4e - Taking stuff out just to put it back in?

CavScout · November 12, 2008, 09:34:07 PM

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.

CavScout · November 12, 2008, 09:37:01 PM

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.

arminius · November 12, 2008, 09:41:26 PM

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.

Pseudoephedrine · November 12, 2008, 10:01:37 PM

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.

Drohem · November 12, 2008, 10:12:34 PM

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.

Pseudoephedrine · November 12, 2008, 10:22:07 PM

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.

Idinsinuation · November 13, 2008, 01:16:43 AM

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.

noisms · November 13, 2008, 05:19:33 AM

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.

CavScout · November 13, 2008, 09:15:45 AM

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.

noisms · November 13, 2008, 10:16:10 AM

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.

CavScout · November 13, 2008, 10:19:36 AM

You do understand this tangent started with the claim that without randomness, it's not a game, right?

StormBringer · November 13, 2008, 10:27:16 AM

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?

CavScout · November 13, 2008, 10:31:24 AM

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]

StormBringer · November 13, 2008, 10:37:50 AM

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]

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?

CavScout · November 13, 2008, 10:41:38 AM

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.