221557Actually, a dozen people here are on the same page, as I explained to you previously. Whereas you'd like to play people's tribune, when with regard to my actual question, those reams of text you produced boil down to one statement:

There are Continual Light street lamps in Eberron.

We do know why that is. How the entirety of Eberron the game world is extrapolated from 3.x is what we'd like to know.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221567This is the last call, kid. After that you pay tuition for talking to me:

Do not pretend you were born yesterday.



I was trying to understand how according to you "the world models components."

Turns out that, beyond the street lamps, it doesn't.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;221570Please, O rejector of follicles.

The rules of the game have changed up to and through 4e. That is an objective fact.

Two questions remain.

• Why did they change?

The clue is that the culture had already changed prior to the writing of 4e. For a game produced by a major public corporation, it would be hard to believe that the design wasn't after all intended to cater to contemporary tastes.

I suppose you can argue that tastes (or more accurately the distribution of tastes) haven't changed over the years, that 4e is merely a more perfect version of what people always wanted back in 1973. Be my guest.

• Will the new rules have a further effect on the culture?

Who knows? I suspect they will--a fair number of existing gamers are going to refuse to make the jump, or will even switch to an earlier version of D&D or possibly another game altogether. The dynamics will be pretty complex.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221576And I'm putting you down.

I gave you a whole list of names a month ago.

I don't claim there's a consensus across this entire forum. I am not interested in producing one, either. I do claim there is one within it.

Do not make up straw men. Do not pretend you were born yesterday.

As for arguing with you, it's like pulling teeth. I ask how "the world models components" in Eberron. First, I'm told in reply I'm Edwards because I find the examples rather lacking. Then I'm told that, actually, there's modelling going on all over the place after all.

You have authority issues, young man, and I'm not the one to resolve them. Good luck.

Quote from: James J Skach;221579I don't know about sides here, but don't estimate the number of people who agree with Melan, or at least think the point of the Tyranny of Fun to be something to consider.

As "near-vacuous" as you think it to be, the fact that the rules changed is an objective fact upon which the discussion/debate can be built. Since you seem to be in search of a common agreed framework, perhaps agreeing that the rules have changed is a good starting point.


Well, there's an assumption buried in there. Are you sure WotC wants players of previous editions? Which ones? I'd probably agree they were after 3.x players, but 1e? OD&D? I did not get the sense they were after them. I also didn't get the sense they were much after a certain segment of 3.x players.

And this is one of the points - if you take that list, really break it down, IMHO you could very easily segregate that market along different lines and see a much different picture.


Isn't that a culture influenced by a rule set?

Quote from: Settembrini;221581Missin´ me much?

Pseudo, there´s no argument in your last statements. Only attacks.

There´s a debate. It is about the CULTURE of development & design, and it´s about the intended resulting CULTURE. Let´s call it target-culture.

You are saying that the enlightened Gang of Four has it all wrong, because of ...what? Lacking consensus on a forum? -> Try again.

You are yourself:

1) denying the existance of definable cultures / denying the findings of the old school community and professional pop cultural magazines and journalists regarding the history of D&D

2) proclaiming you know better what CULTURE is behind 4e. You do this here:

SOURCE: out of your ass.

So.

1) you attack the basis of debate itself
2) use the same basis for your interpretation of the same thing

Pretty please, discuss which evidence you evaluate differently, instead of denying the technique while using it yourself (only without evidence/source/clues/hints)

For example, my personal hypothesis regarding Mike Mearls is, that he does not even grasp what strategic roleplaying is.

evidence/hints:
- does not get Traveller
- has said in 2005 discussions, that he did away with "charged" magic items
- his monster design series
- other blog entries
- no wargaming background that is known of

So. Why do you think Mike Mearls understands strategic gaming? Which other evidence can you field?
Which ones do you interpret differently?

THAT`S the way to discuss. But I fear, it´s not about things, but all about you and your place in the world. If it´s not so: prove it.

Quote from: Settembrini;221601Wow. You are not only seeking your place in the world, you are also inconsequential and stupid.

Go back and read what you said yourself:

Houserules etc.

So. They will be created in a culture. That is purveyed by diferrent channels. Any social/humanities/XXX academic will KNOW BY HART. Now you are narrowing it all down to rules?

That´s what you were accusing US of doing.

That´s. Well. Sorta retarded.

I wish you luck on your personal journey. Get yourselves more important people to fight with. And get yourselves better arguments. Steal some, that´s a time proven thing. Naive people like to use soem form of Marxism. It´s the easy way, and it´s always effective.

Go, rebel.

Quote from: Melan;221690While I have neither willingness nor time to engage an enthusiastic and productive tetrapiloctomist, some of Pseudoephedrine's commentary requires reaction.


Wrong, I made no such claim; in fact, the crux of my argument hangs on the interrelation of rules and their interpretation through the lens of game culture. This is either a case of being mistaken or deliberate misinterpretation.

 
Wrong again; I did not pretend to objectivity. Read my posts. Any perception of such is on the interpreter's side.

And coincidentally as well as on a lighter tone,

Wrong again and again. I am a Times-reading, pocket watch and fountain pen-carrying reactionary. If people were still wearing top hats, I'd own one, if only for the moustache-twirling villainy of it.

(On SL's advice to read the books, I will if I get the opportunity.)

Are you sure you want me using the search function?  Because I am really good with it.  I just kind of figured you might not want to offer that again, since it really undercuts your random babbling that you think passes for 'argument'.

I just saved 5 minutes of my life by not reading that last post!

Quote from: Cranewings;262467I just saved 5 minutes of my life by not reading that last post!

You don't really have to.  It just a pointer to a previous thread where Pseudo thought he defined his culture of play as something other than 'learn the rules and talk about them', when he didn't.  Also, a bunch of other people pointing out his own intellectual dishonestly and laziness, so when he uses that again, it's clear that he needs to clean up his own house first.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;262424I love wandering monsters. I was sad to see them gradually fade from D&D, especially during the 3e era. It puzzles me when guys like Mearls (and believe me, I'm a fan of Mearls' work, so I'm not a basher) or Ryan Dancey seem not to fully get what made wandering monsters cool, or at least not understand why such an element of the game came about in the first place.

Even as a 13 year old, I understood that wandering monsters lent an air of verisimilitude to an adventure, even if only on an intuitive level. They made the adventure seem like part of a living world, even when the wanderers were strange or seemingly out of place. They made players think - "why the hell are these goblins here, now?"

Dancey (another guy whose contribution to gaming - and D&D, specifically - I esteem) made some statements about having wandering monsters be commensurate with the power level of the PC party. Again, even as 13 year olds in 1979, my gaming group felt somewhat differently. In a dungeon, the wandering critters would be roughly equivalent to the "level" of the dungeon they appeared on. It just seemed logical to us - things got tougher as one descended, but it was a gradual thing - otherwise the dungeon, being an enclosed space, would have been depopulated by the disproportionately powerful critter(s). In the outdoors, though, all bets were off, especially way out in the wilds. Ancient red dragons could fly over 1st level parties, for example. The outdoors allowed more room to both spot such monsters before they spotted the PCs, and more room to run from obviously tougher wandering monsters. Press the issue and pick a fight with that terrasque instead of hightailing it away, though, and you'd pay the consequences. Such stuff also indicated to us as PCs that the world was a living, breathing place that didn't change just to accommodate us.

Overall, we enjoyed wandering monsters, even when they were way too tough. The oddball over-the-top encounters, like Asmodeus, were fairly rare, and became more so as we got older, so they never got annoying. Besides, we knew to run when we were in over our heads. Sometimes the running could be as fun as the fighting.

I agree with you totally. I don't tend to run a lot of wondering monsters. I don't get to play often, I'm almost always the GM, especially for dnd. It seems like my players enjoy random fights, but, they don't seem fun to me (; I will throw in a seemingly random encounter from time to time if there is too much talking though.

Running a big group makes it hard to have random fights. First off, not a lot of random stuff will mess with 6-8 armed men in the woods. Secondly, if we only get to play for 3-4 hours, a random fight or two can eat a huge % of the session. Finally, people expect their characters to only die in story related ways... so random encounters don't have any teeth and are hardly worth running in my game.

I know what you mean though... I'm about to start running a new dnd game, and after reading your post I'm thinking I'm going to bring them back.

Quote from: StormBringer;262469You don't really have to.  It just a pointer to a previous thread where Pseudo thought he defined his culture of play as something other than 'learn the rules and talk about them', when he didn't.  Also, a bunch of other people pointing out his own intellectual dishonestly and laziness, so when he uses that again, it's clear that he needs to clean up his own house first.

Damn StormBringer, I wanted to get in on the drama. You could have been a dick... but now I feel ashamed. Way to take the high ground and just explain yourself.

Quote from: Cranewings;262472Damn StormBringer, I wanted to get in on the drama. You could have been a dick... but now I feel ashamed. Way to take the high ground and just explain yourself.

Sorry about that.  Ummm...

I find your points well reasoned and hope things work out in your D&D game, asshole!

Better?  ;)

Let me address this really quick, though:

Quote from: CranewingsRunning a big group makes it hard to have random fights. First off, not a lot of random stuff will mess with 6-8 armed men in the woods. Secondly, if we only get to play for 3-4 hours, a random fight or two can eat a huge % of the session. Finally, people expect their characters to only die in story related ways... so random encounters don't have any teeth and are hardly worth running in my game.

It can be tricky for a larger group, but remember, 'wandering monsters' can also be thought of as 'wandering encounters', so it's not always something the party would have to fight.  A group of Halflings out hunting, or a merchant caravan, if they are near a road.  It can even be a ruined keep or decrepit temple complex with a little cash lying around.

I think you will find that AD&D combats, even random ones no one is exactly prepared for, really don't take up that much time.  I understand players don't like losing characters to essentially random monsters, but you can give them minimum, or 30% of max hit points or something.  The point is, should the magic user launch that fireball, if they aren't even to the dungeon yet?  Should we break out the healing potions if we get beat up a little?

Also, if it is in the wilderness especially, give the players a bit of warning that something is on the way.  Rustling in the bushes, tree branches snapping off, and so on.  You don't need to have that random pack of orcs necessarily fight to the death if there is nothing for them to defend, either.  Maybe a round or two of exchanges, and they take off to avoid losses.

Just some unsolicited advice, though, feel free to ignore it, if you weren't looking for that.

Last night I played D&D with my kids til 10:00, went to play poker until 3:00 AM, and won, then woke up to play D&D again for 3 hours this AM.

Then I get included with Melan, PI, Mr. Wilen, and Sett.

The best weekend evar...

Quote from: StormBringer;262465Oh, look, I found some stuff.

Huh.  So, 'learn the rules and talk about them'.  Good thing I went to the trouble of finding that.  That's five minutes of my life I won't be getting back.

I'm glad I can waste as much of it as possible.

And you still don't understand it. Which is funny as hell, because it's a fairly obvious concept.

QuoteOh, look, other people think you are a douchebag, too:

None of those fellows are particularly fond of me, it's true. But whereas I can have a productive conversation with them - and have on many occasions - you're still little more than a troll.

QuoteAre you sure you want me using the search function?  Because I am really good with it.  I just kind of figured you might not want to offer that again, since it really undercuts your random babbling that you think passes for 'argument'.

Actually, it doesn't in the slightest. You managed to dig up a bunch of people disagreeing with me in a highly contentious thread - after I pointed you directly at that thread and mentioned that you ought to search it several times - and mistook that for a refutation.

Sorry, Stormy, but you're really not very good at this thing. As Drew pointed out earlier in this thread, you don't have a position or principles of any sort. You're a sophist who merely doesn't like newer D&D editions and who will grasp after any straw, no matter how much any given statement might contradict your previous statements.

Quote from: StormBringer;262459No, what irritates me is your intellectual laziness, while you attempt to impugn people with claims of intellectual dishonesty.  So keep responding, contrary to your claims to despise doing so.

Douchebag.

I never said I "despise" responding to you, you illiterate. I said that I hold you personally in contempt. Once again, due to severe reading comprehension problems, you missed the part where I said riling you up is great fun. And it is. Now I know the joy CavScout has in taking the piss from you.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262578Now I know the joy CavScout has in taking the piss from you.

Except neither of you has.  The more you speak, the more people will know how utterly bankrupt your "ideas".

Quote from: StormBringer;262582Except neither of you has.  The more you speak, the more people will know how utterly bankrupt your "ideas".

Mate, when I've been making fun of you all day for being only semi-literate, you may wish to proofread more thoroughly. I'm glad that you're living down to my expectations, though.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262577I'm glad I can waste as much of it as possible.
And you still don't understand it. Which is funny as hell, because it's a fairly obvious concept.

You can repeat that as much as you like, the fact is, I laid bare the desolation of your ridiculous concept, much like the others I quoted above.

It's really not that I don't understand it, it is that the concept is utterly devoid of anything meaninful.

QuoteNone of those fellows are particularly fond of me, it's true. But whereas I can have a productive conversation with them - and have on many occasions - you're still little more than a troll.

I'm not sure I would personally consider everyone telling you that your idea is completely without merit or worthy of any kind of consideration to be 'productive conversation', but it's your little reality, and you have amply demonstrated that you are incapable of any discussion outside of that.

QuoteActually, it doesn't in the slightest. You managed to dig up a bunch of people disagreeing with me in a highly contentious thread - after I pointed you directly at that thread and mentioned that you ought to search it several times - and mistook that for a refutation.

No, I pointed out that, at no time, did you bother to clarify, expand upon, or even attempt to define this silly 'culture of play' idea.  Much as you are doing now.  Rather than engage the discussion, you are performing the exact same act that people pointed out the previous thread.

QuoteSorry, Stormy, but you're really not very good at this thing. As Drew pointed out earlier in this thread, you don't have a position or principles of any sort. You're a sophist who merely doesn't like newer D&D editions and who will grasp after any straw, no matter how much any given statement might contradict your previous statements.

Seriously?  I mean, I go find exactly where you define 'culture of play' as 'learning the rules and talking about them', point out that a number of people in that thread pointed out your vapid responses and failure to engage in the discussion, and you come back with this?

I mean, it is quite clear you don't like or play earlier versions of AD&D, which by your reasoning, means you shouldn't be expounding on wandering monsters at all.  You clearly have no concept of how AD&D evolved or how the rules have changed or stayed the same.  This was noted several times in the thread above.  You have no real faculty for discerning general statements from specific arguments, and you are clearly incapable of defending your own points.  I mean, I would like to respond to something you post, but you really don't post anything.  There's no content to your submissions.

To borrow from Wolfgang Paulli, you aren't even wrong.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262583Mate, when I've been making fun of you all day for being only semi-literate, you may wish to proofread more thoroughly. I'm glad that you're living down to my expectations, though.

And you may want to pick up a few more books to learn the wide variety of ways sentences can be structured.

And since Stormbringer appears to be hitting the "repeat" button now, here's some useful content for everyone else:

One useful thing to do is to give PCs a minor quest (put it on a quest card if you want so that they remember). Each location in a dungeon that they can explore without being spotted by or engaging the enemy is worth a set value of experience. Managing to clear sections of a dungeon or castle without raising the alarm might be another goal worth experience.

Now that monsters have passive perception scores, it's also possible to give the PCs a bit more of a sporting chance. Rather than rolling on a table and having the monster wander up or leap out of the darkness or whatever you can try the following. Pick a couple of monster groups to sprinkle around the dungeon and have the PCs randomly roll Stealth or another relevant skill (Athletics might be useful if they're in a tricky situation and the monster would have to climb up or something to reach them, in this case the DC is monster's Athletics + 10).

If they can't beat that score, the monsters spot them, or are able to reach them, or whatever, and they have the random encounter. Until they fail those rolls though, the monster will not notice them and will leave them alone.

Quote from: StormBringer;262588And you may want to pick up a few more books to learn the wide variety of ways sentences can be structured.

A lame attempt to cover your ass on an obvious fuck up caused by your illiteracy.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262589And since Stormbringer appears to be hitting the "repeat" button now, here's some useful content for everyone else

Both of those statements are factually incorrect.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262591A lame attempt to cover your ass on an obvious fuck up caused by your illiteracy.

Resorting to vulgarity?  Perhaps the illiteracy isn't precisely where you indicate.

Quote from:  MongoIR STORMSBRINGER AND I IS SUPA ANGRY! I KIN REEDZ PLENTY GOODZ

It's pretty clear you have a fairly loose understanding of any of my positions, especially when you show such shocking ignorance of my opinion of D&D. I would suggest in future that you attempt to discover what someone else's positions and beliefs are before you claim to have "refuted" them.

I mean heck, you don't even know what I'm talking about when I mention "culture of play" to Elliott, and yet now you're claiming that I'm wrong about it or something. It's unclear what exactly you're taking issue with now; If it really is just "learning the rules and talking to people about them" it's unclear why that's meaningless nonsense, and if it's not (which it isn't), then you don't seem to have any reason to object to it.

Quote from: StormBringer;262595Resorting to vulgarity?  Perhaps the illiteracy isn't precisely where you indicate.

Are you pretending to be shocked by swearing on the internet?

Hah! Stormy, I can't even take you seriously enough any more to really and truly hate your guts. You're just too fantastic a buffoon.

Quote from: StormBringer;262476Sorry about that.  Ummm...

I find your points well reasoned and hope things work out in your D&D game, asshole!

Better?  ;)

Let me address this really quick, though:


It can be tricky for a larger group, but remember, 'wandering monsters' can also be thought of as 'wandering encounters', so it's not always something the party would have to fight.  A group of Halflings out hunting, or a merchant caravan, if they are near a road.  It can even be a ruined keep or decrepit temple complex with a little cash lying around.

I think you will find that AD&D combats, even random ones no one is exactly prepared for, really don't take up that much time.  I understand players don't like losing characters to essentially random monsters, but you can give them minimum, or 30% of max hit points or something.  The point is, should the magic user launch that fireball, if they aren't even to the dungeon yet?  Should we break out the healing potions if we get beat up a little?

Also, if it is in the wilderness especially, give the players a bit of warning that something is on the way.  Rustling in the bushes, tree branches snapping off, and so on.  You don't need to have that random pack of orcs necessarily fight to the death if there is nothing for them to defend, either.  Maybe a round or two of exchanges, and they take off to avoid losses.

Just some unsolicited advice, though, feel free to ignore it, if you weren't looking for that.

No, that's good advice. I might start doing something like that. I'm already pretty heavily thought of as that gm that lets the dice run his game. I roll everything out infront of the players as much as possible. If I added in some serious random tables, it could get pretty funny. I'll see what I can do.

Lata.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262202Drew> Thanks for the assistance. It's unfortunate that Stormbringer is an intellectually dishonest troll.

No worries mate. Fortunately I'm at a place where I no longer feel compelled to argue with people who have demonstrated their disinterest in rational discourse. It's clear his meaningless and contradictory criticisms are nothing more than a smokescreen, hiding colossal ignorance of virtually every topic that's been discussed in this thread.

What's tragic is that all this is nothing more than garden variety compulsivity. There's no way he can stop, no matter how badly he damages his credibility. I've seen him do it on RPGnet - hundreds, if not thousands of wasted posts spent arguing the toss about 4E for no better reason than his terror of being seen to be beaten. That you're doing a creditable job of spanking the life out of him on this thread means that he has to continue. It's the old chestnut of the self-sustaining sacrifices of unjust war, played out on the pettiest scale.

Well, I read through to around page 10ish before I got bored of the whole conversation. I don't much care who won the flaming, but Stormbringer gets bonus points for teaching me a new word for mouth - "cockholster" (as in "shut your cockholster").

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;261887Say wha? There was a big flameout on ENWorld about how powerful monsters like Pit Fiends were SO MUCH BETTER now that they have nice trim little stat blocks that never make you crack open the PHB, and those simulation fans and "there's more to D&D than combat" mantra-speakers were poo-pooed for suggesting there was anything wrong with that. And yet NOW we have some concern about how players might face such creatures in non-combat situations?

I don't get it.

Clearly not. The point about reducing stat blocks for monsters down to functional minimums is that you don't need a lot of superfluous information when using the statblocks in a fight. Since you don't need any information to use monsters in a skill challnge these positions are not incompatible. It was never the view (or if it was then it was the view of a few idiots) that monsters in 4E were for fighting only, merely that a non-combat situation doesn't need a great amount of detailed stats to resolve.

RE wandering monsters, I see how some people found that they added verisimilitude to a dungeon in older editions, but the 4E dungeon design advice clearly suggests that encounters should be based on larger areas where the actions of the players, the noise they make and so on definitely do bring in reinforcements and the like to increase verisimilitude. It's a different take on teh same problem, and on that some of the published adventures still don't seem to get. Ironically, Mearls posted a good example of how it should work in another blog post, with a single encounter comprising different groups of monsters which would trigger at different stages of the fight as the noise travelled, etc, but which could be broken down into smaller, easier encouters by a quite, quiet and careful party.

The flip side of wandering monsters is that they frequently should, if reacting realistically to the invasion of their home, sound the alarm and bring the whole dungeon down on the party's head given half a chance. But they rarely seemed to in the past.

Either way, I don't see how Mearls suggesting a way for interested GMs to reintroduce wandering monster tables in a short blog entry is indicative of a 180 turn on 4E design philosophy.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262603Are you pretending to be shocked by swearing on the internet?

Hah! Stormy, I can't even take you seriously enough any more to really and truly hate your guts. You're just too fantastic a buffoon.

No, child, when you resort to vulgarity, it means you really have nothing more to offer.

I would have thought a pseudo-intellectual like yourself would have known that, but again, I overestimate your abilities.

Quote from: Drew;262663No worries mate. Fortunately I'm at a place where I no longer feel compelled to argue with people who have demonstrated their disinterest in rational discourse. It's clear his meaningless and contradictory criticisms are nothing more than a smokescreen, hiding colossal ignorance of virtually every topic that's been discussed in this thread.

What's tragic is that all this is nothing more than garden variety compulsivity. There's no way he can stop, no matter how badly he damages his credibility. I've seen him do it on RPGnet - hundreds, if not thousands of wasted posts spent arguing the toss about 4E for no better reason than his terror of being seen to be beaten. That you're doing a creditable job of spanking the life out of him on this thread means that he has to continue. It's the old chestnut of the self-sustaining sacrifices of unjust war, played out on the pettiest scale.

And yet, you talk about me rather than the topic.

Quote from: Trevelyan;262675Well, I read through to around page 10ish before I got bored of the whole conversation. I don't much care who won the flaming, but Stormbringer gets bonus points for teaching me a new word for mouth - "cockholster" (as in "shut your cockholster").

Always glad to help.  :)

QuoteClearly not. The point about reducing stat blocks for monsters down to functional minimums is that you don't need a lot of superfluous information when using the statblocks in a fight. Since you don't need any information to use monsters in a skill challnge these positions are not incompatible. It was never the view (or if it was then it was the view of a few idiots) that monsters in 4E were for fighting only, merely that a non-combat situation doesn't need a great amount of detailed stats to resolve.

But PCs have all kinds of 'detailed stats' to resolve non-combat situations.  Why do the players have this superfluous information outside of their statblocks?

QuoteIronically, Mearls posted a good example of how it should work in another blog post, with a single encounter comprising different groups of monsters which would trigger at different stages of the fight as the noise travelled, etc, but which could be broken down into smaller, easier encouters by a quite, quiet and careful party.

That isn't a 'wandering' monster, then.  That is a triggered encounter.

QuoteThe flip side of wandering monsters is that they frequently should, if reacting realistically to the invasion of their home, sound the alarm and bring the whole dungeon down on the party's head given half a chance. But they rarely seemed to in the past.

Why would the orcs in room 15 give a flip about the goblins in room 17c?  Why would the bugbears in 24 give a crap about either of them?

No, the verisimilitude is in the fact that there are other monsters wandering around 'on patrol' as it were.  They are intended to wear down resources.  Much like level drain, it was an in game method for an essentially meta-game concept.

QuoteEither way, I don't see how Mearls suggesting a way for interested GMs to reintroduce wandering monster tables in a short blog entry is indicative of a 180 turn on 4E design philosophy.

I don't think it is a switch in the philosophy of 4e, I think it is an incisive look at the philosophy of the lead designer.  As Caeser Slaad mentioned, hacking away at the mechanics without knowing why they were there was a bad decision, and this is re-inforcement of that.

Quote from: Trevelyan;262675Clearly not. The point about reducing stat blocks for monsters down to functional minimums is that you don't need a lot of superfluous information when using the statblocks in a fight. Since you don't need any information to use monsters in a skill challnge these positions are not incompatible.

I don't need a lesson; I understand the philosophy. I just consider it inadequate.

QuoteIt was never the view (or if it was then it was the view of a few idiots) that monsters in 4E were for fighting only, merely that a non-combat situation doesn't need a great amount of detailed stats to resolve.

I'm okay with the "idiot" theory.

QuoteRE wandering monsters, I see how some people found that they added verisimilitude to a dungeon in older editions, but the 4E dungeon design advice clearly suggests that encounters should be based on larger areas where the actions of the players, the noise they make and so on definitely do bring in reinforcements and the like to increase verisimilitude. It's a different take on teh same problem, and on that some of the published adventures still don't seem to get. Ironically, Mearls posted a good example of how it should work in another blog post, with a single encounter comprising different groups of monsters which would trigger at different stages of the fight as the noise travelled, etc, but which could be broken down into smaller, easier encouters by a quite, quiet and careful party.

The flip side of wandering monsters is that they frequently should, if reacting realistically to the invasion of their home, sound the alarm and bring the whole dungeon down on the party's head given half a chance. But they rarely seemed to in the past.

Cool.

Mearls also wrote an adventure for Fiery Dragon for 3e that had an "alert system" that tried to create a system whereby a complex would respond to battles in its midst.

Now if those sorts of considerations had made it into the rules instead of short-sighted "D&D is all about the combat encounter" sensibilities, they might have had a game worth my attention.

QuoteEither way, I don't see how Mearls suggesting a way for interested GMs to reintroduce wandering monster tables in a short blog entry is indicative of a 180 turn on 4E design philosophy.

I'm not making any sort of claim about any official change here. I just wonder why, if Mearls is as big as a mover as I imagined him to be, this sort of thing wasn't taken account of in the rules instead of needing house rules.

Notwithstanding that I think using the skill challenge system as a bandaid for everything missing is a poor replacement for granting creatures noncombat abilities. Which, in turn, is necessitated by the decision to make all stat blocks self-contained. Such decisions are not without consequences.

Quote from: StormBringer;262699Why would the orcs in room 15 give a flip about the goblins in room 17c?  Why would the bugbears in 24 give a crap about either of them?

Sounds like a bad neighborhood to me. :cool:

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;262709Sounds like a bad neighborhood to me. :cool:

A bad neighborhood with treasure.  ;)

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;262709Sounds like a bad neighborhood to me. :cool:

Eh, the goblins in room 17c keep playing their drums all night long.  Let 'em die.

Quote from: jcfiala;262783Eh, the goblins in room 17c keep playing their drums all night long.  Let 'em die.

:teehee:

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262450I'm perfectly willing to define the term "culture of play" to anyone, other than you, who asks, and have done so on a couple of occasions previously, and will happily do so in future.

Then define this "culture of play" I keep hearing about. Please.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;262863Then define this "culture of play" I keep hearing about. Please.

Sure. It's fairly simple. The culture of play for a game is all those public elements of the game that aren't part of its rules and fluff and designer notes as presented in game books and official communications from the publisher/designer. Every game has at least one culture of play around it.

Pretty simple, eh?

The idea itself isn't very contentious, which is why it's funny Stormy is taking issue with it. The reason I coined it was because there was a debate about how _important_ the culture of play for a game was vs. the "design culture" of the game. The term "design culture" in that debate was taken to mean the rules and designer's notes and so on that the designer of the game used to tell people how the game ought to be played.

Here are some specific examples to make clear what I'm talking about:

1) All the various editions of Vampire contain many different passages where the writers tell you that it is a game of personal horror, that the focus ought to be on the psychological state of the characters, and how the game is intended to allow you to struggle against the beast within, etc.

On the other hand, when you read APs of Vampire, and you talk with folks about what they do in their games, it's pretty clear that Vampire is usually played as a power fantasy, where PCs are more interested in using cool powers and fancy toys to overcome their opposition than focusing on their personal horror.

The idea that Vampire is a game of personal horror is how the designers of the game see it. The culture of play for Vampire though, is very different.

2) The designers in 3.x never once mention optimising characters that I have ever seen in any of my books for 3.x. They clearly design many feats (and a couple of classes) with cool character ideas in mind that are sub-par mechanically.

On the other hand, optimising characters is something that most 3.x players who talk about the game are familiar with and have a position on (even if it's not necessarily a positive opinion). Many 3.x players are also familiar with how to optimise their characters, even if they're not experts at it.

Character optimisation is something that exists in the culture of play for 3.x. The designers don't say anything about it, but people who play the game do talk about it and consider it an important issue to deal with when playing 3.x (once again, it may not be the dominant issue in any given discussion of 3.x, obviously).

3) Some earlier editions of D&D had rules for weapon speed and armour penetration as part of the rules of the game. Anecdotes repeatedly bring up that these rules were widely ignored. Despite the designer's intent that they be used, very few did because the rules were seen as fiddly and impractical. You could join a game of other D&D players and reasonably expect not to have to use those rules, because the culture of play was against them.

So there are three examples of the kinds of things I'm talking about when I say "culture of play". It's not some complicated jargon term with some mysterious and hidden meaning that requires pages to explain (Most of my above post is a set of examples) - I'm insulting Stormy for arguing about it just because of how obvious a thing I think it is. It's pretty clear that his main objection to it is that I said it, not anything to do with the idea itself.

Quote from: StormBringer;262693No, child, when you resort to vulgarity, it means you really have nothing more to offer.

Your frequent, unprovoked use of the term "douchebag" shows plainly how hypocritical this anti-vulgarity position is on your part.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262998Your frequent, unprovoked use of the term "douchebag" shows plainly how hypocritical this anti-vulgarity position is on your part.

Well, if you consider 'douchebag' on the same level of vulgarity as 'on an obvious fuck up', well, it just shows that you are a douchebag.

I would like to second the motion that Pseudoephedrine is a douchebag, regardless of whether or not he can define the term "culture of play".

All in favor?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262996It's pretty clear that his main objection to it is that I said it, not anything to do with the idea itself.

No, my objection is twofold:  That anyone would think that an idea this obvious and self explanatory is worth discussing as though it has any impact, and that you think it is some stunning revelation.

Quote from: jeff37923;263009I would like to second the motion that Pseudoephedrine is a douchebag, regardless of whether or not he can define the term "culture of play".

All in favor?

I don't think Pseudoephedrine or Stormbringer are douchebags. I think this whole "culture of play" idea should have a thread of it's own. It's an interesting idea, IMO. Stormbringer is right, it does seem pretty obvious but then again, a lot of things are esp when it comes to gaming but this does not mean it's not worth discussing.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;263011I don't think Pseudoephedrine or Stormbringer are douchebags. I think this whole "culture of play" idea should have a thread of it's own. It's an interesting idea, IMO. Stormbringer is right, it does seem pretty obvious but then again, a lot of things are esp when it comes to gaming but this does not mean it's not worth discussing.

Regards,
David R

The major downside, which may not be as obvious, is the effort to emphasize the 'play' part.  Pseudo has repeated many, many times that the only people who are qualified to speak of 4e in any manner are those playing it.  The general idea of 'culture of play' is so obvious because it isn't meant to be discussed on its own merits, it is simply a method of separating those who don't play in order to dismiss their opinions out of hand.  The hostility is thick enough to cut with a knife, in fact, as evidenced by Pseudo and Drew on this very thread.

By this line of reasoning, Roger Ebert would be unqualified to speak of Indiana Jones and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull because he wasn't manning a camera, or writing the script.  It's preposterous, of course.  I am sure the refrain will be that Roger Ebert has at least written movies; however, I am quite sure many of the critics of 4e have written games.  In many other cases, they are people with a solid background in game theory and design.

Anyway, I rambled on a bit, and not really at anything you posted in particular.  'Learn the rules and talk about them' isn't the point, it's the smokescreen for the underlying 'you have to play to be qualified to talk about it' argument.

Quote from: David R;263011I don't think Pseudoephedrine or Stormbringer are douchebags.

Regards,
David R

Never said that Stormbringer was one, just Pseudoephedrine. Try to keep on track.

And we still haven't seen a definition for "culture of play" yet.

Quote from: jeff37923;263058Never said that Stormbringer was one, just Pseudoephedrine. Try to keep on track.

Thank you.

QuoteAnd we still haven't seen a definition for "culture of play" yet.

I think my definition is likely as good a definition as you are going to get.

After ruminating off and on today over the above thoughts before I posted them in my reply to David R, I am pretty sure the whole thing is just a smokescreen anyway.

As much as I might disagree with SB; and though I've had  previous sometimes unpleasant discussions with Pseudo...

Culture of Play (Look! Caps!) has been defined. I'm not one for shiny terms (which is, recursively, a shiny term), but I get what Pseudo is saying - it's about a set of perspectives, tips, approaches, etc. that arise from those who play in order to fill gaps they feel exist in the rules as written. It's supported now more than ever because the Internet is such a great F'in tool for facilitation of this nature.

I'm not sure of any specific analogy, but think of it as a "culture" that arises from the use of the product once it gets off the showroom floor and into the hands of the general public.

Now SB's point is also well taken - that is, the danger of focusing on something like the CoP (Hey! An acronym! This is fun!) is that it can often carry with it, whether or not intended, the baggage of "if you haven't played it, you can't talk about it." Which, IMHO, is a bit of a non-sequitor (in the colloquial sense).

As to the OP - I'm not sure just why they chose to remove wandering monsters, but it's one of those things that fits with the drift between me and the goals of the current edition. No skin off my nose, I just keep playing 3.5 and taking in the suggestions of those who are playing 4e in case some day I wish to house rule a version to better fit my tastes.

Perhaps playing a 3.5 version of B2 with the kids recently (three times in the last four days!) has colored my perspective. It does seem that perhaps the long term effects of shedding certain aspects of the game were not considered. Whether they knew them or not before hand is up in the air.

Quote from: James J Skach;263068As much as I might disagree with SB; and though I've had  previous sometimes unpleasant discussions with Pseudo...

Culture of Play (Look! Caps!) has been defined. I'm not one for shiny terms (which is, recursively, a shiny term), but I get what Pseudo is saying - it's about a set of perspectives, tips, approaches, etc. that arise from those who play in order to fill gaps they feel exist in the rules as written. It's supported now more than ever because the Internet is such a great F'in tool for facilitation of this nature.

I'm not sure of any specific analogy, but think of it as a "culture" that arises from the use of the product once it gets off the showroom floor and into the hands of the general public.

Now SB's point is also well taken - that is, the danger of focusing on something like the CoP (Hey! An acronym! This is fun!) is that it can often carry with it, whether or not intended, the baggage of "if you haven't played it, you can't talk about it." Which, IMHO, is a bit of a non-sequitor (in the colloquial sense).

As to the OP - I'm not sure just why they chose to remove wandering monsters, but it's one of those things that fits with the drift between me and the goals of the current edition. No skin off my nose, I just keep playing 3.5 and taking in the suggestions of those who are playing 4e in case some day I wish to house rule a version to better fit my tastes.

Perhaps playing a 3.5 version of B2 with the kids recently (three times in the last four days!) has colored my perspective. It does seem that perhaps the long term effects of shedding certain aspects of the game were not considered. Whether they knew them or not before hand is up in the air.

You sir, and your level-headedness, will be the downfall of the Internet.

Regarding the actual topic line of the thread, the longer I look at 4e, the more I realize that the problems I have with it are almost entirely what was left out.

Don't get me wrong; I actually like a lot of what I've read of 4e. I've been slowly reassembling some of the players I DMed for in the 80s and 90s so I can run the game to see how it plays, but what I've seen indicates it'll be fun, in general. It's just that some of what was left out would have added to that fun, in my experience.

The main thing I miss are non-combat or non-adventuring skills, specifically the Craft and Profession skills of 3e. As far back as when i first started gaming, my fellow players were always trying to cobble together some kind of system for such stuff, whether it was extrapolating from the Secondary Skills table in the 1e DMG, or the later Nonweapon Proficiencies system (such as it was). We tried taking elements from games with skills systems - such as BRP - and bolting them onto D&D. So I know there was at least some call for such stuff.

I actually like the more simplified and errata'ed 4e skill system. I don't understand why they didn't simply add Craft and/or Profession as a couple of generalized skills, much like what was done with Knowledge skills like History. Perhaps they saw some cascade effect that would necessitate larding the system down, something I have caught yet. Maybe they simply stuck with the main design philosophy that seems to pervade 4e - an emphasis on action, specifically combat-related action.

I actually don't have a problem with that philosophy, for the most part. It harkens back to what 1e felt like to me when I first began playing it. D&D has always been about action. That's a good thing. But that doesn't mean everything (or at least, most everything) non-combat related needed to be jettisoned.

I do get the feeling that WotC will eventually present more non-combat related stuff in forthcoming books. Normally I have no problem with the prospect of new material. I like having the opportunity of picking and choosing from a wealth of material. It was actually something I liked about 3e - I didn't mind all the various splatbooks. I never felt like I "had" to get all the books that WotC released, because the core game itself could stand on its own and covered just about any conceivable aspect of D&D game play that I'd had experience with. 4e isn't quite that comprehensive, in my opinion.

I wouldn't need, or want, a really substantial addition, just a few more skill entries and perhaps a page or so about the use of such skills. I don't even feel the need for more non-combat spells or rituals. What there are in the game seem good for a basic, core game (though I'm curious about the arcane power book they have slated). Just a couple skills, that's all. But hell, fan-created works have already appeared to fill such gaps, and y'know, I liked seeing homebrew stuff (or stuff from Dragon or other games) way back in the day. So I'm not too vexed. Just puzzled why the WotC guys didn't try to at least address such stuff in a basic form in 4e.

I'm probably more tweaked at the absence of various monsters, races, and classes that like. But even there, fan efforts have already cropped up. There has already been a massive number of monster conversions to 4e over at EN World, which feeds my statblock addiction, and it looks like it's relatively easier to whip up monsters for 4e, which I'd always been a bit daunted by in 3e, despite loving to create monsters for 1e and 2e.

I wish that races like the gnomes, half-orcs, and goliaths (a newer, personal favorite) and classes like the barbarian and druid had made the cut, but WotC itself has already relased details for some of these (the gnome has playable stats in the Monster Manual, the barbarian was released as an open playtest on WotC's site). Frost Giants being absent irritated me, until I looked at the Fire Giant stats and saw that they could easily be converted to their missing kin (and some of the 4e designers have written and spoken about how such conversions are desirable).  

I know this is a long post, and probably pretty bland because I don't feel strongly negative about the game, so it'll likely go unread for the most part. Still, it feels good to simply talk. Or write, in this case.

Quote from: StormBringer;263061Thank you.


I think my definition is likely as good a definition as you are going to get.

After ruminating off and on today over the above thoughts before I posted them in my reply to David R, I am pretty sure the whole thing is just a smokescreen anyway.

Pseudoephedrine likes to create smokescreens a lot, its why I just put him on ignore a long time ago.

I don't think there is a "culture of play". However, I do think you could argue for a subculture for a specific game system and a cuture for RPG gamers in general.

Quote from: jeff37923;263058Never said that Stormbringer was one, just Pseudoephedrine. Try to keep on track.

You didn't. But others have because of his criticism against 4E. I thought I'd kill two birds with one post.

QuoteAnd we still haven't seen a definition for "culture of play" yet.

Yes we have. Try to keep on track.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;263085Yes we have. Try to keep on track.

Regards,
David R

Where?

(Answer or be called a douchebag as well.)

Quote from: David R;263085You didn't. But others have because of his criticism against 4E. I thought I'd kill two birds with one post.

OK, then fuck you for trying to misrepresent my position.

Quote from: David R;263085Yes we have. Try to keep on track.

Regards,
David R

OK, where? Unless you are referring to Pseudointellectual's bullshit smokescreen, which is crap.

Quote from: StormBringer;263054By this line of reasoning, Roger Ebert would be unqualified to speak of Indiana Jones and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull because he wasn't manning a camera, or writing the script.  It's preposterous, of course.  I am sure the refrain will be that Roger Ebert has at least written movies; however, I am quite sure many of the critics of 4e have written games.  In many other cases, they are people with a solid background in game theory and design.

I dunno, Stormbringer. I don't really like the film crit analogy, but I'd say it's more like Ebert not seeing a particular Spilberg movie and basing his judgement of it on Spielberg's past work or something like that. Also, I'm not too sure about the whole "solid background in game theory and design". I guess it all boils down to which perspective one finds more useful - the perspective of someone who has played the game or someone who hasn't. Neither means very much, I suppose....Now, I've rambled on a bit.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jeff37923;263093OK, then fuck you for trying to misrepresent my position.

Listen I know you're a little bit sore about your Election results, but try not to be such a dick about it, OK. I wasn't trying to misrepresent your position, only that I think neither Stormbringer nor Pseudoephedrine are douchebags. But hey, if you want to carry on with your little hissy fit, go right ahead.

QuoteOK, where? Unless you are referring to Pseudointellectual's bullshit smokescreen, which is crap.

So, you concede that a definition has been given only that you don't agree with it.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;263011I don't think Pseudoephedrine or Stormbringer are douchebags. I think this whole "culture of play" idea should have a thread of it's own. It's an interesting idea, IMO. Stormbringer is right, it does seem pretty obvious but then again, a lot of things are esp when it comes to gaming but this does not mean it's not worth discussing.

Regards,
David R

It's meant to be obvious, not revolutionary. If you've read that "Tyranny of Fun" thread, you'll see that I started talking about it precisely because all discussion in that thread about 4e was focusing on Mike Mearls' intentions when he designed 4e. The idea that people could do anything other than what Mearls' explicitly intended was not even mentioned.

Quote from: jeff37923;263058Never said that Stormbringer was one, just Pseudoephedrine. Try to keep on track.

And we still haven't seen a definition for "culture of play" yet.

I defined it earlier in this very thread. Are we already back to the point where you're not even bothering to read what I've written before you spout off?

Quote from: StormBringer;263054The major downside, which may not be as obvious, is the effort to emphasize the 'play' part.  Pseudo has repeated many, many times that the only people who are qualified to speak of 4e in any manner are those playing it.

Incorrect Stormy. I said that only those who had _read_ 4e were qualified to comment on it. I said it to you because as we all recall, you were busy spouting off about the contents of 4e despite having not even read the books.

I do hold the position that playing a game does make one better qualified to talk about playing the game. Despite the once-again-obviousness of that statement to most people, it remains a fairly contentious sentiment on these forums.

QuoteThe general idea of 'culture of play' is so obvious because it isn't meant to be discussed on its own merits, it is simply a method of separating those who don't play in order to dismiss their opinions out of hand.  The hostility is thick enough to cut with a knife, in fact, as evidenced by Pseudo and Drew on this very thread.

You poor martyr. Here you were bitching and moaning and fulminating and pretending you had an important opinion and big bad me came along and knocked over your shit-castle.

Quote from: StormBringer;263008Well, if you consider 'douchebag' on the same level of vulgarity as 'on an obvious fuck up', well, it just shows that you are a douchebag.

To everyone else, I'll point out the level of hypocrisy here. This is the kind of sloppy, inconsistent thinking that underlays almost everything Stormbringer says.

Quote from: jeff37923;263083Pseudoephedrine likes to create smokescreens a lot, its why I just put him on ignore a long time ago.

I don't think there is a "culture of play". However, I do think you could argue for a subculture for a specific game system and a cuture for RPG gamers in general.

^

You know, I have to accuse people of not reading the things I'm writing often enough that I occasionally worry that I might be in the wrong. Then I read posts like these and realise that I am correct: They actually just aren't reading any of the words I've written.

I would like someone to point out how "a subculture for a specific game system" differs in a meaningful way from a "culture of play" for a game.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;263105Despite the once-again-obviousness of that statement to most people, it remains a fairly contentious sentiment on these forums.

That's an outgrowth of the Schweinkrieg.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;263105Incorrect Stormy. I said that only those who had _read_ 4e were qualified to comment on it. I said it to you because as we all recall, you were busy spouting off about the contents of 4e despite having not even read the books.

Shouldn't that be the 'culture of read', then?

QuoteI do hold the position that playing a game does make one better qualified to talk about playing the game. Despite the once-again-obviousness of that statement to most people, it remains a fairly contentious sentiment on these forums.

Because it's not at all obvious.  It's only obvious to you, because it allows you to dismiss critique without having to consider it.

QuoteYou poor martyr. Here you were bitching and moaning and fulminating and pretending you had an important opinion and big bad me came along and knocked over your shit-castle.

Claiming victory without having even presented a point yet?  I think you would be a precious little zebra over on tBP.  Maybe you would be better suited to spewing your pseudo-intellectual wankery there, where you aren't required to support any random diarrhoea that dribbles onto your keyboard.

Quote from: David R;263096So, you concede that a definition has been given only that you don't agree with it.

Regards,
David R

I concede that a crap definition will only produce crap results.

Quote from: David R;263096Listen I know you're a little bit sore about your Election results, but try not to be such a dick about it, OK. I wasn't trying to misrepresent your position, only that I think neither Stormbringer nor Pseudoephedrine are douchebags. But hey, if you want to carry on with your little hissy fit, go right ahead.

Nice attempt at obfuscation, you douchebag. Want to try and stay on topic or is that just too intellectually taxing for you?

Quote from: David R;263096So, you concede that a definition has been given only that you don't agree with it.

Regards,
David R

I concede that a crap definition will only produce crap results.

Quote from: StormBringer;262699But PCs have all kinds of 'detailed stats' to resolve non-combat situations.  Why do the players have this superfluous information outside of their statblocks?

The PCs need it, the NPCs don't, and it's the NPCs/monsters that we are talking about.

QuoteThat isn't a 'wandering' monster, then.  That is a triggered encounter.

Which is my point. If the aim is to increase the verisimilitude of the dungeon environment then triggered encounters and an environment which reacts to the actions of the PCs is just as valid as one which random monsters happen to wander along are irregular intervals, if not more so. Unless you think that a dungeon where making noise in room 1 will bring the inhabitants of room 2 over for a look is somehow less realistic than one where the inhabitants of room 2 will stay in their room regardless of events in room 1, but a random patrol might still wander into room 1 at any time?

QuoteWhy would the orcs in room 15 give a flip about the goblins in room 17c?  Why would the bugbears in 24 give a crap about either of them?

That's an artifact of a disconnected dungeon environment. Essentially, if the orcs in 15 and the goblins in 17 are two srparate communities in the same underground space then tehy wouldn't, but iherent in the assumption of the 4E model is that the inhabitants of a relatively small location are likely to be members of the same larger group, and the goblins, orcs and bugbears are working together, at which point it makes moe sense that they investigate than that they don't.

QuoteNo, the verisimilitude is in the fact that there are other monsters wandering around 'on patrol' as it were.  They are intended to wear down resources.  Much like level drain, it was an in game method for an essentially meta-game concept.

The verisimilitude comes from an essentially metagame requirement rather than from an organically designed dungeon? Interesting... are you sure you really meant to say that?

QuoteI don't think it is a switch in the philosophy of 4e, I think it is an incisive look at the philosophy of the lead designer.  As Caeser Slaad mentioned, hacking away at the mechanics without knowing why they were there was a bad decision, and this is re-inforcement of that.

Nothing indicates that Mearls doesn't know why they were there, he was jsut suggesting ways in which you could put them back should you so wish.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;262708I'm okay with the "idiot" theory.

It explains so much, so often.

QuoteNow if those sorts of considerations had made it into the rules instead of short-sighted "D&D is all about the combat encounter" sensibilities, they might have had a game worth my attention.

I'm not making any sort of claim about any official change here. I just wonder why, if Mearls is as big as a mover as I imagined him to be, this sort of thing wasn't taken account of in the rules instead of needing house rules.

I think it would have helped had some of the possibilities been explained in more detail rather than simply discussed in a number of developer blogs around the time of release, but they're already fully integrated into the rules. We're talking about GMing considerations and encounter design here. If we're lucky then DMG2 will talk more about this sort of thing but it requires no house ruling to use the triggered event approach with 4E.

QuoteNotwithstanding that I think using the skill challenge system as a bandaid for everything missing is a poor replacement for granting creatures noncombat abilities. Which, in turn, is necessitated by the decision to make all stat blocks self-contained. Such decisions are not without consequences.

But the skill challenge suggestion was a way of dealing with significantly more powerful monsters. The stat blocks still contain basic skills and such, all they do is strip out the 3E lists of feats, spell like abilities and so on that required frequent cross referencing and slowed play. You can still run a non-combat encounter without a skill challenge using the stat blocks as written without any difficulty for level appropriate NPCs, it's just the scaling nature of skill levels and DCs that make this more difficult with NPCs of a significantly different level.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;263105I do hold the position that playing a game does make one better qualified to talk about playing the game. Despite the once-again-obviousness of that statement to most people, it remains a fairly contentious sentiment on these forums.

It does, and I have no idea why, other than that some people seem to like to argue on the basis of hearsay and prejudice rather than knowledge and experience. Some other people have knowledge and experience and still hold differing views, of course.

I put a lot of trouble down to a failure to distinguish between the precept that everyone has a right to an opinion (true), and that every opinion is equally valid (false).

Quote from: droog;263113That's an outgrowth of the Schweinkrieg.

The what now?

Quote from: jeff37923;263178Nice attempt at obfuscation, you douchebag. Want to try and stay on topic or is that just too intellectually taxing for you?
I concede that a crap definition will only produce crap results.

Douchebag ? Well I guess I should be glad you didn't refer to me as an Abo. You start off by attacking Pseudoephedrine and then claim he didn't give a definition, when he did and then admit he did but you don't agree with it.....when you calm down a little maybe we can talk.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;263106To everyone else, I'll point out the level of hypocrisy here. This is the kind of sloppy, inconsistent thinking that underlays almost everything Stormbringer says.

And I will point out that you have, once again, utterly failed to demonstrate in any meaningful way how 'douchebag' and 'fuck' share the same level of vulgarity.

Of course, this has nothing to do with what I was talking about, which isn't unusual for you.  Your fixation on this is indicative of your inability to present or defend a valid point.  You would rather whinge about me than engage the discussion at hand.

Quote from: David R;263185Douchebag ? Well I guess I should be glad you didn't refer to me as an Abo. You start off by attacking Pseudoephedrine and then claim he didn't give a definition, when he did and then admit he did but you don't agree with it.....when you calm down a little maybe we can talk.

Regards,
David R

The definition of "culture of play" by Pseudoephedrine is bullshit. I said that when I conceeded that a crap definitions produce crap results. You want to come up with a better working definition if you can, then please do so. Otherwise you are just doing the same pseudointellectual dance that Pseudoephedrine does when he knows he has backed himself into a corner.

I fully expect to only see the "dance monkey, dance" routine from you on the "culture of play" subject.

Quote from: jeff37923;263207The definition of "culture of play" by Pseudoephedrine is bullshit. I said that when I conceeded that a crap definitions produce crap results. You want to come up with a better working definition if you can, then please do so. Otherwise you are just doing the same pseudointellectual dance that Pseudoephedrine does when he knows he has backed himself into a corner.

I fully expect to only see the "dance monkey, dance" routine from you on the "culture of play" subject.

I have no desire to "defend" Pseudoephedrine's "culture of play", jeff. I was just replying to your post and vaguely stating what I thought of the subject. It was not my intention to misrepresent you in any way and was just surprised at the hostility of your reply.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Trevelyan;263179Which is my point. If the aim is to increase the verisimilitude of the dungeon environment then triggered encounters and an environment which reacts to the actions of the PCs is just as valid as one which random monsters happen to wander along are irregular intervals, if not more so. Unless you think that a dungeon where making noise in room 1 will bring the inhabitants of room 2 over for a look is somehow less realistic than one where the inhabitants of room 2 will stay in their room regardless of events in room 1, but a random patrol might still wander into room 1 at any time?

Here's my question - aren't both really required to increase the verisimilitude? Why get rid of one but leave the other?

Read through B2 - look at how there are both wandering monsters* and triggered events** (spoilers below). Taking out one or the other can lead to the disconnected situation you mention.

*  A one in six chance for goblins to appear when in the goblin area, that increases by one each 10' travelled)

** The goblins, at the first sign of trouble, will go into the ogre's cave and toss him some gold to fight for them. The hobgoblins will come from their area if they hear commotion in the goblin's area.

I'm really enjoying this thread, but at the risk of sounding like a whiner (too late, I know)...can we just keep disagreements from the politics forum from contaminating discussion the RPG section?  It just cheapens your argument.

That's all me, KenHR. It won't happen again.

Regards,
David R

Watch, next Mearls is going to talk about taking characters from levels -9 through 0. I'll agree that D&D 4e lost me for what I know it's missing, rather than what it has.




 And Pseudo: I think the major contention with the term "Culture of Play" is that it is private jargon. I.e. only you talk about common house-rules and common play-styles using that term. I suggest you not be Humpty-Dumpty (from Alice in Wonderland) and use the words everyone else in your "subculture" are using.

You'll be better understood that way and won't have to define your personal terms in every thread that you use them.

Quote from: David R;263215That's all me, KenHR. It won't happen again.

Regards,
David R

You're a gentleman and a scholar.

Seriously, I am enjoying the discussion, and I think it's helped me understand a bit of what Mearls was trying to say in those posts.  Not that it will make a 4e guy, but at least I think I get what he's going for. :)

Quote from: James J Skach;263211Here's my question - aren't both really required to increase the verisimilitude? Why get rid of one but leave the other?

In an ideal world they would both exist, but I don't think that 4E got rid of one and simply retained the other, it got rid of one (the random wandering monster) and promoted the other (interlinked, planned and triggered encounters).

Even so, the notion of a random wandering monster isn't what lends verisimilitude, that comes from having monsters walking around on "patrol" or similar. You don't need a random chance roll on a die to determine that - why not just decide that an encounter with monsters will occur in area X of the dungeon if the PCs stay there for any length of time? Why does it have to be random?

And 4E doesn't prevent the party from fighting monster patrols, it just doesn't contain default rules and tables for springing them on a party when it rests.

Quote from: Trevelyan;263179The PCs need it, the NPCs don't, and it's the NPCs/monsters that we are talking about.

That statement isn't self evident, and Mearls' speaking of using Orcus as a non-combat encounter belies the very concept.

QuoteWhich is my point. If the aim is to increase the verisimilitude of the dungeon environment ...

We need go no further.  I've already said that whatever level of verisimilitude introduced is an offshoot, or a positive side effect.  Wandering monsters have nothing to do with verisimilitude.

QuoteThat's an artifact of a disconnected dungeon environment. Essentially, if the orcs in 15 and the goblins in 17 are two srparate communities in the same underground space then tehy wouldn't, but iherent in the assumption of the 4E model is that the inhabitants of a relatively small location are likely to be members of the same larger group, and the goblins, orcs and bugbears are working together, at which point it makes moe sense that they investigate than that they don't.

No, it's an artifact of a design that takes the non-combat descriptions of the denizens into account.  Aside from providing a challenge for the PCs, what reason would the orcs and goblins have for working together?  Why would the trolls decide to join up with this unlikely group?  The orcs hear the goblins getting butchered three rooms over and up the hall, why do they care?

I would say that the 4e assumption you speak of is that the dungeon is there simply to give adventurers something to do.  That assumption informed much of the design, and it shows.

QuoteThe verisimilitude comes from an essentially metagame requirement rather than from an organically designed dungeon? Interesting... are you sure you really meant to say that?

Yes, that is exactly what I inteded to say.  For the same reason that level drain is a meta-game rule to simulate an in-game effect.  The characters should reasonably be terrified of a wight, but the players know it's just low level undead.  It's the same with wandering monsters.  Rather than spend an extra several hours placing monsters in the halls, just waiting for the PCs to show up, wandering monsters allow for unplanned encounters.  This isn't for verisimilitude, although that is a side effect.  Wandering monsters are the meta-game timer so you aren't pushing the 'artificial' timer of the sacrifice of midnight, or the portal closes on the full moon, or what have you.

Wandering monsters are part of an organically designed dungeon, just not one designed to exist solely for the sake of the PCs.  In fact, the PCs themselves could be considering 'wandering monsters', just as much a part of the organic design you refer to.  There is nothing to say that a bunch of orcs didn't stumble on the dungeon, same as the PCs, and hunkered down in room 15 for the time being, or are still in the process of scouting the area and aren't aware of the goblins.

QuoteNothing indicates that Mearls doesn't know why they were there, he was jsut suggesting ways in which you could put them back should you so wish.

Dude, seriously?  It's right there in black and white.  It's not like there is any interpretation needed.

Quote from: blogWandering monsters have been a fixture of D&D since the beginning. (http://kotgl.blogspot.com/2008/08/in-praise-of-wandering-monsters.html) I can't even begin to explain how or why Gary included them. Did his players have a tendency to dither outside dungeon chambers? Was he bored and looking for an excuse to throw a gelatinous cube at the party? Who can say?

I mean, really, figure out what is worth defending before posting.

QuoteIf we're lucky then DMG2 will talk more about this sort of thing but it requires no house ruling to use the triggered event approach with 4E.

'If we're lucky' the rest of the rules that should have been published in the first place will be available?

QuoteIt does, and I have no idea why, other than that some people seem to like to argue on the basis of hearsay and prejudice rather than knowledge and experience. Some other people have knowledge and experience and still hold differing views, of course.

But you don't stick your hand in a fire to make sure, do you?  I mean, are you saying that no possible situation exists where direct experience is not necessary to make a judgement?

QuoteI put a lot of trouble down to a failure to distinguish between the precept that everyone has a right to an opinion (true), and that every opinion is equally valid (false).

The other problem is when people don't take the time to show when an opinion is inaccurate, or how.

It's interesting to see old schoolers' reaction to the idea of the culture of play when, in discussions about OD&D and AD&D, they're mantra has been, "Those may be the rules, but that's not how anyone actually played the game!"

Seanchai

Quote from: Trevelyan;263224Even so, the notion of a random wandering monster isn't what lends verisimilitude, that comes from having monsters walking around on "patrol" or similar. You don't need a random chance roll on a die to determine that - why not just decide that an encounter with monsters will occur in area X of the dungeon if the PCs stay there for any length of time? Why does it have to be random?

Because the monsters aren't waiting around for the PCs to show up, primarily.  Secondary to your point is that wandering monsters are there to deplete resources.  That is really it.  Do you have enough juice to take on a pack of orcs, or is it better to run or negotiate?  Should the Magic User blast every encounter with third and fourth level spells, then not have any later for the trolls and ogres guarding the big stash?

If the DM just decides to have an encounter somewhere, the prep time would go up by an order of magnitude, besides.

Quote from: Seanchai;263232It's interesting to see old schoolers' reaction to the idea of the culture of play when, in discussions about OD&D and AD&D, they're mantra has been, "Those may be the rules, but that's not how anyone actually played the game!"

That's because this has nothing to do with play culture and everything to do with the perceived failings of 4E, which are being arrived at via an inductive reading of Mearls' blog.

Quote from: StormBringer;263229That statement isn't self evident, and Mearls' speaking of using Orcus as a non-combat encounter belies the very concept.

I'm confused, are you sugegsting that Orcus might be a PC here? Isn't it self evident that Orcus isn't a PC?

QuoteWe need go no further.  I've already said that whatever level of verisimilitude introduced is an offshoot, or a positive side effect.  Wandering monsters have nothing to do with verisimilitude.

Ok, so they have merit primarily as a means of reducing the resources available to a party? In which case why do they need to be random? Doesn't a preplanned encounter serve the exact same purpose?

QuoteNo, it's an artifact of a design that takes the non-combat descriptions of the denizens into account.  Aside from providing a challenge for the PCs, what reason would the orcs and goblins have for working together?  Why would the trolls decide to join up with this unlikely group?  The orcs hear the goblins getting butchered three rooms over and up the hall, why do they care?

You miss my point. The fact that three totally disparate groups are living in such close proximity is a feature of earlier edition design. 4E starts from the assumption that they wouldn't be, and any group of monsters living within close proximity is likely to be part of a larger community or ecosystem.

QuoteI would say that the 4e assumption you speak of is that the dungeon is there simply to give adventurers something to do.  That assumption informed much of the design, and it shows.

Absolutely not the case. Had you actually read the 4E DMG you would know that it encourages the DM to ensure that a dungeon is designed with considerations like these in mind - it should never be a series of unrelated encounters put in place so the PCs have something to fight and should be designed, down to the layout and function of the rooms, to create a realistic environment which might exist independant of the PCs.

QuoteYes, that is exactly what I inteded to say.  For the same reason that level drain is a meta-game rule to simulate an in-game effect.

Now you've got me confused as you seem to be see-sawing between wandering monsters as a metagame means of reducing party resources and discouraging which has the consequential effect of enhancing verisimilitude, and wandering monsters as primarily a method of enhancing verisimilitude with the fringe benefit that they drain party resources and discourage loitering. Which is it? Functionally they might be said to do both to varying degrees, but what do you see as the original intent.

But the real question is, why do they have to be wandering monsters in the "random chance of occuring" sense? Why can't they be planned encounters which the DM uses if the party doesn't move fast enough? If the aim is to discourage loitering then what value is there in a mechanic which might let the party get away with loitering as often as not?

QuoteWandering monsters are part of an organically designed dungeon, just not one designed to exist solely for the sake of the PCs.  In fact, the PCs themselves could be considering 'wandering monsters', just as much a part of the organic design you refer to.

Are we talking about the same definition of wandering monster here? I'm specifically talking about (and the article deals with) monsters which have a random chance of simply turning up based largely on the outcome of a die roll. Nothing inherent in that model is any more organic than simple determining in advance that such an event will occur. If you are talking about encounters with monsters who do more than simply sit in a room and wait for the PCs to arive then we're in agreement, I just don't see what advantage lies in their arrival being predicated on the roll of a die.

QuoteThere is nothing to say that a bunch of orcs didn't stumble on the dungeon, same as the PCs, and hunkered down in room 15 for the time being, or are still in the process of scouting the area and aren't aware of the goblins.

This is entirely true, and the DM should determine such things in advance. He might even decide to initiate a three way fight with orcs turning up to take advantage of the distraction to attack both sides. The point is that the implications of the existence of orcs and goblins in close proximity should be considered by the DM in advance.

QuoteDude, seriously?  It's right there in black and white.  It's not like there is any interpretation needed.

I mean, really, figure out what is worth defending before posting.

Ok, I admit that I phrased that last comment poorly, but you need to stop taking everything written so literally. Allow Mearls room for a little bit of flair in his writing and learn to spot the use of comedic hyperbole.

Form a purely technical point of view, I agree with Mearls comment - what advantage exists in a random monster (random from the PoV of the DM as well as the players) rather than a planned encounter? From what you've said so far I don't thin that you could answer the question either.

But from a practical PoV, Mearls clearly understands the use to which such an encounter can be put in the game and the implications of including such in 4E and earlier editions in terms of resources.

Quote'If we're lucky' the rest of the rules that should have been published in the first place will be available?

No, "if we're lucky" sufficient guidance will be published to allow those people with less experience of the system to more readily see the potential within it. There is a very significant difference between "rules" and "advice", and nothing that I have talked about requires new rules, it's all just ways of using the rules which already exist. It's encounter design advice, nothing more.

QuoteBut you don't stick your hand in a fire to make sure, do you?  I mean, are you saying that no possible situation exists where direct experience is not necessary to make a judgement?

Whatever gives you that idea? I'm just saying that there is a difference between being told that fire hurts and actually being burnt.

I have a nice analogy using Shakespeare if you like?

QuoteThe other problem is when people don't take the time to show when an opinion is inaccurate, or how.

No, the problem is when the people they show don't listen.

Quote from: Trevelyan;263224In an ideal world they would both exist, but I don't think that 4E got rid of one and simply retained the other, it got rid of one (the random wandering monster) and promoted the other (interlinked, planned and triggered encounters).

I'm not exactly sure how getting rid of one and promoting (now with italics!) the other is significantly different than getting rid of one and retaining the other. Are you intending to imply that the promotion of the one was to cover the issues covered by the other - that the promotion of "triggered, planned" events was in ways that covered the needs addressed by wandering monsters? If so, in what ways do the former address what was addressed by the latter?

Quote from: Trevelyan;263224Even so, the notion of a random wandering monster isn't what lends verisimilitude, that comes from having monsters walking around on "patrol" or similar. You don't need a random chance roll on a die to determine that - why not just decide that an encounter with monsters will occur in area X of the dungeon if the PCs stay there for any length of time? Why does it have to be random?

So that it's not in the DM's hands to determine it? So that the players, including the DM, are never really quite sure if something is about to happen? Because luck is part of the excitement of the game?

The bolded part? That is what a wandering monster table is meant to do - coupled with a chance of that encounter happening.

I'm not sure, but is the random aspect of it happening the issue, or the random aspect of what is actually encountered?

Quote from: Drew;263243That's because this has nothing to do with play culture and everything to do with the perceived failings of 4E, which are being expounded via an inductive reading of Mearls' blog.

Oh, yeah. I'm with you. I just like pointing out the inconsistencies in their night incoherent hatred of a game...

Seanchai

Quote from: James J Skach;263254So that it's not in the DM's hands to determine it? So that the players, including the DM, are never really quite sure if something is about to happen? Because luck is part of the excitement of the game?

The bolded part? That is what a wandering monster table is meant to do - coupled with a chance of that encounter happening.

I'm not sure, but is the random aspect of it happening the issue, or the random aspect of what is actually encountered?

Actually both can still be random: For example: in the Weekend in the Realms adventure, there were encounters that had the Dm randomly determine (via a dice roll) if, when, and where extra monsters would be introduced into the encounter area.

The key concept that changes (and perhaps negates) the previous concept of wandering monsters is actually the encounter area. Instead of a room by room description, you might have 3 or 4 (or more) rooms kinda clumped together with their adjoining hallways and whatnot. Then somewhere in the encounter description there might be instructions to determine if the PCs are making enough noise to warrant a visit from a wanderer, or if there is some patrol through the area, etc, or even if the check happens after a set period of time/rounds.

And the reason the encounter area changes (or perhaps the idea of wandering monsters? Well, in my view it's because DM's rarely include a key to the hallways and arteries in a dungeon.  So previously they would add the wanderers to the level map to accomplish the same thing that 4e does with encounter areas.  

FWIW, I still use random wilderness encounters in 4E but not wandering monsters- it doesn't change the game at all as far as I can tell.

Quote from: Trevelyan;263245I'm confused, are you sugegsting that Orcus might be a PC here? Isn't it self evident that Orcus isn't a PC?

I agree, you are confused.  Are you seriously asking this question?  Clearly, you are assuming that NPCs and PCs having different rules is self-evidently better, but there is nothing to support that, so now you need to show why that is beneficial.

QuoteOk, so they have merit primarily as a means of reducing the resources available to a party? In which case why do they need to be random? Doesn't a preplanned encounter serve the exact same purpose?

No.  The 'pre-planned' part is what the DM writes to specifically challenge and reward the players.  The only way random encounters and pre-planned encounters serve the exact same purpose is if the pre-planned encounters are designed to deplete resources with little reward.  Are you saying that pre-planned encounters serve the same purpose as wandering monsters?  Do you have any support for that besides your assertion?

QuoteYou miss my point. The fact that three totally disparate groups are living in such close proximity is a feature of earlier edition design. 4E starts from the assumption that they wouldn't be, and any group of monsters living within close proximity is likely to be part of a larger community or ecosystem.

There is nothing to suuport that assumption.  I don't know if you have lived in any large community or city, but people across the fence from each other often don't know each other's names, how many kids they have, or anything else about them. Assuming they could even hear a ruckus in the other person's house, the odds of them calling the police range from moderately slim to none.

The idea that any group near another group is necessarily allied stems from the foundation that their only reason for existing in the first place is to provide an encounter or encounters for the PCs.

QuoteAbsolutely not the case. Had you actually read the 4E DMG you would know that it encourages the DM to ensure that a dungeon is designed with considerations like these in mind - it should never be a series of unrelated encounters put in place so the PCs have something to fight and should be designed, down to the layout and function of the rooms, to create a realistic environment which might exist independant of the PCs.

Had you read the 1st Edition DMG, you would see the exact same thing.

QuoteNow you've got me confused as you seem to be see-sawing between wandering monsters as a metagame means of reducing party resources and discouraging which has the consequential effect of enhancing verisimilitude, and wandering monsters as primarily a method of enhancing verisimilitude with the fringe benefit that they drain party resources and discourage loitering. Which is it? Functionally they might be said to do both to varying degrees, but what do you see as the original intent.

You seem to be see-sawing between different interpretations of my statements.  Recently, I mentioned that as a secondary element to rebutting your argument.  Monsters aren't standing around as a pre-planned encounter, or walking a set patrol waiting for the players to show up.  Those kinds of encounters are to provide a specific challenge, and require additional prep time.  Wandering monsters exist to throw the unexpected at the players to break out of the 'kick the door, attack the monsters' rut, and to keep them from searching every square inch of the dungeon.  As a side benefit, it shows the dungeon as a living, changing entity that exists apart from the PCs.  Why are the orcs there?  Who knows, the party just plowed into them coming around a corner.  Fight, flight, start talking?  That is for the PCs to figure out.

QuoteBut the real question is, why do they have to be wandering monsters in the "random chance of occuring" sense? Why can't they be planned encounters which the DM uses if the party doesn't move fast enough? If the aim is to discourage loitering then what value is there in a mechanic which might let the party get away with loitering as often as not?

It's a gamble.  You sound like you are looking for a game that has exactly planned out encounters at every step.  The DM plans the hallway encounters, the DM plans out the room encounters, if the players take too many rounds exploring the room, another pre-planned encounter triggers.

It's another gamble in the life of an adventurer who spends their time pushing the odds.  It's not a trip through Disney's Magic Mountain in a little car on rails.

You are treating this as though the 4e method is better because it is more recent.  You will need to start demonstrating why wandering monsters are detrimental to game play.

QuoteAre we talking about the same definition of wandering monster here? I'm specifically talking about (and the article deals with) monsters which have a random chance of simply turning up based largely on the outcome of a die roll.

That is exactly the definition of a wandering monster.

QuoteNothing inherent in that model is any more organic than simple determining in advance that such an event will occur. If you are talking about encounters with monsters who do more than simply sit in a room and wait for the PCs to arive then we're in agreement, I just don't see what advantage lies in their arrival being predicated on the roll of a die.

Well, it is the difference between a neatly planted row of trees, and an old-growth forest.  They are certainly both organic, but the old-growth forest is a good deal more interesting, for one thing.  Navigating it is a good deal more challenging.  Biodiversity is typically much higher.

There have been dozens upon dozens of posts and blogs as to why wandering monsters are beneficial and enjoyable, but the arguments against have primarily been "I don't like them".  Therefore, it now falls to you to present an argument as to why wandering monsters are detrimental besides a personal dislike or some kind of frustration anecdote.

QuoteThis is entirely true, and the DM should determine such things in advance. He might even decide to initiate a three way fight with orcs turning up to take advantage of the distraction to attack both sides. The point is that the implications of the existence of orcs and goblins in close proximity should be considered by the DM in advance.

Only if the dungeon is a very exacting set of discrete encounters.  In a clean, well-lit, OSHA certified dungeon with handrails, that is probably a good method.

Let's take a look at another situation.  You head down to Wal-Mart to grab a couple of notepads and a soda.  Or smokes and beer.  Or whatever it is you need.  The cashiers are there on a more or less regular schedule, but from your point of view, it's largely random.  (Why are there orcs in 15 instead of 17?)  Nonetheless, they are there because they are supposed to be.  Everyone other patron in Wal-Mart is there purely by happenstance.  They aren't there for your benefit, they aren't there for you to interact with, they didn't leave at an appropriate time to show up there when you do.  They are there precisely because they wanted to be, it has nothing to do with your presence.  They are random 'wandering monsters'.  What you decide to do in that instance is entirely up to you.  But they aren't there because someone planned them to be.

Well, unless your designed is based on some goofy philosophy that everything happens for a reason.  This isn't the place for me to make fun of silly theories, however.

QuoteOk, I admit that I phrased that last comment poorly, but you need to stop taking everything written so literally. Allow Mearls room for a little bit of flair in his writing and learn to spot the use of comedic hyperbole.

No way.  Seriously?  It's not what he said, it's what he meant?  Clearly, this is grasping for straws.  Allow Mearls' a little room for explaining what he meant on his own.  He cut a mechanic that he didn't fully understand, and now he is being called on it.  So, he is backpedalling and trying to offer suggestions for adding it back in.

QuoteForm a purely technical point of view, I agree with Mearls comment - what advantage exists in a random monster (random from the PoV of the DM as well as the players) rather than a planned encounter? From what you've said so far I don't thin that you could answer the question either.

Except, it has been answered.  It was there for an unplanned challenge to the players.  As a side benefit, it offered a sense of verisimilitude.  A tertiary benefit was the reduction in prep time.

QuoteBut from a practical PoV, Mearls clearly understands the use to which such an encounter can be put in the game and the implications of including such in 4E and earlier editions in terms of resources.

Which is a bold statement, as his blog from less than four months ago shows he is still in the dark as to the reasons or uses of wandering monsters.  I will certainly allow for changes in thought, and if you have a blog entry or forum discussion showing this change, I would be happy to read it.

QuoteNo, "if we're lucky" sufficient guidance will be published to allow those people with less experience of the system to more readily see the potential within it. There is a very significant difference between "rules" and "advice", and nothing that I have talked about requires new rules, it's all just ways of using the rules which already exist. It's encounter design advice, nothing more.

So, Dragon articles rather than a DMGII would be sufficient?  Or, perhaps blog entries from the authours?

QuoteWhatever gives you that idea? I'm just saying that there is a difference between being told that fire hurts and actually being burnt.

So, you would still believe someone with massive scarring on their hand over someone who hasn't?

QuoteNo, the problem is when the people they show don't listen.

Look, dude, you were directly contradicted by what Mearls' said, then started the hoop jumping to show what he said actually means what you want it to.

Perhaps you should work on this 'listening' of which you speak.

Quote from: StormBringer;263270There is nothing to suuport that assumption.  I don't know if you have lived in any large community or city, but people across the fence from each other often don't know each other's names, how many kids they have, or anything else about them. Assuming they could even hear a ruckus in the other person's house, the odds of them calling the police range from moderately slim to none.

The idea that any group near another group is necessarily allied stems from the foundation that their only reason for existing in the first place is to provide an encounter or encounters for the PCs.

Monsters in a dungeon are nothing like people in a city or neighbors in a community. For one thing, people in a modern community don't know one another's names because they don't need one another for anything. They drive to their communities in places that are far away. Knowing the guy next door and knowing the people you work with or go to church with are two totally different things, now, but take cars away and they become the same.

Monsters in a dungeon have to know everything they can about one another because they are going to go after the same food and water sources.

Not to mention, the dumber they are, the less likely they are to share a dungeon of any size with another creature. A pack of wolves, or a bear, will not, ever, share a cave with another large creature, let alone a bunch of orcs.

Quote from: Seanchai;263258Oh, yeah. I'm with you. I just like pointing out the inconsistencies in their night incoherent hatred of a game...

Seanchai

I personally played 4e once, made some characters, and hated it so much I never bought the books, read them, or tried to play it again. I thought it was easily the worst rpg I ever played. I can't imagine anyone who really hates the game wanting anything to do with it. I get bored just thinking about learning 4e enough to have a long opinion about specific mechanics.

Quote from: Seanchai;263232It's interesting to see old schoolers' reaction to the idea of the culture of play when, in discussions about OD&D and AD&D, they're mantra has been, "Those may be the rules, but that's not how anyone actually played the game!"

Seanchai

When I was a kid, I played dnd and we made stupid power characters and told stupid stories. When we grew up, we became more mature and balanced with our characters and the stories became better. Now there are a bunch of kids playing 3.5 - 4e, making stupid power characters and playing Eberon. It is the same thing. I'm sure when they grow up, they will tell better stories to. It isn't play styles, it is the fact that old schoolers are in their late 20's to 50's, and complaining about children.

Quote from: Cranewings;263289Monsters in a dungeon are nothing like people in a city or neighbors in a community. For one thing, people in a modern community don't know one another's names because they don't need one another for anything. They drive to their communities in places that are far away. Knowing the guy next door and knowing the people you work with or go to church with are two totally different things, now, but take cars away and they become the same.

Monsters in a dungeon have to know everything they can about one another because they are going to go after the same food and water sources.

Not to mention, the dumber they are, the less likely they are to share a dungeon of any size with another creature. A pack of wolves, or a bear, will not, ever, share a cave with another large creature, let alone a bunch of orcs.

These are certainly good reasons for an integrated dungeon design, but are you saying that they are necessarily true in all instances?

Quote from: Trevelyan;263179The what now?

Der var against der schweinen.

Quote from: StormBringer;263298These are certainly good reasons for an integrated dungeon design, but are you saying that they are necessarily true in all instances?

Well, there is always magic (;

Quote from: Seanchai;263232It's interesting to see old schoolers' reaction to the idea of the culture of play when, in discussions about OD&D and AD&D, they're mantra has been, "Those may be the rules, but that's not how anyone actually played the game!"

Seanchai

You've completely missed the point. People aren't complaining about the idea of the 'cuture of play' - in fact Stormbringer has explicitly stated several times that it's been going on for over 30 years. The complaint is about the creation of such an idiotic term for such an utterly banal observation.

It's like saying that people eat different kinds of food in different ways (you hold a hamburger in your hands, but you cut a steak with a knife), and so there are different Cultures of Eating - a culture of eating for hamburgers, a culture of eating for steak, and also cultures of eating for pizza, spaghetti etc. And then trying to pretend that noticing how people eat hamburgers and steak differently is somehow revolutionary.  

People like to create jargon (probably because it makes them feel clever) but basically jargon is shite; 'culture of play' is a prime example.

Quote from: Cranewings;263331Well, there is always magic (;

I would not want to run into the Magic User that has the time to cast geas on every denizen of their subterranean treasure vault.  :)

Quote from: Seanchai;263232It's interesting to see old schoolers' reaction to the idea of the culture of play when, in discussions about OD&D and AD&D, they're mantra has been, "Those may be the rules, but that's not how anyone actually played the game!"

noisms just replied to this. I'd put it a bit differently; I really have no problem with the idea of a "culture of play". I even think it's a useful and fairly transparent shorthand, not at all like much of the jargon which often pops up in RPG theory circles. It might be better to use "community of practice" in order to borrow more closely from existing social theories, at the risk of choosing a less intuitive term. It also might be better to pluralize whatever term gets used ("cultures of play", "communities of practice") since even in the Internet-connected world, there are diversities of practice. Though of course, it should be understood that a community/culture includes sub-groups.

I would note that the divergence between rule and play was probably stronger in AD&D than many other versions. However, the real controversy that Seanchai's alluding to has to do with how closely people focused the action of the game on stuff that directly used the rules. For example, there's disagreement over whether if an RPG mainly has rules for combat, the action of the game is necessarily intended to focus on combat.

Where Pseudo and I (and some others, I suppose) keep butting heads is over the question of how far we can use the rules to discern (1) the designer's intent as to the focus of action in an RPG, (2) the play preferences of people who are attracted to the game (you might call this "identifying the influence of a prior culture of play on game design"), and (3) the expected culture(s) of play that will coalesce around the design.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;263355noisms just replied to this. I'd put it a bit differently; I really have no problem with the idea of a "culture of play". I even think it's a useful and fairly transparent shorthand, not at all like much of the jargon which often pops up in RPG theory circles. It might be better to use "community of practice" in order to borrow more closely from existing social theories, at the risk of choosing a less intuitive term. It also might be better to pluralize whatever term gets used ("cultures of play", "communities of practice") since even in the Internet-connected world, there are diversities of practice. Though of course, it should be understood that a community/culture includes sub-groups.

I would note that the divergence between rule and play was probably stronger in AD&D than many other versions. However, the real controversy that Seanchai's alluding to has to do with how closely people focused the action of the game on stuff that directly used the rules. For example, there's disagreement over whether if an RPG mainly has rules for combat, the action of the game is necessarily intended to focus on combat.

Where Pseudo and I (and some others, I suppose) keep butting heads is over the question of how far we can use the rules to discern (1) the designer's intent as to the focus of action in an RPG, (2) the play preferences of people who are attracted to the game (you might call this "identifying the influence of a prior culture of play on game design"), and (3) the expected culture(s) of play that will coalesce around the design.

I think you would have to get a pretty big sample to figure it all out. In my experiance, people that play Palladium are mostly story people, glossing over the specifics of combat, while people that play White Wolf are the most natorious hack and slashers of all.

Maybe detailed combat rules make the game feel like more work, and encourage more non-combat story and rp, while games that have crappy combat rules encourage abuse and power gaming.

You are surely right about the sample, and you may be right about the other stuff, too.

In the absence of surveys, you either have to make do with anecdotes and rough judgments, or you fall back on trying to discern the interests that motivate the critique of classic D&D--since 3e and even moreso 4e are seen as critiques of the older rule set. So the question is, what interests are served by a given change?

Or you can talk about specifics from various points of view, as in "Every group I find that plays game X is a bunch of narcissistic wankers, is there another game that the cool people play?", "Our group found, playing game X, that we tended to do Y, when we'd really like to have more of Z; what's the shortest way to get to Z, whether via play tips, rules mods, or another game altogether?"

At some point did this thread become a crypto-"B2 is illogical" thread?

Quote from: Cranewings;263366I think you would have to get a pretty big sample to figure it all out. In my experiance, people that play Palladium are mostly story people, glossing over the specifics of combat, while people that play White Wolf are the most natorious hack and slashers of all.

Maybe detailed combat rules make the game feel like more work, and encourage more non-combat story and rp, while games that have crappy combat rules encourage abuse and power gaming.

I'm not sure if the divide is between detailed combat rules and story vs. crappy rules and abuse. Basic D&D has pretty crappy combat rules but it doesn't encourage abuse in my experience, whereas Cyberpunk 2020 has pretty decent, or at least very extensive, combat rules, and the munchkinism which Cyberpunk 2020 players indulge in would put Munchkin McMunchkin the Most Munchkinist Munchkin in Munchkindom to shame.

Anyway, that's really by the by: in the end what I'm not sure about is why, or indeed if, it matters. So okay, AD&D 2e is a game about epic high fantasy riding around on a carriage built for amoral sword & sorcery. But when I play 2e to play epic high fantasy, I never feel constrained by its rules. It doesn't matter at all if they aren't designed properly for epic high fantasy.

I suppose what I mean to say is that when Eliot talks about somebody saying "Our group found, playing game X, that we tended to do Y, when we'd really like to have more of Z; what's the shortest way to get to Z, whether via play tips, rules mods, or another game altogether?", I can't really connect with it. My experience has always been, if I want more of Z, I put in more Z - and design goals take the hindmost.

If that makes sense.

I hope I'm not contributing to that. Seems to me that it's a great blend of both things being discussed - random encounters and triggered events.

Quote from: noisms;263381I suppose what I mean to say is that when Eliot talks about somebody saying "Our group found, playing game X, that we tended to do Y, when we'd really like to have more of Z; what's the shortest way to get to Z, whether via play tips, rules mods, or another game altogether?", I can't really connect with it. My experience has always been, if I want more of Z, I put in more Z - and design goals take the hindmost.

Mr. Wilen can correct me, but I think he's including that in "What's the shortest way to get to Z, whether via play tips, rules mods..."

Up to, and including design goals taking the hindmost...

Yep, that would fall under "play tips", most likely.

But if everything could be handled by "play tips", then you'd have no reason for preferring one set of rules over another...and there'd really be no need for anyone to write new rules...yes? New settings, sure, but not new rules, right?

Also...

Quote from: noisms;263381I'm not sure if the divide is between detailed combat rules and story vs. crappy rules and abuse. Basic D&D has pretty crappy combat rules but it doesn't encourage abuse in my experience, whereas Cyberpunk 2020 has pretty decent, or at least very extensive, combat rules, and the munchkinism which Cyberpunk 2020 players indulge in would put Munchkin McMunchkin the Most Munchkinist Munchkin in Munchkindom to shame.

Taking your anecdote at face value, you've got a point there; you've shown that Cranewings' observations of Palladium and WoD aren't easily generalized.

But right there in your counterexample, you suggest that there's a typical style of play in CP 2020. Why do you suppose that is—how much of it can be chalked up to the rules, and how much to other factors?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;263374You are surely right about the sample, and you may be right about the other stuff, too.

In the absence of surveys, you either have to make do with anecdotes and rough judgments, or you fall back on trying to discern the interests that motivate the critique of classic D&D--since 3e and even moreso 4e are seen as critiques of the older rule set. So the question is, what interests are served by a given change?

Or you can talk about specifics from various points of view, as in "Every group I find that plays game X is a bunch of narcissistic wankers, is there another game that the cool people play?", "Our group found, playing game X, that we tended to do Y, when we'd really like to have more of Z; what's the shortest way to get to Z, whether via play tips, rules mods, or another game altogether?"

I understand what you are saying. Side point: I never felt like 3e was that different of a game. 1e was very rough. I've ALWAYS felt that if someone had taken AD&D and run it through some more play testing with people that have writing degrees, it would have turned out to be just like 3e, minus the pop culture refrenses. I'm not trying to be coy. I REALLY think that the changes from 1 to 3 were pretty trivial. They game plays and feels the same, just more polished, better even.

I think the problem with a lot of game systems isn't the game design, but the friction between its design, its display, and the ability to absorb it by the players and gm.

For example, we started playing a game of Exhalted in my sunday group right after my DnD game ended. My dnd game went to 8th level, and I run a very low powered, low magic game world. At eighth level the party was trashing cities and threatening the most powerful evil in the land.

Afterwards, the guy that started running Exhalted described the game as a super powered demigod game where the characters are far beyond normal people. There has been a couple of instances of serious friction in his game when different players wern't able to swing that power around effectivly against NPCs. As it turns out, starting Exhalted characters has the same world changing ability as 5th level dnd characters with reduced hit points. We were all geared up by the GM's hype, cover art, and back story to take on the world, and as it turned out we could barely protect ourselves and it pissed some people off.

In short, it is really hard to know what the game is, and is going to be, unless the players are really self aware and actually read the books... that doesn't happen very often.

Quote from: noisms;263381I'm not sure if the divide is between detailed combat rules and story vs. crappy rules and abuse. Basic D&D has pretty crappy combat rules but it doesn't encourage abuse in my experience, whereas Cyberpunk 2020 has pretty decent, or at least very extensive, combat rules, and the munchkinism which Cyberpunk 2020 players indulge in would put Munchkin McMunchkin the Most Munchkinist Munchkin in Munchkindom to shame.

Anyway, that's really by the by: in the end what I'm not sure about is why, or indeed if, it matters. So okay, AD&D 2e is a game about epic high fantasy riding around on a carriage built for amoral sword & sorcery. But when I play 2e to play epic high fantasy, I never feel constrained by its rules. It doesn't matter at all if they aren't designed properly for epic high fantasy.

I suppose what I mean to say is that when Eliot talks about somebody saying "Our group found, playing game X, that we tended to do Y, when we'd really like to have more of Z; what's the shortest way to get to Z, whether via play tips, rules mods, or another game altogether?", I can't really connect with it. My experience has always been, if I want more of Z, I put in more Z - and design goals take the hindmost.

If that makes sense.

I see what you are saying. For example, in Palladium combat takes a really long time because of how little damage characters do compared to their hitpoints. When I run Palladium, anyone with Supernatural Strength does x3 damage at all times, and other powers are amped up to compete. I like fast death, and I put it in every game I can. It makes it more exciting. But really... Palladium is anything but fast.

Quote from: KrakaJak;263221And Pseudo: I think the major contention with the term "Culture of Play" is that it is private jargon. I.e. only you talk about common house-rules and common play-styles using that term. I suggest you not be Humpty-Dumpty (from Alice in Wonderland) and use the words everyone else in your "subculture" are using.

You'll be better understood that way and won't have to define your personal terms in every thread that you use them.

I am in fact attempting to popularise the term. I have no problem taking the time to explain it to people, and I encourage others to use it.

Quote from: Seanchai;263232It's interesting to see old schoolers' reaction to the idea of the culture of play when, in discussions about OD&D and AD&D, they're mantra has been, "Those may be the rules, but that's not how anyone actually played the game!"

Seanchai

That was the kind of statement that led to me formulating the term in the first place, actually. There's all sorts of other ways people interact with games than just house-ruling them, and a "culture of play" is meant to collect those aspects together under a single label.

Quote from: Drew;263243That's because this has nothing to do with play culture and everything to do with the perceived failings of 4E, which are being arrived at via an inductive reading of Mearls' blog.

Pretty much.

Quote from: noisms;263348You've completely missed the point. People aren't complaining about the idea of the 'cuture of play' - in fact Stormbringer has explicitly stated several times that it's been going on for over 30 years. The complaint is about the creation of such an idiotic term for such an utterly banal observation.

It's like saying that people eat different kinds of food in different ways (you hold a hamburger in your hands, but you cut a steak with a knife), and so there are different Cultures of Eating - a culture of eating for hamburgers, a culture of eating for steak, and also cultures of eating for pizza, spaghetti etc. And then trying to pretend that noticing how people eat hamburgers and steak differently is somehow revolutionary.  

People like to create jargon (probably because it makes them feel clever) but basically jargon is shite; 'culture of play' is a prime example.

Once again, it's not a banal insight simply because it's so often disregarded, especially on this website. The vast bulk of discussion about 4e on this website after 4e came out was wild, derogatory claims about how it was going to be played based solely on speculation about how it was designed and what the designers intended it to do. Very few people were dealing with the AP reports trickling in, and no one at any point clearly articulated the idea that people will play 4e in ways that are not fully encapsulated by the writings of Mike Mearls & co.

The term "culture of play" or "play culture" arose in contrast to the ubiquitous term "design culture" or "culture of design". It is intended to allow us to distinguish in our discussions between what we think the rules of a game (whether 4e or any other) intend and how the game is actually played.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;263355Where Pseudo and I (and some others, I suppose) keep butting heads is over the question of how far we can use the rules to discern (1) the designer's intent as to the focus of action in an RPG, (2) the play preferences of people who are attracted to the game (you might call this "identifying the influence of a prior culture of play on game design"), and (3) the expected culture(s) of play that will coalesce around the design.

Indeed. I coined the term "culture of play" to help provide a meaningful groundwork for those discussions. We haven't picked up them up since then though. In my case, I've avoided doing so because the amount of nonsense spewed about 4e on this forum poisons any attempt to address those issues.

Of course, it has to be nonsense that is poisoning the forums, because it couldn't possibly be valid critique.

Quote from: StormBringer;263444Of course, it has to be nonsense that is poisoning the forums, because it couldn't possibly be valid critique.

I think I could literally eat a bowl of alpha bits and crap out more insightful posts than you.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;263448I think I could literally eat a bowl of alpha bits and crap out more insightful posts than you.

Oh, that isn't how you post now?  I would have sworn you just hit random keys then spell-check it.

Quote from: StormBringer;263444Of course, it has to be nonsense that is poisoning the forums, because it couldn't possibly be valid critique.

It could be, but it isn't. You're one of a few people directly and personally responsible for that.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;263462It could be, but it isn't. You're one of a few people directly and personally responsible for that.

Naturally, your inability to form and defend a position is clearly someone else's fault.

Sorry, kid, you don't get to win arguments around here just for showing up.  Nor does rattling off some inchoate pseudo-intellectual wankery count as a 'point'.

Now, go off and have your little cry about mean old StormBringer messing up your forum enjoyment with his poisonous 'not agreeing with you'.

I'm just going to say that I think you can learn about as much about the way a game is played by reading the books as you can learn about Christians by reading the Bible.

I'm gonna say that after this long, I no longer care which one of you is right.

A side note, rereading this:

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;263355Where Pseudo and I (and some others, I suppose) keep butting heads is over the question of how far we can use the rules to discern (1) the designer's intent as to the focus of action in an RPG, (2) the play preferences of people who are attracted to the game (you might call this "identifying the influence of a prior culture of play on game design"), and (3) the expected culture(s) of play that will coalesce around the design.

Another way of putting (3), or you can make it a (4), would be, "How far we can ascribe the culture of play that coalesces around a game to its rules."

For example, we can look at the linearly-plotted style of play, in which the GM fudges dice rolls, switches hidden elements of prep around, etc. I think this "culture of play" developed through a combination of factors, among them the expectations of new gamers coming into the hobby and the decision by TSR to cater to the expectations/desires of people who wanted "storylines". According to what I've read, the approach got a big boost with Dragonlance. But in order to make it work, GMs were tasked with covertly undermining the existing rules. In short I've argued that this style shouldn't be ascribed to the existing rules, but to extrinsic factors. Or if you want to consider GMing advice which advocated this style to be "rules", then I'd call it an example of (2), where the influx of story-oriented desires led to the designers cobbling together new rules to satisfy them.

But conversely, when it comes to CP2020, it might well be that the game has inherent elements which attract and hold the interest of players who enjoy a certain style of play.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;263481I'm gonna say that after this long, I no longer care which one of you is right.

I'm not sure it even constitutes an argument - just semi-coherent muckslinging.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;263410Also...

Taking your anecdote at face value, you've got a point there; you've shown that Cranewings' observations of Palladium and WoD aren't easily generalized.

But right there in your counterexample, you suggest that there's a typical style of play in CP 2020. Why do you suppose that is—how much of it can be chalked up to the rules, and how much to other factors?

I actually think it's more to do with the players who are attracted to the game, rather than the design goals. This is entirely anecdotal, but the group I used to play CP2020 with were primarily into the whole thing because they liked the idea of running around with an armoury equivalent to that of a small Central American state. They wanted to power game with big guns, and the whole atmosphere of CP2020 seemed to lend itself to that.

Part of what allowed them to play in that way was the rules, but I think the atmosphere of the setting and more importantly the initial impulse to play a big metal guy with a railgun had more to do with it.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;263423Once again, it's not a banal insight simply because it's so often disregarded, especially on this website. The vast bulk of discussion about 4e on this website after 4e came out was wild, derogatory claims about how it was going to be played based solely on speculation about how it was designed and what the designers intended it to do. Very few people were dealing with the AP reports trickling in, and no one at any point clearly articulated the idea that people will play 4e in ways that are not fully encapsulated by the writings of Mike Mearls & co.

The term "culture of play" or "play culture" arose in contrast to the ubiquitous term "design culture" or "culture of design". It is intended to allow us to distinguish in our discussions between what we think the rules of a game (whether 4e or any other) intend and how the game is actually played.

Quite frankly I agree with you inasmuch as I'm apparently one of the few people in internet rpg-land who doesn't give a shit about system and design goals and just wants to play. (My criticisms of 4e, such as they are, are all to do with setting and philosophy.)

But I think the reaction against the "design culture" of 4e is a natural one, because in the months leading up to 4e's release we all had it rammed down our throats in posts on internet fora, blogs, and more importantly the WotC website. The talk was all about the wonderful design decisions the designers had made, how the game was all about allowing players to play in a certain way, and how much more streamlined and focused it all was in comparison to those silly older editions.

Quote from: noisms;263497Quite frankly I agree with you inasmuch as I'm apparently one of the few people in internet rpg-land who doesn't give a shit about system and design goals and just wants to play. (My criticisms of 4e, such as they are, are all to do with setting and philosophy.)

But I think the reaction against the "design culture" of 4e is a natural one, because in the months leading up to 4e's release we all had it rammed down our throats in posts on internet fora, blogs, and more importantly the WotC website. The talk was all about the wonderful design decisions the designers had made, how the game was all about allowing players to play in a certain way, and how much more streamlined and focused it all was in comparison to those silly older editions.

That's mainly because it hadn't been released yet, and there were only small amounts of information about the playtests. It's natural in an absence of testimony about play experiences to focus discussion on things that one can talk about. There wasn't much detailed information on the design of the game either until the 4e books were leaked.

It's important to point out that in what you describe above, you aren't reacting to the "design culture of 4e" so much as the marketing campaign for it. That's fine - I'm no great fan of advertising - but the design of 4e and its marketing campaign are very different things. If one has a problem with one of them, one should not confuse and conflate the two automatically.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;263601It's important to point out that in what you describe above, you aren't reacting to the "design culture of 4e" so much as the marketing campaign for it. That's fine - I'm no great fan of advertising - but the design of 4e and its marketing campaign are very different things. If one has a problem with one of them, one should not confuse and conflate the two automatically.

But the advertising was all about the design culture. So I'm not sure what your point is. Okay, we're reacting against what was said about the design culture, by the people who designed it. How is that functionally different from reacting against the design culture?

Quote from: noisms;263873But the advertising was all about the design culture. So I'm not sure what your point is. Okay, we're reacting against what was said about the design culture, by the people who designed it. How is that functionally different from reacting against the design culture?

The advertising was mostly nonexistent- in fact, you had to go the Wizards website and login to see any of it. I mean.. which specific piece of advertising are we tralking about being rammed down your throat? And where did you go to read it?

But the negative commentary was pretty much out of control. That started at the moment of the announcement, before there were any details given.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;263888But the negative commentary was pretty much out of control.

I'm pretty sure this says it all regarding over-identification.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;263888The advertising was mostly nonexistent- in fact, you had to go the Wizards website and login to see any of it. I mean.. which specific piece of advertising are we tralking about being rammed down your throat? And where did you go to read it?

But the negative commentary was pretty much out of control. That started at the moment of the announcement, before there were any details given.

Who said anything about it being rammed down anybody's throat? I just said that a heck of a lot of the advertising was to do with bigging-up the design culture of 4e and/or doing down the design of previous editions.

The negative commentary was hardly out of control. Most of the commentary was actually pretty positive both here and on the big purple. It's really only in a few threads that people were complaining. (Although I don't visit the WotC forums or some of the other bigger sites, so I can't say for sure.)

Quote from: noisms;263921Who said anything about it being rammed down anybody's throat? I just said that a heck of a lot of the advertising was to do with bigging-up the design culture of 4e and/or doing down the design of previous editions.

I would say it probably did at least some damage in the marketing to current players as well.

QuoteThe negative commentary was hardly out of control. Most of the commentary was actually pretty positive both here and on the big purple. It's really only in a few threads that people were complaining. (Although I don't visit the WotC forums or some of the other bigger sites, so I can't say for sure.)

I was pointing out some of the flaws, and more stridently than at acceptable levels, clearly.  I would say that some of the negative commentary and some of the positive commentary were less than reasoned, but those were the outliers, not the mean.

On the other hand, someone found a major exploit with the Ranger using just the 'leaked' documents, and Stalker0 demonstrated mathematically that the skill challenge system was doing exactly the opposite of what it was designed to do.  Flaws were demonstrated three days prior and about two weeks after the books were in stores.  I recall ENWorld threads that revolved around the skill challenge system in particular had extreme opinions on both sides.

I found most of the commentary to be quite positive as well.  It was occasionally tempered by mention of flaws, but in some cases it was as much blind positivism as the critiques were unthinking denigration.

The problems cropped up when the two extremes clashed, in my opinion.

Quote from: noisms;263873But the advertising was all about the design culture. So I'm not sure what your point is. Okay, we're reacting against what was said about the design culture, by the people who designed it. How is that functionally different from reacting against the design culture?

Much of the negative commentary on 4e hasn't gotten past the marketing, despite the game being out for months now. There has been a dismissal of actual play experience and the habits forming in the game's subculture and a focus instead on scrutinising every word that the designers write as if it was the final word on the subject.

This thread was originally Stormbringer fulminating about two blog posts Mike Mearls wrote about using some throw-away ideas he (Mearls) had about wandering monsters and using skill challenges to represent non-combat interactions with monsters. Stormbringer at no point asked if anyone was using wandering monsters or how, he simply launched into a harangue about how 4e doesn't have wandering monsters and why this makes it a piece of shit etc.

My group had a random encounter triggered by an unexpected level of involvement with a throw-away NPC last session. He's simply factually wrong that 4e doesn't have random encounters. It just doesn't have anything in the rulebooks mentioning them specifically. To repeat: He did not actually bother to ask anyone playing 4e if they were using random encounters or how they were using them. His commentary on 4e is simply uninformed ranting.

While not all critical commentary on 4e is such, there is a lot of commentary that is in a similar vein. I think that's because people are overly focused on how the game was designed, to the detriment of learning about how the game is being played.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;264088He's simply factually wrong that 4e doesn't have random encounters. It just doesn't have anything in the rulebooks mentioning them specifically.

Huh?

Quote from: Drohem;264098Huh?

4e doesn't say anything about wandering monsters and random encounters. In earlier editions of D&D, mention was often made of them in the corebooks (usually the DMG and MM, which had tables to roll on randomly to determine which monsters you would face). 4e doesn't really talk about that sort of stuff, and last I checked it didn't have the tables in the MM (I am willing to be wrong on these points about 4e, since they would undercut Stormy's argument anyhow).

On the other hand, when people are actually playing 4e, they have wandering monsters and random encounters in their sessions. Clearly people aren't just blindly following the rules, but are adding their own ideas and content (whether drawn from other games or editions of D&D, or elsewhere) to their game sessions.

Well, then Stormbringer wasn't factually incorrect about 4e.

Quote from: Drohem;264105Well, then Stormbringer wasn't factually incorrect about 4e.

Why?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;264110Why?

Do the 4e D&D RAW include wandering monsters/random encounters or not?

If it doesn't, then Stormbringer was correct.

Rather than following this debate about what is "in" 4e, I'd be more interested to know the procedures you used to introduce random encounters into play. For example, in older versions of D&D, the rules basically said to roll for a chance of an encounter occurring every X units of time, and if an encounter did occur, to roll on a table based on the locale. Some (maybe not all) editions also had procedures for determining how far away from the party the encountered creature(s)/person(s) would appear. There were also guidelines suggesting that rolls should be made more frequently under some circumstances (like if the party was fighting or otherwise making a lot of noise in a dungeon).

In practice, these rules are often roughly followed, with DMs opting to roll periodically without keeping strict track of time, and more often when the group is obviously dawdling. Published materials also provided examples demonstrating that DMs could/should customize their encounter tables based on the particular setting, or even tie certain "wandering" encounters to "keyed" creatures/persons. In the latter case it would be understood that a given encounter type was finite and could be "exhausted" at least within the framework of a single adventure.

Quote from: Drohem;264115Do the 4e D&D RAW include wandering monsters/random encounters or not?

If it doesn't, then Stormbringer was correct.

One of the key points on this thread is that a game is more than its RAW.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;264123Rather than following this debate about what is "in" 4e, I'd be more interested to know the procedures you used to introduce random encounters into play. For example, in older versions of D&D, the rules basically said to roll for a chance of an encounter occurring every X units of time, and if an encounter did occur, to roll on a table based on the locale. Some (maybe not all) editions also had procedures for determining how far away from the party the encountered creature(s)/person(s) would appear. There were also guidelines suggesting that rolls should be made more frequently under some circumstances (like if the party was fighting or otherwise making a lot of noise in a dungeon).

In practice, these rules are often roughly followed, with DMs opting to roll periodically without keeping strict track of time, and more often when the group is obviously dawdling. Published materials also provided examples demonstrating that DMs could/should customize their encounter tables based on the particular setting, or even tie certain "wandering" encounters to "keyed" creatures/persons. In the latter case it would be understood that a given encounter type was finite and could be "exhausted" at least within the framework of a single adventure.

In this particular case, it was off-the-cuff by the DM, which is his preferred style even in AD&D 1e (Joking references are often made to his love of Umber Hulks as a device to prevent dawdling).

We had finished a prepared encounter dealing with some bandits and had captured one rather than finishing her off or letting her go (She was the ringleader, we let the rest of the bandits who survived go after taking their weapons and money). Thanks to her interference, we made less progress during the day than we had planned, and finished well-short of our intended goal. After setting camp for the evening, she escaped from the PC assigned to guard her and took off.

For our part, we searched tentatively for her, but instead started making elaborate preparations, expecting her to return in the night and attempt to steal food or kill us.

Off the cuff, the DM decided that rather than have her show up and do so, he would set up a random encounter and she would attempt to aid us (The reasons were unclear, but post-battle conjecture was that she was trying to win us over to her, as she had attempted to do so earlier in the day). While I was outside smoking and the other PCs were socialising out of character / drawing out a map of our encampment to illustrate our precautions, he took the opportunity to surreptitiously put together an encounter involving some etterkin and deathjump spiders. After what appeared to be a decoy set of checks to detect her sneaking up on us, the PC on watch spotted them as they approached, battle was joined.

All of this was explained after the fact, of course. Smoke breaks are typical OOC pacing mechanism in our games, where all sorts of information may be consulted or discussed.

Though it didn't involve rolling on tables, it was an unplanned encounter that was developed spur-of-the-moment during a lull in play without PC knowledge based on both player and character behaviour.

Right, I wouldn't call that a random encounter exactly. Not that I think it's alien to how a lot of people play AD&D1e or many, many other RPGs.

It doesn't necessarily say anything about 4e per se that your GM used that method instead of a true random encounter; at the same time I don't think it would be out of line at all to suggest that the general tastes which lead one to enjoy (or prefer) 4e might also tend to steer one toward an on-the-fly tailored encounter instead of completely random ones.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;264138One of the key points on this thread is that a game is more than its RAW.

You made the statement that Stormbringer was factually incorrect in saying that the 4e RAW doesn't have wandering monsters/random encounters.  You then made the statement that the 4e RAW doesn't have information on wandering monsters/random encounters.

You can't have it both ways; either Stormbringer was correct that the 4e RAW has rules on wandering monsters/random encounters or not.  Which is it?  Do the 4e RAW have rules concerning wandering monsters/random encounters or not?

If not, then Stormbringer was correct.  If it does, then Stormbringer was incorrect.  By your own statements, Stormbinger is correct and not incorrect and you alleged.  You are now trying to obfuscate your contradictory statements with your self-coined rhetoric.

Quote from: Drohem;264151You made the statement that Stormbringer was factually incorrect in saying that the 4e RAW doesn't have wandering monsters/random encounters.  You then made the statement that the 4e RAW doesn't have information on wandering monsters/random encounters.

You can't have it both ways; either Stormbringer was correct that the 4e RAW has rules on wandering monsters/random encounters or not.  Which is it?  Do the 4e RAW have rules concerning wandering monsters/random encounters or not?

If not, then Stormbringer was correct.  If it does, then Stormbringer was incorrect.  By your own statements, Stormbinger is correct and not incorrect and you alleged.  You are now trying to obfuscate your contradictory statements with your self-coined rhetoric.

Actually, I never said "4e RAW" when stating my position. The reason I didn't is because one of the most important points I'm trying to make is that the rules as written are less important than the way the game is played. That's why I say "4e" when I talk about the game generally and mention the rulebooks specifically when I am referring to them. My contention against Stormbringer is precisely that he is focused over-much on RAW and ignores AP.

This has been my constant position for far longer than this thread, and it's been explained several times already in this thread.

This thread makes me think of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrvbj2aRT1I

While I'm not completely sold Pseudoephedrine's triggered encounters solution, it does have enough merit to explore it further.  If the triggered encounter has the same power level as the group, then I don't think it's a viable solution.  However, if the triggered encounter has a lower power level that the group, then I could see this as viable option.

Quote from: Aos;264158This thread makes me think of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrvbj2aRT1I

Oh no, sir.  I will not be Rick Rolled! :p

I'm here to help. Ask anyone.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;264149Right, I wouldn't call that a random encounter exactly. Not that I think it's alien to how a lot of people play AD&D1e or many, many other RPGs.

It doesn't necessarily say anything about 4e per se that your GM used that method instead of a true random encounter; at the same time I don't think it would be out of line at all to suggest that the general tastes which lead one to enjoy (or prefer) 4e might also tend to steer one toward an on-the-fly tailored encounter instead of completely random ones.

If that doesn't count, most games don't have random encounters. Wandering monster tables have been out of fashion for a long time in RPGs.

I tend to consider a random encounter / wandering monster to be any encounter that is not planned ahead of time and that does not arise during the session from the demands of the story.

I think there are many ways of deciding how these encounters will arise, but I don't see anything _fundamentally_ or _essentially_ different between deciding that the PCs have drawn the attention of monsters while they search the catacombs and flipping through the MM to find some appropriate foes; and deciding that for every ten minutes they spend searching the catacombs, you're going to roll on the wandering monster table. They are different styles or methods of the same thing.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;264088It just doesn't have anything in the rulebooks mentioning them specifically.

Wait, so now the rulebooks aren't RAW?

Quote from: Drohem;264159While I'm not completely sold Pseudoephedrine's triggered encounters solution, it does have enough merit to explore it further.  If the triggered encounter has the same power level as the group, then I don't think it's a viable solution.  However, if the triggered encounter has a lower power level that the group, then I could see this as viable option.

In the case in question, the level of the encounter's XP budget was equivalent to us, we started in a worse position (All but one prone and asleep, without full knowledge of our enemies' positions), and not having yet had an extended rest. The fight was difficult, and highly perilous, but not insanely hard. We had to be clever and careful and lucky to escape from a bad situation. The DM ended up bumping the encounter's level by one to compensate for the extremely poor statuses and positions we started with, giving us more XP.

To be fair, we are all seasoned gamers though. I wouldn't even describe it as the most difficult fight in this campaign.

Quote from: Drohem;264164Wait, so now the rulebooks aren't RAW?

The rulebooks are RAW. They simply aren't the sum total of everything 4e is. 4e is as much the actual game sessions as the rulebooks and their contents. It's also the public concepts and common ideas that undergird the structure of the rules.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;264165In the case in question, the level of the encounter's XP budget was equivalent to us, we started in a worse position (All but one prone and asleep, without full knowledge of our enemies' positions), and not having yet had an extended rest. The fight was difficult, and highly perilous, but not insanely hard. We had to be clever and careful and lucky to escape from a bad situation. The DM ended up bumping the encounter's level by one to compensate for the extremely poor statuses and positions we started with, giving us more XP.

To be fair, we are all seasoned gamers though. I wouldn't even describe it as the most difficult fight in this campaign.

Interesting, but I think more to the issue for me would the status of the group:

How depleted was the group's powers?  Had everyone already blown their daily and encounter powers?  Did you face the encounter with only at-will powers?  Did the most of the group still have their second wind?

Quote from: Drohem;264115Do the 4e D&D RAW include wandering monsters/random encounters or not?

If it doesn't, then Stormbringer was correct.

The DMG does indeed have a section on Random encounters and how to generate them- it's on page 194.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;264170They simply aren't the sum total of everything 4e is. 4e is as much the actual game sessions as the rulebooks and their contents. It's also the public concepts and common ideas that undergird the structure of the rules.

This is your opinion, but it's simply not true for everyone.

I'll even use my group as an example.  I'm the only person in my group who participates in the hobby by taken part in online discussion on forums and boards like this one.  I'm the only person in my group who reads about the hobby and trends within the hobby.  All the other people in my group just buy the RAW, and play within our gaming group.  They don't belong to the 4e community.  Hell, they didn't even know that a 4th edition was being written until I told them.  The only thing that they have to go on is the RAW.  If the RAW doesn't have information or rules on wandering monsters or random encounters.  Guess what?  There are no random encounters or wandering monsters in the games run by everyone else in my group.  Why?  Because it's not in the RAW, and they don't participate in the culture of play.  I would say that gamers like you and me, and everyone else on these boards are the exception and not the rule.  Most gaming groups exist in isolation from the hobby conversation, or the culture of play.

I fully understand your points and contentions, and there is merit to them.  I'm just saying that your point is not absolute, and, more than likely, applies to the minority rather than the majority.  In fact, I think that the term 'culture of play' has a nice ring to it.

Quote from: Aos;264180The DMG does indeed have a section on Random encounters and how to generate them- it's on page 194.

Well, there you go.  That's all that needed to be said.  ;)

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;264163If that doesn't count, most games don't have random encounters. Wandering monster tables have been out of fashion for a long time in RPGs.

I tend to consider a random encounter / wandering monster to be any encounter that is not planned ahead of time and that does not arise during the session from the demands of the story.

I'm a bit rushed, but opinions of fashion are the very point of the ongoing discussion, and the divergence between your personal definition and the actual one is also pretty relevant.

QuoteI think there are many ways of deciding how these encounters will arise, but I don't see anything _fundamentally_ or _essentially_ different between deciding that the PCs have drawn the attention of monsters while they search the catacombs and flipping through the MM to find some appropriate foes; and deciding that for every ten minutes they spend searching the catacombs, you're going to roll on the wandering monster table. They are different styles or methods of the same thing.

There's a big difference; one involves impersonal risk (to a large extent), the other is much more a matter of the DM specifically taking responsibility for modulating continuity and pacing. In the case with impersonal risk it's a lot easier for a DM to honestly say something after a game like, "Boy, you guys were lucky, I thought for sure you'd get caught sneaking through those tunnels," or "Tough break, it just wasn't your night."

Quote from: Aos;264180The DMG does indeed have a section on Random encounters and how to generate them- it's on page 194.

Why, then, did it take 20 posts to get to this answer?  I thought Pseudo had a weekly game or something.  Shouldn't he have mentioned those?

Of what does that section consist, if you don't mind providing the executive summary?
EDIT:  Assuming you are going to go through the trouble, if the entire section is on that single page - or worse, only part of that page - I will save you the time.  I have grave doubts that a single page in the 4e DMG is going to be anywhere near as comprehensive as Appendix C from the 1st Edition DMG, which starts on page 174 and runs on for about 20 pages.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;264088This thread was originally Stormbringer fulminating about two blog posts Mike Mearls wrote about using some throw-away ideas he (Mearls) had about wandering monsters and using skill challenges to represent non-combat interactions with monsters. Stormbringer at no point asked if anyone was using wandering monsters or how, he simply launched into a harangue about how 4e doesn't have wandering monsters and why this makes it a piece of shit etc.

No, sadly, if only this were true, your participation in this thread would at least have a point.  As it stands, you are just responding to your knee-jerk instinct of defending your game/preference against all challengers.

My primary complaint was much the same as Caesar Slaad's in starting this thread.  Without even understanding the role of wandering monsters, how can the argument be made that removing them was justified?

QuoteMy group had a random encounter triggered by an unexpected level of involvement with a throw-away NPC last session.

So, at some point during a set interval, or because of some other event that would sensibly alert a monster, your DM rolled for a monster check, then rolled on the resultant table for the monster(s) you encountered?

QuoteHe's simply factually wrong that 4e doesn't have random encounters. It just doesn't have anything in the rulebooks mentioning them specifically. To repeat: He did not actually bother to ask anyone playing 4e if they were using random encounters or how they were using them. His commentary on 4e is simply uninformed ranting.

I just wanted to re-iterate the direct contradiction here.

(Pending Aos' response...)
Also, I haven't asked anyone playing 4e if they were wearing pants.  I would presume that 'wearing pants' falls within the delimits of the '4e culture'.  Yet, I am pretty sure there isn't anything in the DMG about the proper attire.  The group that steadfastly refuses to clothe themselves in a requisite manner would have to fall outside the mainstream, I would think.  Therefore, any additions to the rules, be they houserules or group dynamics or what-have-you, really couldn't be considered 'official', right?  I mean, did you mean to make the point that your particular group's play preferences are in some way universal, or that they carry the same weight as the books published by WotC?  Or that simply by stating how your group does things makes it so that WotC actually did publish something they didn't?  Perhaps because my group likes to smack each other with padded weapons, that would mean that, despite the books not actually saying anything about it, the statement 'the books don't have information about boffers' is factually incorrect?

QuoteWhile not all critical commentary on 4e is such, there is a lot of commentary that is in a similar vein. I think that's because people are overly focused on how the game was designed, to the detriment of learning about how the game is being played.

How the game was designed has a great impact on how the game is played.  Unless you ignore most of the rules, substitute your own where ever you want, then pretend you are playing the same game as everyone else.

Primarily because the only thing you can really discuss is how the game is designed to be played.  I don't give a tinker's damn if your group dresses up in mime outfits and relays information around the table with semaphore flags using a dart board to determine d20 rolls.  That isn't how it was designed to be played.  That you can't seem to raise a valid point regarding the design shows how poor your grasp on the implementation of the ruleset remains.  All you have to fall back on is some addle brained rhetoric about 'culture of play', which really amounts to 'everyone is entitled to their opinion', because you are unable to comprehend even the most fundamental concepts of the design.

In any event, you are not even attempting to demonstrate that wandering monsters are not needed in 4e, you are feverishly scrambling around to prove that they are still extant, even if you have to make up almost all of the rules yourself.  In other words, as I have mentioned elsewhere, you are pulling out all the stops to show that this latest, greatest evolution of the rules, built upon and improved from the folly and brokenness of the previous versions still uses a mechanic from the very first edition.  It's as though you can't help making every effort to bind 4e to the legacy that the current designers and yourself sneer at on every other occasion.  Random character generation?  How quaint.  Treasure parcels not tailored to the party?  Good Lord, you must be from the stone age.  Wandering monsters?  Mearls' said he didn't know why they were there, but that just means he was exaggerating and really does know why there were there, and despite cutting them out of the books, they are still in there, if you make up the rules for them yourself.

It's bizarre.

QuoteOriginally Posted by Pseudoephedrine  

They simply aren't the sum total of everything 4e is. 4e is as much the actual game sessions as the rulebooks and their contents. It's also the public concepts and common ideas that undergird the structure of the rules.

This is absolute bullshit.

If an isolated group of gamers think that 4e is full of more shit than a Christmas Turkey, then that has exactly what effect on any other unrelated 4e game?

Quote from: StormBringer;264268EDIT:  Assuming you are going to go through the trouble, .

Don't be silly.

Quote from: Aos;264277Don't be silly.

I know.  What was I thinking?

Hopefully Pseudo or someone else looks them up, however.

Quote from: StormBringer;264279I know.  What was I thinking?

Hopefully Pseudo or someone else looks them up, however.

He has to.

This is how he demonstrates that his intellectual penis is just as big as anyone else's.

Quote from: jeff37923;264280He has to.

This is how he demonstrates that his intellectual penis is just as big as anyone else's.

Ha!

At any rate, it should help cut down on the contradictory nonsense he and his colleagues have been spewing recently.

Although, as I mentioned in response to Aos above, that single page is going to have to be spectacular in order to compete with 20 pages in 1st edition.

I looked them up because I hadn't seen them (as I have only been able to dedicate a small amount of time to plodding through the 4e rules books). I was actually surprised because I had skimmed the book and didn't recall them - and here's My Pal Aos giving page citations (graduate school, indeed!).

I have to be honest that while I agree to a small extent with Pseudo's belief that the game is more than what's written in the books, I think it doesn't apply here because the discussion was, as Stormy points out, focused on the design process of the game. The fact that Pseudo's groups is working around that is great - but not relevant to the issue of Mearls understanding, during the design process, the purpose of wandering monsters before eschewing them.

And I say eschewing them because the rules given on page are not exactly wandering monster/random encounter rules. It does go into detail (it's about 2 pages of text, three with pictures) about how to create a deck of cards to provide a random encounter generator (to the point of expressing the ability to eschew the DM if desired!). However, to me, it's another example of one of those little details that might not mean much to a large swath of gamers, but is an indicator to me.

I don't have my 1e DMG with me (it's downstairs and I'm upstairs and lazy), but IIRC, the reason it goes on for so many pages is because it has all of these encounter tables for various terrain. IOW, the type of encounter is tied to the setting and the world and what makes sense for it. In the 4e DMG, the way to pick is essentially driven by character level - with some advice that it is sometimes nice to do a theme:

QuoteYou can assemble monsters at random, but you can create more interesting and flavorful encounters by working with a theme, such as aberrant monsters or evil cultists.

And there's this:

QuoteA random encounter is usually less complex than one you craft yourself, but it doesn't have to be any less fun. You can create interesting tactical challenges with a few die rolls.

which, though I'm probably reading too much into it, seems to be saying that fun is derived from complex/interesting tactical challenges.

Anyway, it's mostly consumed (the two or so pages that is) with the creation of an Encounter Deck for generation of random encounters (could be traps or hazards as well). FWIW, YMMV, TEHO, etc. etc.

Quote from: StormBringer;264268Why, then, did it take 20 posts to get to this answer?  

That's actually a good question. I had read that section and it didn't occur to me to mention it in my long reply above. I thought about it, and it struck me that the "random encounters" section in the 4e DMG seems more like the "random dungeon" section of the 1e DMG than the wandering monster tables. They aren't quite the same thing, and James J Skach very cogently distills why this is so.

The 4e section suggests a much more random system, ironically enough, than the wandering monster tables of 1e (or 3e, at least if you count third party stuff like Necromancer Games' "Mother of All Encounter Tables), due to what James pointed out - the 1e tables grow out of where the characters are physically rather than where they are career-wise. The 4e system seems more free-floating, detached from any locations.

I know that may seem to be an odd statement given that much of the 1e set of tables deals with "dungeon levels." In that era, though, such "levels" were actual locations the PCs could end up in, regardless of what level they were in their classes. At least, that's how it was in my experience, so YMMV.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;264170The rulebooks are RAW. They simply aren't the sum total of everything 4e is. 4e is as much the actual game sessions as the rulebooks and their contents. It's also the public concepts and common ideas that undergird the structure of the rules.

No, it's not. That's like saying combat in Palladium is fast because my group triples supernatural strength damage and lets gunshot deal direct damage to hitpoints... Palladium isn't fast, I'm fast.

Quote from: Cranewings;264586No, it's not. That's like saying combat in Palladium is fast because my group triples supernatural strength damage and lets gunshot deal direct damage to hitpoints... Palladium isn't fast, I'm fast.

An excellent point.

Quote from: Cranewings;264586No, it's not. That's like saying combat in Palladium is fast because my group triples supernatural strength damage and lets gunshot deal direct damage to hitpoints... Palladium isn't fast, I'm fast.

No, that would be fine with me.

Quote from: jeff37923;264275This is absolute bullshit.

If an isolated group of gamers think that 4e is full of more shit than a Christmas Turkey, then that has exactly what effect on any other unrelated 4e game?

Nothing. That's why I use words like "public" and "common", Jeffy. A culture relies on communication between its members. If they talk about it on the internet, write to Dragon or another magazine, attend conventions, or otherwise meet and discuss things with gamers (even if only to induct new gamers), then they are participating in the culture.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;264193I'm a bit rushed, but opinions of fashion are the very point of the ongoing discussion, and the divergence between your personal definition and the actual one is also pretty relevant.

There is no single "actual" definition of a random encounter against which mine could diverge. There are only implementations, of which my interpretation attempts to provide broad structural principles to distinguish them from other kinds of encounters.

QuoteThere's a big difference; one involves impersonal risk (to a large extent), the other is much more a matter of the DM specifically taking responsibility for modulating continuity and pacing. In the case with impersonal risk it's a lot easier for a DM to honestly say something after a game like, "Boy, you guys were lucky, I thought for sure you'd get caught sneaking through those tunnels," or "Tough break, it just wasn't your night."

This is just a matter of taste. One may prefer one style or another, but that doesn't make one "better" and one "inferior" since others may prefer the opposite.

Quote from: Drohem;264186This is your opinion, but it's simply not true for everyone.

I'll even use my group as an example.  I'm the only person in my group who participates in the hobby by taken part in online discussion on forums and boards like this one.  I'm the only person in my group who reads about the hobby and trends within the hobby.  All the other people in my group just buy the RAW, and play within our gaming group.  They don't belong to the 4e community.  Hell, they didn't even know that a 4th edition was being written until I told them.  The only thing that they have to go on is the RAW.  If the RAW doesn't have information or rules on wandering monsters or random encounters.  Guess what?  There are no random encounters or wandering monsters in the games run by everyone else in my group.  Why?  Because it's not in the RAW, and they don't participate in the culture of play.  I would say that gamers like you and me, and everyone else on these boards are the exception and not the rule.  Most gaming groups exist in isolation from the hobby conversation, or the culture of play.

I fully understand your points and contentions, and there is merit to them.  I'm just saying that your point is not absolute, and, more than likely, applies to the minority rather than the majority.  In fact, I think that the term 'culture of play' has a nice ring to it.

You yourself have pointed out on other threads that you're trying to change them to match your preferred style of play, which you describe using concepts you clearly picked up from the internet. They're not well-connected to the culture of play, but they are connected.

In this day and age, almost everyone is due to access to the internet and gaming overlapping quite a bit. They may not be well-connected in that they may not participate directly in online forums or whatever, but they are still tangentially connected to it.

As a second and final point, no one ever only has "RAW" to go on. Every rule requires interpretation, sometimes in a very abstract way, sometimes very directly. People can and do apply themselves to interpret those rules, to change them as desired, and to make on-the-spot decisions about whether they apply or not. It's simply a question of what knowledge or habits someone has are going to inform those acts.

Pseudo, your last response to my post is disappointing; it doesn't really address my points at all.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;264879You yourself have pointed out on other threads that you're trying to change them to match your preferred style of play, which you describe using concepts you clearly picked up from the Internet.

No, I never once said that I was trying to change my group's play style.  I stated that I've come to realize my preference in style of play, and that it differs from the rest of my group currently.  Yes, I used some terms from the Internet.  I stated that I was the only active person in my group that participated in discussions on the Internet.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;264879In this day and age, almost everyone is due to access to the Internet and gaming overlapping quite a bit. They may not be well-connected in that they may not participate directly in online forums or whatever, but they are still tangentially connected to it.

Access to the Internet does not equate to participating in the culture of play.  

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;264879As a second and final point, no one ever only has "RAW" to go on. Every rule requires interpretation, sometimes in a very abstract way, sometimes very directly. People can and do apply themselves to interpret those rules, to change them as desired, and to make on-the-spot decisions about whether they apply or not. It's simply a question of what knowledge or habits someone has are going to inform those acts.

Of course, groups or individuals may create House Rules.  However, there are also groups or individuals that may also play a game by the RAW.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;264902Pseudo, your last response to my post is disappointing; it doesn't really address my points at all.

It was a weird position for you to take, since depersonalisation is generally considered to be a feature of modern games like 3.x and Burning Empires, not "Old School" gaming.

If depersonalisation is a good thing, it's unclear why depersonalisation must operate in that specific way. For example, a DM could just as easily use perception or detection rolls on behalf of pre-positioned monsters to achieve the same result.

I'd in fact consider the latter superior to the former for two reasons:

1) If the monsters are already determined to be in the world and all that's in question is under what circumstances the PCs are going to encounter them, it allows the PCs to take actions to determine those circumstances, which increases their agency.

2) Logistically, it is easier on the DM, since they can already have the relevant material prepared, both mechanically and imaginatively. They monster's stats can be readied beforehand, and the DM can construct plausible reasons for why this monster is in the adventure location.

Rolling on a wandering monster table isn't terrible or anything, but it strikes me as only one possible way of introducing variability into the pacing of the adventure, to be honest, a particularly crude version at that unless combined with others (such as perception/detection rolls).

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;265118Rolling on a wandering monster table isn't terrible or anything, but it strikes me as only one possible way of introducing variability into the pacing of the adventure, to be honest, a particularly crude version at that unless combined with others (such as perception/detection rolls).

Doesn't this presume the the reason for wandering monsters is to introduce variability into the pacing of the adventure? It seems to imply, also, that it's the only reason.

Couple this with "depersonalization", Pseudo, and you're starting to lose me.

Quote from: James J Skach;265122Doesn't this presume the the reason for wandering monsters is to introduce variability into the pacing of the adventure? It seems to imply, also, that it's the only reason.

I'm responding to Elliott's statements. Your objections ought to be leveled at him, not me.

I'm not sure if these are the only reasons Gygax included wandering monsters but I feel the intention was to provide unpredictability and time pressure, which aren't exactly the same as variabity of pacing, as well as reinforcing the degree to which the world is independent of the characters. As someone wrote (I think it was the Col.) the form of wandering monsters presented in OD&D and other early editions implies that the stuff you encounter is a property of the terrain or location rather than the party.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;265118It was a weird position for you to take, since depersonalisation is generally considered to be a feature of modern games like 3.x and Burning Empires, not "Old School" gaming.

If depersonalisation is a good thing, it's unclear why depersonalisation must operate in that specific way. For example, a DM could just as easily use perception or detection rolls on behalf of pre-positioned monsters to achieve the same result.

Eliot didn't say 'depersonal'.  He said 'impersonal'.  As in, 'impartial'.  Positioned, portioned, and parceled monsters are part of stocking the dungeon in the first place, and are necessarily part of the design.  Wandering monsters introduce a random element, one that can't be predicted or planned for.  It's part of playing a game.  The banker doesn't set the prices in Monopoly, nor direct the players to a specific porperty to land on, based on their ability to pay for it.  You roll the dice, decide if you can afford the property, and pass the turn.

Quote1) If the monsters are already determined to be in the world and all that's in question is under what circumstances the PCs are going to encounter them, it allows the PCs to take actions to determine those circumstances, which increases their agency.

They already took the actions to determine those circumstances.  They woke up and left the tavern that morning.  As Geddy Lee says: Why are we here?  Because we're here.  Roll the bones.

As I mentioned before, not every trip to Wal-Mart is a set piece.  Sometimes, you just run into a random assortment of humanity.  They aren't there to enlighten you, they aren't there to point out the best sales, they aren't there for any purpose related to you whatsoever.  The Great Dungeon Master in the sky rolled a bunch of wandering consumers for you.

Quote2) Logistically, it is easier on the DM, since they can already have the relevant material prepared, both mechanically and imaginatively. They monster's stats can be readied beforehand, and the DM can construct plausible reasons for why this monster is in the adventure location.

Clearly, you have never laid eyes on a wandering monster table.  Nothing about wandering monsters in any way prevents having the information in your notes.  Statblock, reasons and typcial reactions, squares to check off for hit points, &c.

Were you thinking a wandering monster table was just a bare list of monster names with numbers on the left?  You can grab a ton of olde school modules for $4 over on Paizo to brush up on your wandering monster knowledge.  The Queen of Spiders megamodule is the same $4 over there, and it is jam packed with good examples of how to set up wandering monster tables.

And why would they need some kind of deep plot related reason to be there?  What are the adventurers doing there?  Dowsing for gold.  Looking for shelter.  Treasure map.  What difference?  Especially in a wilderness adventure.  A planned and plotted encounter a thousand miles from nowhere is preposterous.

QuoteRolling on a wandering monster table isn't terrible or anything, but it strikes me as only one possible way of introducing variability into the pacing of the adventure, to be honest, a particularly crude version at that unless combined with others (such as perception/detection rolls).

How does one go about rolling for perception/detection without the relevant skills?  You are clearly thinking in a 3.x pattern.  It shows, frankly, in your posts.  The other pattern is this whole 'everything is there for a plot related reason' nonsense.  Utter drivel.  They are there as a decision point.  Does the party negotiate, run or fight?  It may only be a pack of goblins, but a low level party could still take a few hits, or foolishly waste their spells for little to no treasure or xp.  How does a perception roll improve this?  They have a few extra seconds to decide whether they...  talk, run or fight.  As much as you would like to believe more rolls make for more fun, not one whit is added to the game by extraneous rolls to detect a set encounter piece.  Have the characters happen upon it in the normal course of exploring, like all the other keyed locations.  There is absolutely no sense in adding additional keyed encounters in the hallways.

Because that is all you are really talking about.  Additional hallway encounters.  Your method has nothing in common with wandering monsters in the least.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;265144I'm not sure if these are the only reasons Gygax included wandering monsters but I feel the intention was to provide unpredictability and time pressure, which aren't exactly the same as variabity of pacing, as well as reinforcing the degree to which the world is independent of the characters. As someone wrote (I think it was the Col.) the form of wandering monsters presented in OD&D and other early editions implies that the stuff you encounter is a property of the terrain or location rather than the party.

The problem is that just rolling on the table, no matter how well structured, doesn't really do anything to bring the creature in as a plausible part of the gameworld unless you surround it with things like perception rolls, etc. to explain its approach on the PCs.

The comparison I would draw is establishing a set of pre-designed patrols, each of which has a certain chance rolled every so often to be passing near enough to the PCs to make perception checks to spot them (and vice versa). I see the patrols (as one possible example, of course) as being equivalent, if not superior (because the DM is already prepped, as mentioned earlier) to rolling on the table.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;265149The problem is that just rolling on the table, no matter how well structured, doesn't really do anything to bring the creature in as a plausible part of the gameworld unless you surround it with things like perception rolls, etc. to explain its approach on the PCs.

Really? Because the point of the table, a well-structured one, is to provide that plausibility.

Why else do you find a Remorahaz in arctic and sub arctic conditions, and only then in rough or mountainous terrain, whereas no such creature appears in the temperate and sub-tropical conditions?

For reference, please consult pages 183-4 of your 1e DMG.

There are variations dealing with populated versus unpopulated areas; sylvan settings - even tables for pre-historic/dinosaur settings! All created to provide that plausibility.

I think, perhaps, we're running into very different ideas of what a wandering monster means.

In AD&D at least, a wandering or random encounter starts essentially by establishing that the monster is in the vicinity of the group; this is on pp. 47-49 of the DMG. You determine surprise, and from that you determine the distance at which the encounter occurs (i.e., the range at which at least one party becomes aware of the other). Then you move onto evasion, pursuit, and/or combat. Since AD&D had no perception rolls, the surprise and evasion guidelines effectively handled the questions that Pseudo raises. Or there's also the suggestion (at least in Moldvay/Cook, and almost certainly in AD&D) that encounters can be defined by the area to whatever degree of specificity the DM wishes. In other words, if you want patrols, you do exactly as Pseudo suggests, although in many circumstances the patrol will be included as one among several possible encounter types for the locale. The dungeon adventure I wrote up a while back shows how it's done.

The issue of prep is an interesting one; the thing about older editions of D&D is that prep is very easy, and so is rolling stuff up on the spot. So if the DM wants to, he or she can pregenerate a large number of encounters without wasting a lot of time, or conversely if an encounter occurs that isn't pregenerated, it doesn't slow the game down very much. Either way, there's less of a temptation and less of a need to channel adventures along the path of prep. (This is something that "Superdan" noticed as also affecting overall adventure design in the first two pages of this interesting essay (http://www.superdan.net/grtdnd/grtdnd1.html).)

If you think the random encounter system could be further nuanced, you're right. For example you could have a rule or guideline so that if, say, a "bear" is rolled, the interpretation in some circumstances could be as subtle as finding bear tracks, dung, a deer carcass, etc.; the players' subsequent actions could determine whether they really encounter a bear.

But this is drilling down into the level of detail and abstraction you want to provide; it doesn't really change the fundamental philosophical difference between the risk properties of old-school random encounters and new-school approaches of planned or GM-improvised encounters. A GM who exerts very little control over when or what the PCs might encounter has effectively taken the stance that there's potentially more going on in the game world than he or she has mapped or scripted out. In practice, absolute randomness takes things too far--actually I think it's almost always better to have custom tables instead of the DMG encounter tables. I think this is because, unless you have some sort of Bayesian inference that feeds back into the system, pure randomness breaks the chains of causation and association that we use to make sense of the world. In plainer terms, random encounters represent risks due to incomplete information--not actual randomness in the world--and since they limit the ability of the GM to script or pace events, they mitigate the tendency of players to see the unknown in terms of GM psychology rather than hidden elements of the game-world. Instead of trying to second-guess the GM, they'll infer properties of the setting.

In very practical terms, emphasizing encounters based either on pre-keyed maps & notes or on random mechanics reduces the role of the GM in managing the direction and flow of the game and puts more responsibility on the players--they can't rely on the GM to feed them a steady but manageable series of encounters. The plausibility of random encounters isn't found in some detail of how the encounters are handled but in the basic premise of the setting as an external reality.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;265193In very practical terms, emphasizing encounters based either on pre-keyed maps & notes or on random mechanics reduces the role of the GM in managing the direction and flow of the game and puts more responsibility on the players--they can't rely on the GM to feed them a steady but manageable series of encounters. The plausibility of random encounters isn't found in some detail of how the encounters are handled but in the basic premise of the setting as an external reality.

Once again, Mr. Wilen makes my point in a manner I hope to achieve some day.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;265193In very practical terms, emphasizing encounters based either on pre-keyed maps & notes or on random mechanics reduces the role of the GM in managing the direction and flow of the game and puts more responsibility on the players--they can't rely on the GM to feed them a steady but manageable series of encounters. The plausibility of random encounters isn't found in some detail of how the encounters are handled but in the basic premise of the setting as an external reality.

I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Quote from: James J Skach;265252Once again, Mr. Wilen makes my point in a manner I hope to achieve some day.

Truly, if there is not already a fan club, we must start one.

I agree with James Skach, Shaman and Stormy: awesome post, Elliot, and you pretty much said it all.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;265193In AD&D at least, a wandering or random encounter starts essentially by establishing that the monster is in the vicinity of the group; this is on pp. 47-49 of the DMG. You determine surprise, and from that you determine the distance at which the encounter occurs (i.e., the range at which at least one party becomes aware of the other). Then you move onto evasion, pursuit, and/or combat. Since AD&D had no perception rolls, the surprise and evasion guidelines effectively handled the questions that Pseudo raises. Or there's also the suggestion (at least in Moldvay/Cook, and almost certainly in AD&D) that encounters can be defined by the area to whatever degree of specificity the DM wishes. In other words, if you want patrols, you do exactly as Pseudo suggests, although in many circumstances the patrol will be included as one among several possible encounter types for the locale. The dungeon adventure I wrote up a while back shows how it's done.

This is very important.  The encounter mechanics of OD&D/AD&D are often ignored, especially in discussions about wandering monster tables.  The idea that a DM would spring an encounter right on top of the PCs no matter what the terrain or situation is preposterous and shows little understanding of the ruleset.

Further, the encounter tables in the DMG are intended for generic "pick up" style play or for use in areas in which the DM hasn't prepared customized encounter charts.  That's why modules and campaign materials produced in this era always had custom wandering monster tables.

Quote from: KenHR;265262The encounter mechanics of OD&D/AD&D are often ignored, especially in discussions about wandering monster tables.

It's been my experience that discussions about many different OD&D and AD&D mechanics frequently ignore the actual rules. The number of people who used the rules as written seem to be pretty low. I can't even begin to tell you how many discussions I had on ENWorld in particular with gamers who insisted that this rule or another didn't exist, or worked in some completely jacked up way that has nothing to do with what is printed in the books.

My impression is that for many gamers D&D was transmitted orally, where groups learned a few rules mishmashed from different versions (and even different systems) and made up the rest. In that light it's easier to understand why so many people retain misapprehensions about the system.

That's a fair point.

I guess my experience is a bit different from many, as I was taught to play by example, but when I inherited my oldest brother's D&D and, later, AD&D, materials, I read the books cover to cover in order to understand the rules.  I think that comes from my board wargaming experience, where house ruling is less prevalent.

Quote from: KenHR;265274I guess my experience is a bit different from many, as I was taught to play by example, but when I inherited my oldest brother's D&D and, later, AD&D, materials, I read the books cover to cover in order to understand the rules.  I think that comes from my board wargaming experience, where house ruling is less prevalent.

Same here. The dungeon master's duties rotated among four of us in our group, and we all hunted through the books to add new twists and challenges to the game. As a result we were all pretty conversant in the rules as written.

I've learned that we were the exception in this regard, and not the rule.

In regards to the above posts, I think it's a bit like punctuation. Instinct and pride tell us that we're doing it right, but a quick look through some reference gives the lie to this assumption. Sadly, the very existence of the assumption makes it unlikely that one will seek out the necessary reference.

It appears that most of everything has been resolved already. Still...

Quote from: James J Skach;263254I'm not exactly sure how getting rid of one and promoting (now with italics!) the other is significantly different than getting rid of one and retaining the other. Are you intending to imply that the promotion of the one was to cover the issues covered by the other - that the promotion of "triggered, planned" events was in ways that covered the needs addressed by wandering monsters? If so, in what ways do the former address what was addressed by the latter?

I wouldn't like to speculate as to whether the increased emphasis on preplanned events was devised specifically to cover the lack of wandering monsters, but I do think that is the outcome. Taking the three functions of wandering monsters suggested in this thread (verisimilitude of the dungoen environment, resource depletion and random game fun) preplanned encounters cover the first two just as well as wandering monsters, if not better, and the DMG has details on random encounters for those who feel a particular need for random fun. To turn the question around, what do wanding monsters provide which is otherwise lacking from the new edition?

Quote from: StormBringer;263270I agree, you are confused.  Are you seriously asking this question?  Clearly, you are assuming that NPCs and PCs having different rules is self-evidently better, but there is nothing to support that, so now you need to show why that is beneficial.

He baits, he switches he fails to score. PCs and NPCs have different rules in 4E, fact. The issue was not whether this was better or worse, merely that it was the case. thank you for playing.

QuoteThe only way random encounters and pre-planned encounters serve the exact same purpose is if the pre-planned encounters are designed to deplete resources with little reward.  Are you saying that pre-planned encounters serve the same purpose as wandering monsters?  Do you have any support for that besides your assertion?

I don't agree with the claim in bold in the first place. You seem to have jetisoned arguments for verisimilitude, and made similarities on the resource depletion front conditional on a lack of reward, in each case without further justification.  

QuoteHad you read the 1st Edition DMG, you would see the exact same thing.

Exactly - 1E and 4E say teh same thing, fancy that. For the record, I have read the 1E DMG, the difference between us is that I have also read the 4E DMG and can therefore see the similarities between them. I can see where 4E encourages many of the same things as previous editions which you, in ignorance, asset that differences exist where there are none.

Quote[Wandering monsters exist to throw the unexpected at the players to break out of the 'kick the door, attack the monsters' rut, and to keep them from searching every square inch of the dungeon.  As a side benefit, it shows the dungeon as a living, changing entity that exists apart from the PCs.  Why are the orcs there?  Who knows, the party just plowed into them coming around a corner.  Fight, flight, start talking?  That is for the PCs to figure out.

Again, what feature of a random wandering monster, as distinct from a wandering monster preplanned by the DM, provides this?

QuoteYou are treating this as though the 4e method is better because it is more recent.  You will need to start demonstrating why wandering monsters are detrimental to game play.

No I don't because that was never my claim. You have to demonstrate what random wandering monsters provide that planned wandering monsters do not.

QuoteWell, it is the difference between a neatly planted row of trees, and an old-growth forest.

Deliberate plantation does not require neat rows.

QuoteLet's take a look at another situation.  You head down to Wal-Mart to grab a couple of notepads and a soda. The cashiers are there on a more or less regular schedule, but from your point of view, it's largely random. ... They are random 'wandering monsters'.  What you decide to do in that instance is entirely up to you.  But they aren't there because someone planned them to be.

Let's look at another situation. You are Truman Burbank and you head down to Wal-Mart...

QuoteNo way.  Seriously?  It's not what he said, it's what he meant?  Clearly, this is grasping for straws.  Allow Mearls' a little room for explaining what he meant on his own.  He cut a mechanic that he didn't fully understand, and now he is being called on it.

Are you familiar with the concept of comedic hyperbole? For a guy who claims not to understand the reasons for the mechanic, Mearls still manages to address two of the purposes we've already mentionsed (resource depletion and random fun - he omits verisimilitude). So either he gave the matter more thought in a brief blog post than in his career to date, he is extremely lucky, or else his comments about dithering players and the desire to throw a gelatenous cube into the mix were slightly tongue in cheek.

QuoteSo, you would still believe someone with massive scarring on their hand over someone who hasn't?

When telling me that fire burns, of course I'd believe the guy with the scar. The interesting thing here is that, in 4E terms, you apparently wouldn't. What is the guy with the scarring if not the guy who stuck his hands into the fire? the guy with actual personal experience? The guy who has played the game?

Quote from: StormBringer;263444Of course, it has to be nonsense that is poisoning the forums, because it couldn't possibly be valid critique.

It's nonsense that is poisoning the forums because it is nonsense. The valid critiques, of which there are some, don't poison anything.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;263448I think I could literally eat a bowl of alpha bits and crap out more insightful posts than you.

Pssst, you don't need to eat the alpha bits ;)

Quote from: Cranewings;263476I'm just going to say that I think you can learn about as much about the way a game is played by reading the books as you can learn about Christians by reading the Bible.

there is a lot of truth in that.

Quote from: noisms;263497But I think the reaction against the "design culture" of 4e is a natural one, because in the months leading up to 4e's release we all had it rammed down our throats in posts on internet fora, blogs, and more importantly the WotC website.

Quote from: noisms;263921Who said anything about it being rammed down anybody's throat? I just said that a heck of a lot of the advertising was to do with bigging-up the design culture of 4e and/or doing down the design of previous editions.

Bwuh? :confused:

Just to show that we all make the odd mistake ;)

Quote from: Trevelyan;265621Again, what feature of a random wandering monster, as distinct from a wandering monster preplanned by the DM, provides this?

Random wandering monsters are random; planned ones aren't. I would have thought the answer was obvious. Then again, some people apparently like railroading.

QuoteBwuh? :confused:

Just to show that we all make the odd mistake ;)

Oops.

Quote from: noisms;265623Random wandering monsters are random; planned ones aren't. I would have thought the answer was obvious. Then again, some people apparently like railroading.

But random and preplanned monsters are all random from the point of view of the player. Railroading doesn't come into it.

For example, the DM might decide that, in the case of a wandering patrol, the patrol has a certain route that it follows and which it completes every 10 minutes. If the PCs rest on the patrol route for 10 minutes then they will encounter the patrol, if they cross the patrol route without making an effort to be quiet then the patrol gets a perception check to hear them, etc. Why would that appraoch result in less excitement for the players, given that they don't necessarily know about the patrol in advance, than if it were totally random?

There's only one part that applies to me, so I'll take that one...

Quote from: Trevelyan;265621I wouldn't like to speculate as to whether the increased emphasis on preplanned events was devised specifically to cover the lack of wandering monsters, but I do think that is the outcome. Taking the three functions of wandering monsters suggested in this thread (verisimilitude of the dungoen environment, resource depletion and random game fun) preplanned encounters cover the first two just as well as wandering monsters, if not better, and the DMG has details on random encounters for those who feel a particular need for random fun. To turn the question around, what do wanding monsters provide which is otherwise lacking from the new edition?

It might be that you see it as part of "verisimilitude," but I'll be a bit more specific - an existence that doesn't revolve around the characters.

Because, as I noted, one of the major things I saw as different between the 1e DMG and the 4e DMG (this makes me think I haven't been thorough enough - I haven't looked at the 3.5 DMG, shame on me) is how the encounters in the former were generated based on terrain and climate, whereas the latter focuses on the challenge to the party - the mix of monsters, the level appropriateness, etc.

Quote from: James J Skach;265637It might be that you see it as part of "verisimilitude," but I'll be a bit more specific - an existence that doesn't revolve around the characters.

Because, as I noted, one of the major things I saw as different between the 1e DMG and the 4e DMG (this makes me think I haven't been thorough enough - I haven't looked at the 3.5 DMG, shame on me) is how the encounters in the former were generated based on terrain and climate, whereas the latter focuses on the challenge to the party - the mix of monsters, the level appropriateness, etc.

Arguably it is part of verisimilitude, but not in the context that I've been using the term above (mostly in the sense of the dungeon having a routine outside of the PCs and not simply consisting of monsters waiting to be killed) so it's worth treating as a separate point.

I think it's a difference of focus on encounter design between the editions. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, 4E doesn't advocate that all encounters should be balanced for the PCs, it's just that the scaling maths of the system mean that the party doesn't stand a chance in a fight against monsters outside a certain level range of their own (the DMG says about 8 levels higher, but practically it varies by monster). The 4E encounter design rules are rules for creating a fight which falls within a given difficulty range (easy, average, hard, very hard) and which will challenge different party compositions such that the fight should be fun. Outside of that range an encounter is either trivially easy or impossibly hard and shouldn't really result in a fight either way (the monsters or the PCs should probably flee).

If you look at the encounter design rules as the total of everything the PCs will meet then of course it looks contrived, but if you assume that they will take cover when an ancient dragon flies overhead, and that the kobold raiding party will either bow down before or else flee from the band of demigods wandering along then you don't need encounter design rules for them. Encounter design is only for designing combat encounters - those situations where a fight is likely to occur and either side has a chance - those situations where you want the PCs to get stuck in.

Quote from: Trevelyan;265633But random and preplanned monsters are all random from the point of view of the player. Railroading doesn't come into it.

For example, the DM might decide that, in the case of a wandering patrol, the patrol has a certain route that it follows and which it completes every 10 minutes. If the PCs rest on the patrol route for 10 minutes then they will encounter the patrol, if they cross the patrol route without making an effort to be quiet then the patrol gets a perception check to hear them, etc. Why would that appraoch result in less excitement for the players, given that they don't necessarily know about the patrol in advance, than if it were totally random?

I dunno, if a tree falls down in the forest and there's nobody around to hear it, does it still make a sound? The answer is yes.

The point of a wandering monster table is that the results are as much of a surprise to the DM as to the players; that's what gives the game a sense of spontaneity and removes boring 'plotted' events. If even the DM can't be sure of what's coming, you can be damned sure the players will genuinely be kept on their toes.

Maybe you're right that the players don't have to know that non-random encounters aren't random. But the very fact that such encounters have been planned removes that crucial element of spontaneity - no DM could properly plan out a set of encounters that would come close to the unpredictability of a good, extensive random generator.

I'd also add that random encounters can put a lot of power to drive the game into the hands of the players. An example: in the game I'm currently running, the PCs ran across a randomly generated gang of gnolls. To my surprise, rather than fight, a parley developed, whereupon the players ended up striking a you-scratch-my-back deal with the gnolls. It was all entirely off-the-cuff, and ended up with the entire adventure going off on an utterly unpredicted tangent. That sort of tangent can develop with pre-planned encounters, but by their very nature such encounters are finite in variety, which makes sandbox play in particular much less rich.

Quote from: Trevelyan;265643.

I think it's a difference of focus on encounter design between the editions. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, 4E doesn't advocate that all encounters should be balanced for the PCs, it's just that the scaling maths of the system mean that the party doesn't stand a chance in a fight against monsters outside a certain level range of their own (the DMG says about 8 levels higher, but practically it varies by monster). The 4E encounter design rules are rules for creating a fight which falls within a given difficulty range (easy, average, hard, very hard) and which will challenge different party compositions such that the fight should be fun. Outside of that range an encounter is either trivially easy or impossibly hard and shouldn't really result in a fight either way (the monsters or the PCs should probably flee).

If you look at the encounter design rules as the total of everything the PCs will meet then of course it looks contrived, but if you assume that they will take cover when an ancient dragon flies overhead, and that the kobold raiding party will either bow down before or else flee from the band of demigods wandering along then you don't need encounter design rules for them. Encounter design is only for designing combat encounters - those situations where a fight is likely to occur and either side has a chance - those situations where you want the PCs to get stuck in.

Or, to return to Mearls blog, stat them as a skill challenge. I quite like the idea of trivially easy encounters being handled like this en masse for high level parties. Locating and storming the Kobold lair would be handled via a series of rolls that represent several days of effort. It helps maintain minor monstrous factions presence, offers a not unreasonable reward for effort expenditure, and can be wrapped up in a few minutes of game time.

Quote from: Trevelyan;265621He baits, he switches he fails to score. PCs and NPCs have different rules in 4E, fact. The issue was not whether this was better or worse, merely that it was the case. thank you for playing.

Uh, no.  There really is no point in just listing differences.  That isn't even worth typing out.  Clearly there are differences.  Whether those differences are meaningful is what is under discussion.  Nice try, but you don't get to decide what is under discussion.

QuoteI don't agree with the claim in bold in the first place. You seem to have jetisoned arguments for verisimilitude, and made similarities on the resource depletion front conditional on a lack of reward, in each case without further justification.

Then what are these pre-planned encounters supposed to do?

QuoteExactly - 1E and 4E say teh same thing, fancy that. For the record, I have read the 1E DMG, the difference between us is that I have also read the 4E DMG and can therefore see the similarities between them. I can see where 4E encourages many of the same things as previous editions which you, in ignorance, asset that differences exist where there are none.

Except they don't say the same thing.  Several people have already mentioned that.  'Similarities' and 'the same thing' aren't, well, the same thing.

QuoteAgain, what feature of a random wandering monster, as distinct from a wandering monster preplanned by the DM, provides this?

Noisms already covered this, but let me re-iterate:

You understand basic English, right?  'Random' and 'wandering' are the opposite of 'pre-planned'.  You can plan to buy Marvin Gardens, but the dice determine when or if you hit it.  That is what makes a game different than an exercise in vaguely mechanics directed short story writing.

QuoteNo I don't because that was never my claim. You have to demonstrate what random wandering monsters provide that planned wandering monsters do not.

Randomness.  It says it right in the name.

QuoteDeliberate plantation does not require neat rows.

I'll give you a pass on that one, you likely aren't familiar with farming practices of any kind.  But what you said was the same as 'deliberate plantation of corn does not require neat rows'.

QuoteLet's look at another situation. You are Truman Burbank and you head down to Wal-Mart...

Well, if your game sessions are entirely self-aware like that, more power to you.

QuoteAre you familiar with the concept of comedic hyperbole? For a guy who claims not to understand the reasons for the mechanic, Mearls still manages to address two of the purposes we've already mentionsed (resource depletion and random fun - he omits verisimilitude). So either he gave the matter more thought in a brief blog post than in his career to date, he is extremely lucky, or else his comments about dithering players and the desire to throw a gelatenous cube into the mix were slightly tongue in cheek.

Seriously?  You think the entire argument is based on a gelatinous cube?  Let's take another look:

Quote from: blogWandering monsters have been a fixture of D&D since the beginning. I can't even begin to explain how or why Gary included them. Did his players have a tendency to dither outside dungeon chambers? Was he bored and looking for an excuse to throw a gelatinous cube at the party? Who can say?

My old gaming groups never used wandering monsters. There was enough adventure in the rooms of our dungeons, and enough of our adventurers took place in urban settings, that we never saw the need for them. The resource model for earlier D&D editions was such that, from a strictly mechanical perspective, each wandering monster meant one fewer monster the group could handle before heading home.

When the characters take a short rest, roll 1d20 . On an 19+, a wandering monster stumbles across them at some point during their rest.

Voila! Each time the PCs rest, there's a chance they fail to regain their precious encounter abilities and hit points. Instead, they're looking at a mob of angry critters. Even if the party is safely holed up in a room, and the monsters pass them by after a few tense Stealth and Perception checks, you've added a compelling element of uncertainty, danger, and chaos to the adventure.

If you want to get fancy (and who doesn't want to get fancy?), you can tie your wandering monster checks to a skill challenge. Let's say the check starts at 15+. Each success in the challenge bumps that threshold up by 1, each failure drops it by 1. You could use Perception, Stealth, Streetwise, and so on, along with judging the PCs' actions in the dungeon, to manage the challenge.

So, every instance where he mentions 'wandering monsters', he means 'pre-planned, party appropriate encounter'.  That is certainly comedic hyperbole.  There is no 'managing the challenge' with wandering monsters.  That is entirely a railroad approach to DMing.  You may want to read Elliot Willen's posts a second or third time.

QuoteWhen telling me that fire burns, of course I'd believe the guy with the scar. The interesting thing here is that, in 4E terms, you apparently wouldn't. What is the guy with the scarring if not the guy who stuck his hands into the fire? the guy with actual personal experience? The guy who has played the game?

Well, you know, the guy that designed the game.  I mean, I can get the opinions of a 4e player that ignores everything in the books and makes up their own interpretations of the rules, but that could hardly be considered a 4e player, could it?  I mean, I could certainly take the rules and play Ponies and Teddybear Picnics, but I don't think that would really qualify me to comment on the pros and cons of standard character builds, does it?

In other words, if you want to drag your personal interpretations designed to exalt the ruleset above all others into the discussion, expect people to point out that your experience with the rules is light years away from what is actually written.

QuoteIt's nonsense that is poisoning the forums because it is nonsense. The valid critiques, of which there are some, don't poison anything.

And blind exhortation of a ruleset is even more poisoning.

QuotePssst, you don't need to eat the alpha bits ;)

It might help your reading comprehension, however.

Quote from: Trevelyan;265643I think it's a difference of focus on encounter design between the editions.

But of course! I'm not sure I've, personally, claimed anything else. I think I've even refrained from claiming one is objectively better than the other. I do claim, however, they are different.

Quote from: Trevelyan;265643If you look at the encounter design rules as the total of everything the PCs will meet then of course it looks contrived, but if you assume that they will take cover when an ancient dragon flies overhead, and that the kobold raiding party will either bow down before or else flee from the band of demigods wandering along then you don't need encounter design rules for them. Encounter design is only for designing combat encounters - those situations where a fight is likely to occur and either side has a chance - those situations where you want the PCs to get stuck in.

Two things struck me about this paragraph. The first was, it seems to be, IMHO, a bit of circular logic. You define the term of Encounter Design, and then imply that to thinkt he definition otherwise doesn't make sense. And I agree - because you defined it a specific way!

Then I realized...ah ah ah...not so fast there mister. If you want to define Encounter Design as "only for designing combat encounters - those situations where a fight is likely to occur and either side has a chance," feel free. I think it conveniently removes the "random" from the conversation.

In a way, it's precisely the difference I'm pointing out in another form. If the PC's aren't going to engage - what's the use? It's the PC-centric perspective, as opposed to the World-centric approach. Each is good for those folks as love them. But they do different things.

Let's take 1e. You've got a random encounter. The DMG has all those tables based on climate, terrain, etc., and you roll up a Remorhaz in the middle of the glacier. The Remorhaz exists independently of the PC's. It might be too powerful, it might be a cake walk, but the stats are in the MM and with a small amount of room for adjustments, it is what it is. And it is for the PC's to deal with as they see fit.

Let's take 4e. You've got a random encounter. The design becomes all about making sure the it's within that appropriate challenge range you laid out. There are examples of how to swap out opponents to ensure that you can tweak the level just right. And it is for the PC's to deal with as they see fit.

Now, for some, the former is obviously the superior choice. For others, the second is the only way that makes sense. I've got my own preference, but I don't have a thing to say to either side - as long as there is recognition that there is a fundamental difference that influences play style.

This last bit seems to be a radical thought for some. I'm not sure why.

I agree with all those points, James.

Quote from: Trevelyan;265633But random and preplanned monsters are all random from the point of view of the player. Railroading doesn't come into it.

This is an issue that's gone round and round at least since the early 90's, and frankly there seems to be a cognitive gulf that is rarely if ever bridged. On one hand it's claimed that humans (DMs) aren't very good at simulating randomness, while other humans (players) are good at detecting nonrandom patterns. On the other hand it's claimed that the samples are too low and the circumstances too incomparable, within an adventure, to make any kind of statistical inference. I stand with the former camp.

Off the top of my head, there are a couple other objections. First, I think in many or most cases players really do have a good idea whether encounters are planned or random--because the DM tells them, or they've picked up that expectation from rules or sample scenarios--and when planned it's all too easy to view the encounter through a lens of referee intention, i.e. "Why did he put that there?" which turns dealing with the encounter into an exercise in mind-reading and either cooperation with the DM's "plan" or rebellion against it. YMMV of course. Second, planned or improvised encounters seem to be favored precisely because the group wants a plot--in the case of planned encounters, a fairly rigid structure, but even with improvised encounters, the idea is to meet certain expectations.

(I might ask, what exactly is gained by having non-random encounters, if non-random encounters are just as random from the players' POV?)

QuoteFor example, the DM might decide that, in the case of a wandering patrol, the patrol has a certain route that it follows and which it completes every 10 minutes. If the PCs rest on the patrol route for 10 minutes then they will encounter the patrol, if they cross the patrol route without making an effort to be quiet then the patrol gets a perception check to hear them, etc. Why would that appraoch result in less excitement for the players, given that they don't necessarily know about the patrol in advance, than if it were totally random?

This is all well and good, however it's really a special case of a location-based encounter. What it has in common with random encounters or wandering monsters in the classic sense is that it's founded on a model of an objective game world; in this case, instead of a stochastic model, it's a dynamic or mechanistic model. But either way, it isn't founded on elements of plot necessity. By comparison, an attack by monsters conjured out of thin air while the party is resting mid-journey has no objective principle behind it. This is especially so if the trigger is based on whether the party "can handle the attack", or if the type of encounter is tailored to what the party can fight, or if it's motivated by a need to provide an opportunity for some other plot element--as in Pseudo's example (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=264145&postcount=225) above.

Quote...the DM decided that rather than have her show up and do so, he would set up a random encounter and she would attempt to aid us

I.e., the encounter was improvised in conjunction with an existing plot thread about an NPC, rather than independently as an event in itself. It should be acknowledged that the DM here does the same thing with AD&D 1e--from this isolated instance we can't say if the game style proceeds from the rules set, or if style preference leads to game preference, or if there's any relationship at all. The point here is just to show the difference in style.

Another example--I think I came across it while browsing the 4e DMG in the store--is where the PCs might be wandering in the desert and come across an oasis. Did they find the oasis because they had a map or followed a caravan track? Was it blind luck? No: IIRC the text says they should find it because the oasis is a necessary step along the path of the adventure. Yet the event of finding the oasis could certainly be portrayed to the players as "random" and they'd have no way of knowing if it was or wasn't--or would they? I think they would, and the result is that the players will give up responsibility for navigating the wastes, in the knowledge that the adventure will be guided by the GM.

I just changed my status from an Associate member of the Elliot fan club to a full-blown Member. :)

Quote from: StormBringer;265652You understand basic English, right? 'Random' and 'wandering' are the opposite of 'pre-planned'. You can plan to buy Marvin Gardens, but the dice determine when or if you hit it. That is what makes a game different than an exercise in vaguely mechanics directed short story writing.

So, do you consider chess a game?

Quote from: Trevelyan;265621I wouldn't like to speculate as to whether the increased emphasis on preplanned events was devised specifically to cover the lack of wandering monsters, but I do think that is the outcome. Taking the three functions of wandering monsters suggested in this thread (verisimilitude of the dungoen environment, resource depletion and random game fun) preplanned encounters cover the first two just as well as wandering monsters, if not better, and the DMG has details on random encounters for those who feel a particular need for random fun. To turn the question around, what do wanding monsters provide which is otherwise lacking from the new edition?

With only the slightest bit of irony, I would point out that the new edition doesn't lack wandering monsters--they're only absent from the rules as written.

At least I think we have to see things that way in order to get to the meat of the matter, which is so-called "preplanned" vs. "wandering monster" encounters. And again for me the major issue is the verisimilitude.

But first we really have to make sure we understand what we're talking about when we refer to a preplanned encounter. The example of the patrol given above isn't really a problem for people who object to "preplanned" encounters. The encounter isn't planned--it doesn't come about based on a script that says the encounter will happen, and it isn't triggered by a story-based criterion with no analog to the (posited) internal dynamics of the game world. It either happens or doesn't based on where the PCs go and what they do--basically it's highly analogous to the internal dynamics of the game world.

As I've said a couple places before, the preplanned encounter removes objective risk from the approach to the encounter: it isn't "there's a risk Y will happen (which might be influenced by certain things we do)" but "there's a chance the DM or the module's script will make Y happen, based on criteria with no analog to the internal dynamics of the game world whatsoever"--by which I mean, service to a plot thread, or inversely related to the ability of the party to handle a possible encounter.

Quote from: CavScout;265723So, do you consider chess a game?

You say that as if chess is radically different to Stormbringer's definition of a game, but it really isn't. In chess as in monopoly the course of events is unpredictable because you can't see into your opponent's mind, just as you can't see the result of a dice roll before it's been made. You can't pre-plan a game of chess.

Quote from: CavScout;265723So, do you consider chess a game?

No, it's more akin to a puzzle with strong game elements.

In addition:

Quote from: noisms;265725You say that as if chess is radically different to Stormbringer's definition of a game, but it really isn't. In chess as in monopoly the course of events is unpredictable because you can't see into your opponent's mind, just as you can't see the result of a dice roll before it's been made. You can't pre-plan a game of chess.

Quote from: Drohem;265721I just changed my status from an Associate member of the Elliot fan club to a full-blown Member. :)

Your check is in the mail.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;265733Your check is in the mail.

I suggested forming the fan club.  Where's my cash?  :)

Quote from: noisms;265725You say that as if chess is radically different to Stormbringer's definition of a game, but it really isn't. In chess as in monopoly the course of events is unpredictable because you can't see into your opponent's mind, just as you can't see the result of a dice roll before it's been made. You can't pre-plan a game of chess.

If you are playing D&D and your DM is using pre-planned encounters, are you able to read his mind? Or is it still a game, regardless of the fact if he is using random encounters or not?

Quote from: StormBringer;265740I suggested forming the fan club.  Where's my cash?  :)

Ah, I will engage a solicitor to distribute graft...er...presents as necessary.

Anyway, I think the "game" question tends to be stressed a little too hard in many RPG discussions. It's not really necessary to have a canonical definition of "game"; what people are usually getting at when they argue over it is really a preference for some property they associate with "game", anyway. (Compare "art".)

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;265752Anyway, I think the "game" question tends to be stressed a little too hard in many RPG discussions. It's not really necessary to have a canonical definition of "game"; what people are usually getting at when they argue over it is really a preference for some property they associate with "game", anyway. (Compare "art".)

I agree.

Yeah, here I think the association is with strategy and risk-taking. You might enjoy that in and of itself, or you might want to include it at some level in your RPG because the strategy and risk-taking at the table is analogous to strategy and risk-taking by the characters. Either way, the agency of the player-characters is reduced when you have preplanned encounters, since they can't meaningfully affect (a) whether the encounter occurs or (b) the parameters of the encounter.

You'll find some divergence over whether reducing agency is desirable in some cases--but here there's an overlap between people who crave what might be called "strategic" decision making for its own sake, and people who simply want to have a level of control that's analogous to the PC's agency, for a given level of abstraction.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;265759Yeah, here I think the association is with strategy and risk-taking. You might enjoy that in and of itself, or you might want to include it at some level in your RPG because the strategy and risk-taking at the table is analogous to strategy and risk-taking by the characters. Either way, the agency of the player-characters is reduced when you have preplanned encounters, since they can't meaningfully affect (a) whether the encounter occurs or (b) the parameters of the encounter.

In this case, how do the players have more control over the timing or other parameters of a random encounter rolled up and pre-panned encounter?

The players don't have control of any in either. For example, where the control in either:
A)Room 12c contains four goblins around a campfire eating.
Or
B)Room 12c contains ______. Consult random table 4D and roll two D6s for result.

Neither, in my opinion, give the players control.

I don't think there's anything to stop a GM re-rolling/fudging a random encounter, or twisting it the way he wants it to go. In that sense nothing is really a surprise to the GM and there's no substantial difference between a random encounter and a pre-planned one.

To cavscout: First of all, I don't think anyone who has issues with "preplanned" objects to (a) or even thinks of it as a pre-planned encounter. That's what I think of as a "location-based" encounter.

...and with that I have to interrupt my answer and take this up later (if necessary).

Quote from: droog;265806I don't think there's anything to stop a GM re-rolling/fudging a random encounter, or twisting it the way he wants it to go. In that sense nothing is really a surprise to the GM and there's no substantial difference between a random encounter and a pre-planned one.

It was my understanding we were looking from the player's perspective, not from the GM's. In any case, I agree with what you said.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;265809To cavscout: First of all, I don't think anyone who has issues with "preplanned" objects to (a) or even thinks of it as a pre-planned encounter. That's what I think of as a "location-based" encounter.

I guess I don't see the difference between a pre-planned encounter and a pre-planned location. Hell, I'd submit that one can build pre-planned encounters into a random table where you simply use randomness to select which pre-planned encounter to have.

Well, I seem to have a couple more minutes while my wife and her friends sort things out...

droog: of course, if you assume that the GM has the power to fudge and will fudge or rule with a bias toward certain outcomes, you'll get those results. Given the power of the GM all this is guided by an ethos or sense of responsibility. Being against preplanned encounters wouldn't make much sense if the DM didn't at least exert restraint and try to be neutral.

I've injured my back, so I haven't been posting lately. It's on the mend (hopefully) now so I'll jump back in.

Elliott>

I think we're talking past here one another. From your comments above, it seems that your conception of a planned encounter involves planning according to a meta-game structure, like the plot, or escalating difficulty levels designed to match PC competence. What I'm trying to focus on when I talk about them are the sort that don't require metagame structures (both types exist and can be used together, of course), but that arise from the dynamics of the adventure location itself. That's why I keep on talking about patrols etc.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;265824I've injured my back, so I haven't been posting lately. It's on the mend (hopefully) now so I'll jump back in.

I injured my back years ago, and it flares up every so often.  Back pain is no joke.  I hope it mends well for you, and you have as little pain as possible.

Quote from: Drohem;265832I injured my back years ago, and it flares up every so often.  Back pain is no joke.  I hope it mends well for you, and you have as little pain as possible.

Thanks mate.

Quote from: Drohem;265832I injured my back years ago, and it flares up every so often.  Back pain is no joke.  I hope it mends well for you, and you have as little pain as possible.

Seconded.  I feel your pain.

Quote from: CavScout;265746If you are playing D&D and your DM is using pre-planned encounters, are you able to read his mind? Or is it still a game, regardless of the fact if he is using random encounters or not?

Because the point of the random encounter is that the DM also can't predict what's going to occur. When people play chess, does one of the players know what's going to happen while the other doesn't?

I'm not even sure why this is controversial.

Quote from: noisms;265880Because the point of the random encounter is that the DM also can't predict what's going to occur. When people play chess, does one of the players know what's going to happen while the other doesn't?

I'm not even sure why this is controversial.

I hope the player, in chess, making his moves knows what move he is going to make while the other guy doesn't...

Of course chess has two players going head-to-head. An RPG really shouldn't be players versus the DM as the DM will almost always have foreknowledge of what is going on. DMs generally have a pretty good idea of what’s going to happen, if there has been any sort of pre-game planning at all (like say reading the module they’ll be running).

The issue whether one wants to use pre-planned or random encounters should simply be play preference. Attempting to elevate one style to some “better” gamming experience seems pretty silly to me.

Quote from: CavScout;265896I hope the player, in chess, making his moves knows what move he is going to make while the other guy doesn't...

But he doesn't know how the whole game will pan out, and in fact doesn't know what will happen after he makes his move.

QuoteOf course chess has two players going head-to-head. An RPG really shouldn't be players versus the DM as the DM will almost always have foreknowledge of what is going on. DMs generally have a pretty good idea of what's going to happen, if there has been any sort of pre-game planning at all (like say reading the module they'll be running).

Now who's elevating one style of play over another? ;)

I personally hate and fear modules and never use them, and I don't do much pre-planning. I prefer that style of game, because in my experience pre-planning leads to railroading; your mileage may vary, etc. etc. Of course some pre-planning is a necessary evil, but the less involved the better.

QuoteThe issue whether one wants to use pre-planned or random encounters should simply be play preference. Attempting to elevate one style to some "better" gamming experience seems pretty silly to me.

Seems silly to me too; good job I'm not doing it.

You do understand this tangent started with the claim that without randomness, it's not a game, right?

Quote from: CavScout;265925You do understand this tangent started with the claim that without randomness, it's not a game, right?

As another exercise in your abysmal reading comprehension skills, I assume you are going to point out where that was said?

Quote from: StormBringer;265928As another exercise in your abysmal reading comprehension skills, I assume you are going to point out where that was said?

"You can plan to buy Marvin Gardens, but the dice determine when or if you hit it. That is what makes a game different than an exercise in vaguely mechanics directed short story writing."[1 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=265652&postcount=282)]

Quote from: CavScout;265930"You can plan to buy Marvin Gardens, but the dice determine when or if you hit it. That is what makes a game different than an exercise in vaguely mechanics directed short story writing."[1 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=265652&postcount=282)]

So, as the Banker, if I laid out where each player would land for each turn, that is a game to you?

In other words, the DM lays out every single encounter the party will run into, and you say that is a game?

Why do you consider chess a game?

Quote from: StormBringer;265932So, as the Banker, if I laid out where each player would land for each turn, that is a game to you?

Could be.

QuoteIn other words, the DM lays out every single encounter the party will run into, and you say that is a game?

Yes, most certainly.

QuoteWhy do you consider chess a game?

Because it is.

Note: I noticed you didn't refute the meaning of the quote.

Quote from: CavScout;265933Could be.

Yes, most certainly.

Because it is.

Note: I noticed you didn't refute the meaning of the quote.

Mostly, because it would be utterly lost on you.

But, just so everyone else knows...

Pretending that pre-planned patrol routes and such is anything like 'random' is foolish.  Mearls' blog entry clearly states (not comedic hyperbole) that these are a method to 'manage the challenge'.  In other words, another mechanic to tailor the adventure to the players' expectations.  Wandering monsters means they may not always have the means to engage or to loiter.  They have to make a decision, and it's a decision they don't often have much time to make.  It puts pressure on them to act, not to dither for three hours of game time whether or not to open the door.

Wandering monsters are part of this challenge.  It's not there to be managed, or controlled, or as an interim reward mechanisms for the players.  It's there, like many things in games or in life, to be dealt with.

I know you aren't going to answer this, because I really don't think you have any clue what the rest of us are talking about, but one more time:  Why do you think chess is a game?

I'm beginning to think Kyle is right, and you don't actually play RPGs.

Quote from: StormBringer;265935Mostly, because it would be utterly lost on you.

But, just so everyone else knows...

Pretending that pre-planned patrol routes and such is anything like 'random' is foolish.

As another exercise in your abysmal reading comprehension skills, I assume you are going to point out where that was said?

QuoteMearls' blog entry clearly states (not comedic hyperbole) that these are a method to 'manage the challenge'.  In other words, another mechanic to tailor the adventure to the players' expectations.  Wandering monsters means they may not always have the means to engage or to loiter.  They have to make a decision, and it's a decision they don't often have much time to make.  It puts pressure on them to act, not to dither for three hours of game time whether or not to open the door.

Wandering monsters are part of this challenge.  It's not there to be managed, or controlled, or as an interim reward mechanisms for the players.  It's there, like many things in games or in life, to be dealt with.

I know you aren't going to answer this, because I really don't think you have any clue what the rest of us are talking about, but one more time:  Why do you think chess is a game?

I'm beginning to think Kyle is right, and you don't actually play RPGs.

You're engaged in goal post shifting now. Your claim was without randomness, in this case referring to encounters, that it really would be a game. You were challenged on this. You then claimed you never said it. You were shown to have said it and now you are trying to spin move your way out of the corner you find yourself in.

Whether a GM uses pre-planned encounters or relies on random encounter charts/tables does not determine if what they are doing is a game or not.

You may prefer one way over the other but neither is the one true way to gaming while the other is simply "mechanics directed short story writing".

So flail about, make some ad hominems if you like but you are still wrong. You lied when you said you didn't say what you did and now can not back it up and want to change the subject.

PS: Chess is a game.

Get a room already.

Quote from: Aos;265946Get a room already.

We tried that once, he has performance anxiety.  :teehee:

Quote from: CavScout;265941As another exercise in your abysmal reading comprehension skills, I assume you are going to point out where that was said?

Mimicking is all you have left?

QuoteYou're engaged in goal post shifting now. Your claim was without randomness, in this case referring to encounters, that it really would be a game. You were challenged on this. You then claimed you never said it. You were shown to have said it and now you are trying to spin move your way out of the corner you find yourself in.

My claim was nothing of the sort.  I was comparing two specific examples, not games in general.

As often as you claim people use all these logical fallacies, it would behove you to actually read up on what they mean.

QuoteWhether a GM uses pre-planned encounters or relies on random encounter charts/tables does not determine if what they are doing is a game or not.

And why is that?

QuoteYou may prefer one way over the other but neither is the one true way to gaming while the other is simply "mechanics directed short story writing".

Positive assertions are not refutations.

QuoteSo flail about, make some ad hominems if you like but you are still wrong. You lied when you said you didn't say what you did and now can not back it up and want to change the subject.

You brought up the idea of defining games.  You didn't understand what I was talking about, which isn't my fault, and now you want to blame your lack of comprehension on someone else.  You have no idea if I am right or wrong, because you have no concept of what is under discussion.

QuotePS: Chess is a game.

Again, a positive assertion isn't a refutation.  As you are unable to provide any kind of discussion as to why it's a game, we'll mark you down in the 'fail' column for that one.

Quote from: CavScout;265950We tried that once, he has performance anxiety.  :teehee:

Sorry, chief, I'm straight.  Good luck with that, though.

Quote from: StormBringer;266010Mimicking is all you have left?

Note, no actual response. So you can't show where I said what you claimed.

QuoteMy claim was nothing of the sort.  I was comparing two specific examples, not games in general.

As often as you claim people use all these logical fallacies, it would behove you to actually read up on what they mean.

So you didn't claim that without randomness it's really not like a game and more like storytelling? Really, is that you position now?

QuoteAnd why is that?

Simply because randomness of encounters doesn't determine if it is a game or not.

But why don't you explain why or why not use of random encounters makes it a game.

QuotePositive assertions are not refutations.

So, lack of randomness is not a game and is more like ""mechanics directed short story writing"?

I mean, fuck man, make up your mind. You say you didn't say something. Then you say I didn't refute what you didn't say.

If you didn't say it, why would I "refute it"?

QuoteYou brought up the idea of defining games.  You didn't understand what I was talking about, which isn't my fault, and now you want to blame your lack of comprehension on someone else.  You have no idea if I am right or wrong, because you have no concept of what is under discussion.

You brought it up with you claim that lack of randomoness is "mechanics directed short story writing".  I suppose you have no concept of timing or that when you say it before others respond to it that you actually brought it up.

QuoteAgain, a positive assertion isn't a refutation.  As you are unable to provide any kind of discussion as to why it's a game, we'll mark you down in the 'fail' column for that one.

Why don't you refute that it isn't a game? That's right, because your postings here are the game, eh?

By definition chess is most certainly a game.  A game is any activity engaged in for diversion or amusement as well as a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other.  It would however make a pretty poor roleplaying game IMO.  It's too limited in scope.  So it's kind of a silly argument.  *shrug*

Quote from: Idinsinuation;266022By definition chess is most certainly a game.  A game is any activity engaged in for diversion or amusement as well as a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other.  It would however make a pretty poor roleplaying game IMO.  It's too limited in scope.  So it's kind of a silly argument.  *shrug*

The argument has never been it being a role-playing game not any more than the example of monopoly being a game or not based on randomness was.

• Chess
• Monolpoly
• D&D using random tables for encoutners
• D&D using pre-planned encounters

All are games. The latter are RPGs even though random encounters are used in one and the other the are pre-planned.

Quote from: CavScout;266020You brought it up with you claim that lack of randomoness is "mechanics directed short story writing".

This is still complete fabrication.  There is no point in responding to things that weren't actually claimed, just because you think they were.

Quote from: StormBringer;266028This is still complete fabrication.  There is no point in responding to things that weren't actually claimed, just because you think they were.

I'd suggest going back and editing "You can plan to buy Marvin Gardens, but the dice determine when or if you hit it. That is what makes a game different than an exercise in vaguely mechanics directed short story writing" (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=265652&postcount=282) out of your postings then. Really, quick before others read it.

Quote from: Idinsinuation;266022By definition chess is most certainly a game.  A game is any activity engaged in for diversion or amusement as well as a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other.  It would however make a pretty poor roleplaying game IMO.  It's too limited in scope.  So it's kind of a silly argument.  *shrug*

Ah, yes, as I mentioned before, chess certainly has some strong game elements.  However:

Puzzle
a toy, problem, or other contrivance designed to amuse by presenting difficulties to be solved by ingenuity or patient effort.

I would say that the starting positions of the pieces is a 'contrivance'.  It's arbitrary where they are on the board, to a degree.  Early versions of chess (from ancient India) even had dice to determine which piece would be moved.

Of course, there have been numerous attempts to 'solve' chess, in the same way that tic-tac-toe is solved.  This alone doesn't really make it a puzzle, however, as a solved game doesn't mean quite the same thing, but it has similar connotations.  Importantly to this discussion, the games that are solved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game) don't have random elements.  They are wholly mathematical in nature, which is what allows them to be solved, to one degree or another.

On a more colloquial level, you don't find chess in a casino.  :)  More seriously, there is a distinct difference in the strategies involved in a mathematical game like chess or checkers and something like poker or roulette.  People can be quite successful at either one, but the strategies are clearly very different.

So, chess has opponents squaring off against each other, but I think there is more to playing a game than just the plurality of participants.  It's not entirely in the random element either, of course.  But something like Monopoly or craps is closer to a pure 'game' than chess.  Another definition, which I think you will see more often than not:

Quote from: dictionary.coma competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

Chance is not the only defining factor, as much as skill is not either.  I think if you ask most people, though, they will likely answer what a game is with examples that contain some type of randomiser.

Quote from: CavScout;266032I'd suggest going back and editing "You can plan to buy Marvin Gardens, but the dice determine when or if you hit it. That is what makes a game different than an exercise in vaguely mechanics directed short story writing" (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=265652&postcount=282) out of your postings then. Really, quick before others read it.

But, then you can't keep foolishly quoting it, as though it means what you think it does.  At some point, I am hoping you will actually read what you are quoting, and gain some level of comprehension.

Quote from: StormBringer;266039Chance is not the only defining factor, as much as skill is not either.  I think if you ask most people, though, they will likely answer what a game is with examples that contain some type of randomiser.

That's quite likely because I think it's safe to say that most common games contain some sort of random element, dice, a deck of cards, etc.  That doesn't mean we remove the "game" status from classic games like Go, Chess, Shogi, and even Pac-Man.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;265816droog: of course, if you assume that the GM has the power to fudge and will fudge or rule with a bias toward certain outcomes, you'll get those results. Given the power of the GM all this is guided by an ethos or sense of responsibility. Being against preplanned encounters wouldn't make much sense if the DM didn't at least exert restraint and try to be neutral.

In principle, the same applies to pre-planned encounters. Ideally the GM makes principled decisions (exercising restraint and neutrality) in planning those encounters.

Quote from: Idinsinuation;266049That's quite likely because I think it's safe to say that most common games contain some sort of random element, dice, a deck of cards, etc.  That doesn't mean we remove the "game" status from classic games like Go, Chess, Shogi, and even Pac-Man.

Certainly, which speaks to the popularity of randomizers in games, doesn't it?  :)

More to the point, it can just as easily be said that chess (and the like) is a game with strong puzzle elements.  So, it's rather a hybrid.  It's certainly not an RPG.  RPGs share much more in common with Monopoly or poker.  You roll the dice, or get dealt a hand, and figure out how to make the best of it.

Importantly, what is missing from the puzzles is precisely that randomising factor.  For example, solitaire is a solo activity, but I think it falls well under the rubric of 'game' rather than puzzle.  Similarly, if one were to introduce a randomising element to Sudoku, it would be more of a game than a puzzle, rather more in line with the other popular computerized Asian pastime Mah-Jongg.

In that respect, whether the players are aware of it or not, if you remove randomizing elements, you are getting closer to a puzzle.  How do we avoid the patrol?  If we make too much noise, some of the orcs from room 15 will 'wander' out to investigate.  You can give that the guise of randomness any number of ways, but it really ends up being a triggered encounter.

Now, this certainly isn't a bad way to play.  It just seems rather superfluous to go out and drop $100 on rules if you just want to tell a collective story.  There are plenty of free rules-lite games out there that are more suited to that style of play.

Of course, that is just my preference for play.  ;)

Quote from: droog;266052In principle, the same applies to pre-planned encounters. Ideally the GM makes principled decisions (exercising restraint and neutrality) in planning those encounters.

The question is, what is the principle a GM would use in a pre-planned encounter? If the goal is verisimilitude, in terms of approximating the risk and uncertainty due to incomplete knowledge--but also the expectation that the "world" isn't arranged according to some plan--it seems that, first, "preplanning" is inherently contradictory to that goal.

E.g., I've seen modules where, no matter what the PCs do or how quickly they do it, or where they go and how fast they travel, they'll run into a certain encounter, yet the structure of the encounter implicitly requires a coincidence rather than planning. IIRC this happens in D&D module X4 in a few places; the one that sticks out in my mind is running across an enemy encampment right before the army picks up and leaves. Implicit in the idea of the army being on the move is the idea that if the PCs arrived earlier or later, they wouldn't have run across the encampment. Yet the chance of the encounter occurring is 100% as long as the PCs move roughly within the confines of the mission. Once habituated to this type of encounter structure, players (many of them, perhaps not all, YMMV) will "know" that anything they run into has been planned. For me this sort of thing encourages too much of an expectation that the trail has been marked out specially for me and I don't have to worry about picking the right path for myself.

It seems that improvisation is less likely to be a problem--and I think it is. I have no doubt that improvised encounters can be done sort of whimsically or unconsciously, focused more on giving interesting grist for play than for pushing the game in a particular direction. But they can still deprive the players of freedom or lead to railroading--a classic case being the infiltration that never comes off without a hitch because the GM thinks that a game just isn't complete without a fight. Gygax suggested a method of dealing with this issue, but I think his advice tends to be ignored--it's as simple as backing off of deterministic improv and instead looking to possibilities and likelihoods, working the "encounter" from there. It would come as second nature to a wargamer, statistician, or anyone else focused on "modeling", and it comes from the same neutral ethos I mentioned: instead of deciding arbitrarily that X is true, the GM looks at the situation and asks how likely X is, given the context. Then dice are rolled.

This is similar to the techniques advocated in some "narrativist" games ("say yes or roll dice", "let it ride") except that the mechanics are explicitly subsidiary to the fiction, and it's understood that probabilities should be based on a vision of the game world as an objective reality, instead of arbitrating between competing visions. (This would be true even if the probabilities are arrived at by consultation among the GM and players.)

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;266127It seems that improvisation is less likely to be a problem--and I think it is. I have no doubt that improvised encounters can be done sort of whimsically or unconsciously, focused more on giving interesting grist for play than for pushing the game in a particular direction. But they can still deprive the players of freedom or lead to railroading--a classic case being the infiltration that never comes off without a hitch because the GM thinks that a game just isn't complete without a fight. Gygax suggested a method of dealing with this issue, but I think his advice tends to be ignored--it's as simple as backing off of deterministic improv and instead looking to possibilities and likelihoods, working the "encounter" from there. It would come as second nature to a wargamer, statistician, or anyone else focused on "modeling", and it comes from the same neutral ethos I mentioned: instead of deciding arbitrarily that X is true, the GM looks at the situation and asks how likely X is, given the context. Then dice are rolled.

Spot on.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;266127The question is, what is the principle a GM would use in a pre-planned encounter? If the goal is verisimilitude, in terms of approximating the risk and uncertainty due to incomplete knowledge--but also the expectation that the "world" isn't arranged according to some plan--it seems that, first, "preplanning" is inherently contradictory to that goal.

Not really. Say your players have decided to take a trip across wild territory. You plan a set of encounters based on your understanding of the area and your estimation of probabilities. What's the difference, in principle?

There's also a middle ground, in that you can plan for random encounters, ie by making special tables for particular areas.

Quote from: droog;266860There's also a middle ground, in that you can plan for random encounters, ie by making special tables for particular areas.

That's my approach.

For my encounter tables, I'll put in some common critters, inhabitants, and events that aren't tied to a specific place. I'll also put in random encounters based on encounter locations in the area: for example, the dragon that lives on the moutain to the east may be a random encounter, or the goblin guards in room 12. This means that if the adventurers are successful in these encounters, the dragon's lair or room 12 will no longer be occupied by the dragon or the goblins if or when the adventurers arrive.

Yes, I think I mentioned that further up in the thread. I have another idea that I'll get into below, but the idea of tying random encounters to an area is basically a special case of tying random encounters to terrain type or dungeon level. Identifying specific "location-based" inhabitants with certain encounters, is also a good idea. At least, I've used it myself.

Anyway, I don't think any of the "pro random" folks have a problem with either of these approaches.

Quote from: droog;266860Not really. Say your players have decided to take a trip across wild territory. You plan a set of encounters based on your understanding of the area and your estimation of probabilities. What's the difference, in principle?

This is a little more complicated. I should state first that, contrary to what I may appear to be arguing, "random" isn't the gold standard here. Most things that are modeled by random techniques aren't really random in the mathematical sense--random (stochastic) modeling is mainly a tool to represent lack of information, or unpredictability in the strict sense of the word. For example, you might use a random model to determine the weather in a simulation, but while a true random process is defined by the fact that it can't be precisely predicted regardless of how much information you have at the moment, the weather is unpredictable because (a) there are too many variables to detect and track and (b) they interact in extremely complex ways that resist abstraction (chaos).* (http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec08.html) Another way of putting this would be to say that although the mathematical definition of a fair coin includes the requirement that each time you flip it, there's no way of knowing which side will come up, when it comes to chaotic systems like the weather it's perfectly reasonable to believe that if you could somehow exactly reproduce all the starting variables, the system would behave exactly the same way every time.

But for the sake of argument let's look at the difference between a set of encounters which have been planned ahead of time with no purpose behind them, and a set of encounters which are generated "on the fly" by rolling dice. Depending on how you go about it, there doesn't have to be a difference, but there are pitfalls. To begin with, it's not enough to generate the encounters; you also have to generate the intervals between them. Easy enough. In fact, as long as you're taking the time to prep encounters beforehand, you could simply take your probability estimates, roll dice for each day of the journey, and map out which days will and won't have encounters--as well as the encounters themselves.

If you say you can do that without dice, I'm a little dubious, but I'm also aware that most people are pretty bad at estimating probabilities and detecting small biases. Amos Tversky made a name for himself demonstrating this. (Example. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion)) As long as you didn't make a blatant pattern (such as an obvious three-act structure, or a build up to a "boss" encounter), players would be unlikely to tell the difference--except to the extent they'd take dice rolling as a cue. And even there, I wouldn't be surprised if a sequence of pre-built encounters produced at whim would seem "more random" to players, provided you pretended to roll dice during the game, than a similar sequence that you "pre-rolled" but which you didn't pretend to roll dice for during the game.

Perhaps a bigger problem is that by trying to "appear random", you'd be likely to deprive yourself of the chance to simulate "real coincidence". Simply put, in real life sometimes you run into the kindly hermit right after you barely escape from the orcs. But if players don't see you roll dice, I think they're especially likely to see extremes of good and bad fortune as "railroading", and in a similar vein, you may shy away from planning such a string of encounters. Yet if you honestly roll the dice, I think the players are more likely to be genuinely elated by lucky coincidences, and to grit their teeth and bear down when faced with bum luck. If you don't roll the dice, they'll be jaded by the first and resentful about the second. YMMV.

Of course you could go ahead and roll dice even though you "planned" the encounters beforehand. I wouldn't be comfortable with this except maybe if the original "planning" had been via random generation; otherwise, it's dishonest. What's more, if you're caught, I think it would have negative effects on the trust that's essential to a good group.

(I'm going to take a break here. In my next post I hope to talk more about risk and "dynamicity", and to get into my idea for an alternate approach to random encounters, which is sort of a synthesis of some of the approaches raised in this thread.)

My experience is that players don't really care, and that they think you're fudging the dice anyway. Also, rolling for encounters as you go along is a royal pain and slows down the game.

I've gone so far as to roll up the weather for an entire season ahead of time, and it actually gave me some colour to use, but after that one experiment I realised that it wasn't a big deal and never did it again. It's much the same with wandering monsters. I started by rolling religiously for everything, but found in the end, unless you're running a lot of dungeons, random encounters get old.

Well, you asked what the difference was in principle, and that's what I'm focusing on; that the differences are ones that you don't care about doesn't really make them irrelevant--it just reveals a difference of taste (pretty much as I responded to Pseudo above).

You have your experience with your players, and at this remove I couldn't say what their exact tastes have been. But I think some people expect and enjoy being guided through an adventure. Furthermore there's a range of "less random" styles, from the rigidly-plotted railroad strung together via GM sleight-of-hand, to a sort of improvisational "keep the ball in the air" method--where maintaining continuity is more important than either following a particular path or enforcing the stakes of "serious" challenges. Of the two I prefer the latter, but at the same time I feel there needs to be an understanding that, since there's no "real" danger, there's also no need for the players to make a serious tactical or strategic effort.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;267138Well, you asked what the difference was in principle, and that's what I'm focusing on; that the differences are ones that you don't care about doesn't really make them irrelevant--it just reveals a difference of taste (pretty much as I responded to Pseudo above).

No, you actually made a couple of claims about how the players might perceive things. I'm just saying that my experiences don't bear them out.

Otherwise, I'm not sure that you have identified any substantial principle, just some possible pitfalls.

Let me try one on you: the reason for rolling for random encounters is very much the same as the reason for rolling any dice at all in an RPG. Dice or other randomisers give you results you would not have thought of by yourself.

For this to work consistently and not cause the occasional stupid or boring encounter, you have to have one hell of a good table.

Quote from: droog;267142No, you actually made a couple of claims about how the players might perceive things. I'm just saying that my experiences don't bear them out.

And what the fact that what I'm writing is based on my experiences as a player?

QuoteOtherwise, I'm not sure that you have identified any substantial principle, just some possible pitfalls.

Of course, I can't slot myself into your past experiences, so we don't know precisely how I would respond as a player in your game. However I have to say I'm surprised that you would be so quick to dismiss the likelihood that different personal tastes lead to preferences for different game mechanics.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;267148However I have to say I'm surprised that you would be so quick to dismiss the likelihood that different personal tastes lead to preferences for different game mechanics.

Not at all. I want to highlight it. I think there's a distinct strain in what you've been saying that denies it and tries to ascribe some universal value to random encounters.

Then I haven't gotten my meaning across. It's unfortunately common in these sorts of discussion for each side to think the other is declaring a single truth; at the same time, I believe that the reception of different game mechanics is associated with real differences of taste.

Then I haven't gotten my meaning across. It's unfortunately common in these sorts of discussion for each side to think the other is declaring a single truth; at the same time, I believe that the reception of different game mechanics is associated with real differences of taste.

Then I haven't gotten my meaning across. It's unfortunately common in these sorts of discussion for each side to think the other is declaring a single truth; at the same time, I believe that the reception of different game mechanics is associated with real differences of taste.

Then I haven't gotten my meaning across. It's unfortunately common in these sorts of discussion for each side to think the other is declaring a single truth; at the same time, I believe that the reception of different game mechanics is associated with real differences of taste.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;267159Then I haven't gotten my meaning across. It's unfortunately common in these sorts of discussion for each side to think the other is declaring a single truth; at the same time, I believe that the reception of different game mechanics is associated with real differences of taste.

I think after that series of posts, maybe you did. :)