You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Hussar]

As near as I can tell, the relevance must be clear and obvious to the players/characters, or it is not relevant. The fact that it may be relevant without their knowedge of how or why is not sufficient - it must be known by the players to be relevant.



That's the view I would expect from the PC's, and the initial approach I would expect the players to take. As a player, my approach when complications arise in the journey may well be loud complaints as a character, but as a player, I would expect that the relevance of this "sidetrack" will become clear in time. Or, even if its relevance is tangential at best, hat the side trek will enhance, not reduce, the fun at the table.

Are things you have no knowledge of relevant to you right now N'raac? Really? How? How can you possibly know that they are relevant to you?

Right. It's just hard to peg. What he wants needs to be "relevant to the PCs" or their goals, I think. But it should be planned for, not improvised, I think. Unless it's a siege (or like event?), because then it's relevant to the PCs. But the desert crossing isn't relevant, unless it is, but then it's contrived, but the siege isn't, even though they're both improvised complications to the goal. I just can't follow the exact line of logic so far.

Umm, no?

What's wrong with improvisation? Improvisation is fine. But, the point that keeps getting ignored is that the nomads are NOT RELEVANT TO THE PLAYERS UNTIL AFTER they are interacted with. There is no buy-in from the players. The players have no reason to interact with the nomads whatsoever, other than being obligated to do so by the DM.

The siege is directly relevant to the player goals. They have many very easily understood reasons for interacting with the siege in a variety of ways.

All of the reasons for interacting with the nomads are post-hoc justifcations. So, basically the players get to stumble around in the dark, waiting for the DM to hand down from on high the reasons why they are interacting with something that has no relation to their stated goals.

 

[Hussar]

In short, you wanted your checks to actually mean more than just "fell off the mount again." No arguments here.

I expect whether knowledge checks get rolled and how they're initiated greatly depends on the group. Were I DM and no one chimed in about checks when they got plopped into it, I'd certainly ask them "Do you guys want to make knowledge checks to see if you know something?" Chances are at least one player would smack their head and go "Duh, of course I do! How could I forget?" and then it'd become at least somewhat amusing. I hope over time they'd become more proactive about it and not require queues from the DM.

So, if the players make their knowledge checks and roll very low and gain no knowledge, would you be perfectly happy to let them go straight on to the city?

Or, if the players actually do succeed in their checks but decide that they do not want to interact with the stuff between them and the city, would you allow that?

Or, are the checks largely superfluous and the PC's are going to interact with pretty much everything that you've placed between them and the city whether they want to or not?

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I don't think anyone is defending a DM that can't make reasonable compromises. It's a two way street, players have to be able (and willing) to make reasonable compromises also - and some of the comments in this thread sure come across like this is all on the DM.

I believe some of that was due to the player wanting what was described as the "nuclear" option. When that happens, it does seem to be everything on the DM since the player apparently won't budge. Personally, I'm not a fan of the nuclear option. I haven't yet come across a situation in D&D where that seems reasonable. Yes, I'd be glad to compromise if there are problems, but there's only so far one can, or should, bend over backwards. Entirely skipping the merc scene doesn't resonate with me. Putting in enough effort, even through rolls, to select some would be what I'd go for. Then, once they were hired, I'd flesh them out a bit before, during, and after the battle. They've got little quirks here and there after all, and those will come through. I can only hope the rolls are seen as being relevant enough to matter and make things a bit interesting.

But yes, I agree that it shouldn't all be on the DM. It's a group game after all, and the whole group makes interesting things happen.

 

[Hussar]

I believe some of that was due to the player wanting what was described as the "nuclear" option. When that happens, it does seem to be everything on the DM since the player apparently won't budge. Personally, I'm not a fan of the nuclear option. I haven't yet come across a situation in D&D where that seems reasonable. Yes, I'd be glad to compromise if there are problems, but there's only so far one can, or should, bend over backwards. Entirely skipping the merc scene doesn't resonate with me. Putting in enough effort, even through rolls, to select some would be what I'd go for. Then, once they were hired, I'd flesh them out a bit before, during, and after the battle. They've got little quirks here and there after all, and those will come through. I can only hope the rolls are seen as being relevant enough to matter and make things a bit interesting.

But yes, I agree that it shouldn't all be on the DM. It's a group game after all, and the whole group makes interesting things happen.

Oh, sure. This is a fair description. I don't mind the nuclear option because I play with people I know who will treat it as such. I don't have to worry about it being a problem, because no one is interested in making it one.

OTOH, I do consider this a separate issue from the "DM adding complications" issue. Mainly because I have zero problems with the DM adding complications. That's fine. My issue is with the DM adding irrelevant complications to the game and losing focus. That's why I have no problem with the City Siege complication. It's directly related to our stated goals. Even though it might be 100% improv, I still don't care. It's relevant. Fantastic.

The nomads though, aren't. They only become relevant after the fact. If even then, since there could be many ways this could stay irrelevant. Again, if we were there to explore the desert? No problems with meeting the nomads. Perfectly fine. It's perfectly in keeping with our goals.

But the desert was never the goal. Our goal had nothing to do with the desert. Hiring the mercenaries was never our goal. It was simply the means to the goal. None of the mercenaries complications had anything to do with our goal. It's not like one of the merc's had a big hate on for the grell. No one in this thread even considered bringing that up as a complication. No, the more likely complication was someone who was going to kill us in our sleep.

So, you might see why I think that the DM's in this thread are a little more antagonistic than they might think of themselves.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

So, if the players make their knowledge checks and roll very low and gain no knowledge, would you be perfectly happy to let them go straight on to the city?

Or, if the players actually do succeed in their checks but decide that they do not want to interact with the stuff between them and the city, would you allow that?

Or, are the checks largely superfluous and the PC's are going to interact with pretty much everything that you've placed between them and the city whether they want to or not?

If they roll low and gain no knowledge, I'd be totally fine with them wanting to go straight to the city. I'd kind of expect them to because most players would be like "Wastelands are called that for a reason. Let's GTFO." And if the party was really as focused on the city as you keep saying they were, I'd be more inclined to let them get to the city faster because having stuff broken up by too much crap can really deflate things into being boring. Their own active interests will almost certainly be worth far more than anything I can pull out of my hat in the interim. I might add in an encounter, but it'll be such that they can choose to interact with it. Cross paths with a nomad and he's likely more interested in his own business anyway. Heck, perhaps he'd be laughing at the characters for having to cross, and then that might give the players some sense of "Ha! Proved that smeghead wrong!" I might also have a nomad come by and serve as a bit of a guide. It'll depend on how things have gone really.

If the players succeed on learning something about the desert and choose to ignore it, I'll take that as a sign they want to get on to the city. And as above, there might be a quick encounter if the players choose to engage, and it'd be quick if they did unless they were really gung ho about it. Plus, chances are their good checks would let them find a better path.

I would have the checks mean something. The PCs of course won't interact with everything unless they choose to, and I make sure they can have that choice. I'll add in some descriptions, especially if you're blowing past stuff on a giant pseudonatural centipede, but as I said above, whatever the players' goals are at the moment will tend to trump stuff I throw in between. If the players don't have a goal, it's my job to give them something to center on.

That's how I would like to think I'd run things if given the chance to DM. I can't say for sure exactly how I'd react, but I hope it's along those lines. As a player I'm usually quite easygoing when it comes to the game just because I know that if I wasn't, I'd likely have more problems than the game is worth.

Of course, I would hope I could get the party to prepare well enough that the problem with Plane Shift plopping them somewhere that didn't jive with them could be resolved quicker if they really wanted it to be. The inherent randomness in Plane Shift can be fun, but when the party is so fixated on the goal and they aren't so far out that things can't be moved along reasonably, then I feel it'd be better for all of us if I let them do their thing lest I ruin it for them.

 

[Abraxas]

And this is different from the several posters who've said considerably worse than that about me how?

Would be nice if those who were so concerned about how Pemerton and I are characterizing arguments would show the same consideration about others too.

Because it was directed at Pemerton and not you and you've said considerably worse about others who approached this whole topic from a different perspective than you - glass houses and stones and pots and kettles and such.

I don't care how you are characterizing your argument. Pemerton usually doesn't sound like he's assigning blame in discussions of style but in this particular thread he seems to be doing what he accused others of doing and I pointed it out.

Y'all can continue crabbing at each other now.

 

[Abraxas]

I believe some of that was due to the player wanting what was described as the "nuclear" option. When that happens, it does seem to be everything on the DM since the player apparently won't budge. Personally, I'm not a fan of the nuclear option. I haven't yet come across a situation in D&D where that seems reasonable. Yes, I'd be glad to compromise if there are problems, but there's only so far one can, or should, bend over backwards. Entirely skipping the merc scene doesn't resonate with me. Putting in enough effort, even through rolls, to select some would be what I'd go for. Then, once they were hired, I'd flesh them out a bit before, during, and after the battle. They've got little quirks here and there after all, and those will come through. I can only hope the rolls are seen as being relevant enough to matter and make things a bit interesting.

But yes, I agree that it shouldn't all be on the DM. It's a group game after all, and the whole group makes interesting things happen.

I only game with friends so there never is a "nuclear" option. If someone isn't having fun we're all pretty up front about talking about it in a manner that doesn't cause the game to go boom. And we're all open to compromise. If I couldn't be comfortable talking about my enjoyment or lack thereof of the game with the other players I wouldn't game with them. A game I don't have fun with is not ever better than no game at all.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Perhaps my "pre-planning" and coordination to that end is more than normal and likely a bit extraneous. Some folks are obsessive "world-builders". I guess I might be bit of an obsessive "PC content calibrator". Its probably because I've been burned on dissonance with respect to that too many times for my liking in my 25 years of GMing. I seem to be pretty obsessive about being "armed with information" whenever I engage on something so I guess that would fit the bill.

I'm one of the "world-builders" right now, but I end up improvising basically all of every session.

That's right on permerton's game. Thanks for the correction.

No problem. As always, play what you like

What makes you think that I would not accept failure? Is there anything I've written to give that impression? Failure is fun. I have zero problem with failure. I would likely have problem with failure during a completely irrelevant scene where I have zero buy-in. But, that's not because of the failure, that's because that scene is boring.

Your post said "But, why are you forcing me into play that I don't want? Why are you adding complications when there are already things to do in the game?... Why add in a bunch of extraneous stuff when it's not needed, and, if the players have their way, will never actually come up in play?"

You didn't really qualify it the way you just did. So I replied to what you wrote.

So, basically, players at your table are obligated to accept any and all complications you generate as the DM and, if they don't like it, leave. Again, that's a perfectly fair way to run the game. At least you're honest and upfront enough about that to admit it. Thanks for that. Others in this thread have tried to put it back on me for not wanting to play that way and have tried to weasel out of these claims.

Take ownership of your game. Well done you sir.

Well, yes. I'm running the game; I get to say what happens, and you get to say what you do in response to it. Now, I could "abuse" that and go all railroady and super heavy-handed and maliciously antagonistic, but I don't. I don't need to, and it's not my style, and it's not fun for me. But, yes, if you sit at my table, you follow my rules. If you say "I'll tell him this,", and I say "well, what do you say?", then it means you tell me what you say, not sum it up again.

But, there's a reason for that. I let people sum up stuff all the time. If I'm not right now, it's because this NPC is likely to interrupt you (maybe he's offended, or something), interject with something new, get interrupted, or the like. But, you, as a player, don't know that. However, it's important you start playing out this particular conversation, even if you don't know why, not just sum up like we did the last time.

There's reasons for the way I do things, and it's resulted in games that engage every single player I've had, and I've had compliments from all of them. And, as GM, I'll empathize if you want to move something along, and I'll likely help speed through it. I just won't do it at what I think is the expense of the game, and I get final say on what I think that is, as GM.

But yeah, that's not everyone's cup of tea, and I get that. It's cool to play differently, with different table expectations and different social contracts.

And that's not what I meant. What I meant was, if a non-zero percentage of situations will have complications, then the players are forced to treat every situation as having complications. If the players have no control over whether those complications are actually relevant to their goals, and are obligated to play out those complications because the DM will kick them out of the group if they don't, then I would say that they are pretty heavily forced.

Only if they literally obsess over never letting a complication come up. If they have to obsessively bypass any and all complications, they can go for it. It's not what most functioning adults do in real life, but they can play their characters that way as long as it doesn't hurt party cohesion, and it doesn't bore me.

But yeah, you can "avoid" complications. Use my example: barbarian killed someone in a duel based on pride, and the guy had a wife. The barbarian could've shrugged, and moved on. Complication over. Instead, he engaged it, and tried to apologize (feebly), and interacted with her off-and-on throughout the campaign. That wasn't necessary either, but it became pretty interesting later on in-game, when years had passed, and they'd had a long-lasting friendship.

But, no matter how that barbarian responds -either walking away coldly or trying to apologize to the widow- it tells us something interesting about his character. This is a "complication" that isn't going to hurt the party, it's just an interesting complication that we can explore if we want to.

Other complications are a lot more forced -say, any random encounter. But, I like those, too, as they can tell us stuff about characters (Bronn killing the other mercenary), set up stuff for later (Bronn championing Tyrion), or tell us stuff about the setting that we can use later on (hill tribes are dangerous).

And that's fair. I play a much more focused game.

Also fair.

Then why is every single example in this thread countered with a laundry list of complications? Why has not a single person even simply accepted that you can hire hirelings without complications? N'raac has specifically stated that doing so would be boring, for one.

I thought it has been said? And that you could even do it with a check? It's just also been said that you can't always do so. That there might be complications.

In Celebrim's game, the setting means that it's hard to do. That won't bug me any more than following the rules for magic or attacks. It's just as much a part of the game, both with built-in limitations and assumptions. If I sat at that table, I'd know to expect that. It might be looser at my table, but I've had PCs start a civil war before, and raise an army from the peasants. I'm not going to block you if you have the capability to. If you want six men to fight, and the setting allows for it, and you have the ability, go for it.

Yeah, the fact that you bring in Game of Thrones as an example of game play is pretty telling to be honest. You want a GoT style experience. To me, that would be a giant snoozefest and I am simply not interested. This is a style of game that does not interest me in any way, shape or form anymore.

Style difference, certainly, but your advice certainly rings as not universally applicable, then.

Not that it's a bad thing. But, not my thing certainly. So, yeah, my advice to DM's would stand. You want to have a bonding experience between two PC's? Let them do it. Don't try to force it by tossing in some random bandits.

You don't need to force it, though. It can just happen afterwards. The two knight PCs in my game got squires after they were knighted, and as events unfolded, they came to like them in really interesting ways. And, those relationships were shaped by events. The events matter, but they could've been anything. For example, the squires were in a skirmish with them when they attacked some cultists, and their actions and reactions (to getting hit, or spells cast at them) led the players to think about them a certain way. If it was an attack on the road, it'd likely be different. Or if it was another knight insulting them. Or if it was a sage complimenting them.

It doesn't really matter what I throw at them, that bonding experience (or disgust, or admiration, or whatever) will happen based on events. I like seeing what develops, because each situation is quite different in how it resolves, how people act and react, etc. And it's interesting to see how relationships unfold.

I don't need to force it. I just want to see it. And skipping the desert skips that, and that's why I don't like it. But, yes, it's a play style difference. It's not wrong to skip it, or to play through it. And I think it's bad advice to say either way it somehow "right". But, that's me. Play what you like, and all that.

Are things you have no knowledge of relevant to you right now N'raac? Really? How? How can you possibly know that they are relevant to you?

If I have no knowledge that one of my very close friends that I live with and game with has some sort of disease, and that he's planning on selling his stuff and moving very soon, but I don't know that, is that somehow not relevant to me? What about a spouse considering a job offer they haven't shared yet? Someone who is planning on proposing to his significant other?

Things can be unknown and have a lot of relevance to me (whole "invasion of privacy thing" in there, I'm sure). It's kind of necessary to "the twist", and stuff, in fiction.

Umm, no?

What's wrong with improvisation? Improvisation is fine. But, the point that keeps getting ignored is that the nomads are NOT RELEVANT TO THE PLAYERS UNTIL AFTER they are interacted with. There is no buy-in from the players. The players have no reason to interact with the nomads whatsoever, other than being obligated to do so by the DM.

No, I didn't ignore that. I just said that it's fine, for my group (and apparently others), for us to find out how something was relevant later. This is not related to any GM ever obligating you to do anything. This is a completely different issue.

And I've also noted -and I am now noting again- that it's cool if you need it to be relevant now. But it's also fine to not know why it's relevant, to some groups.

Side note: the caps aren't helping, but they are amusing. If you want to entertain me, keep it up. If you want to convince me, well, probably best to tone it down.

The siege is directly relevant to the player goals. They have many very easily understood reasons for interacting with the siege in a variety of ways.

Right. This goes to the "you want to know how's it relevant right now" part. It hurts with reveals, twists, etc., but it's a fine way to play. Not universal, obviously, but not in any way "wrong" or "bad" or anything.

All of the reasons for interacting with the nomads are post-hoc justifcations.

What? People explicitly wrote earlier how they might be necessary to dealing with some part of The City Across The Desert, and you called it railroading. Now, it's post-hoc? So, if they are involved, it's bad, no matter what? That doesn't sound right, but that's what I think I'm getting.

I know you said you want to know why they're relevant to the party right now, so couldn't that be done even if it was post-hoc? Why is that bad? This is why I said it looks like you said it's only okay if it's planned. Apparently post-hoc justifications are bad?

So, basically the players get to stumble around in the dark, waiting for the DM to hand down from on high the reasons why they are interacting with something that has no relation to their stated goals.

Yeah, I know, it's like you don't like this style, and have framed it in a bad light, or something. So, people that like mystery games are doing it wrong, because they don't know how something new might tie in yet, or if it does? Or, people that like interacting with things, and then having that interaction pay off later, they're doing it wrong, too?

This is what I'm having trouble with, Hussar. I don't get the logic; it escapes me. I don't mean that as a slam or anything, and I get the "want it to have relevance right now" bit, I just don't get the "people who don't play this way are playing wrong" implications, here. You don't like it; that's cool. Why is it bad for others?

Mainly because I have zero problems with the DM adding complications. That's fine. My issue is with the DM adding irrelevant complications to the game and losing focus. That's why I have no problem with the City Siege complication. It's directly related to our stated goals. Even though it might be 100% improv, I still don't care. It's relevant. Fantastic.

...

But the desert was never the goal. Our goal had nothing to do with the desert.

This might be a hair-pulling moment for you, so sorry if it is, but... what's the difference between the desert stopping you from getting into the city as soon as you'd like to, and the siege? I mean, I know there are a lot of differences, but if both are impeding your goal of "get into the city", then what's the thing you're objecting to? This is me asking, honestly, to attempt to understand. I think the answer to this might be the mental breakthrough I need to get where you're coming from.

Hiring the mercenaries was never our goal. It was simply the means to the goal. None of the mercenaries complications had anything to do with our goal. It's not like one of the merc's had a big hate on for the grell. No one in this thread even considered bringing that up as a complication. No, the more likely complication was someone who was going to kill us in our sleep.

Well, that might be an interesting complication. One of the NPCs in the military that the players have had transferred to their unit multiple times is a woman who hates orcs (one of the main antagonistic forces so far this campaign), and who violently hates anyone who has harmed a child. They quite like her, but she's a little volatile around those beings, and so they only keep her around in that sort of situation when they feel it's worth taking that risk (she murdered a helpless person who had killed children, albeit while they were literally about to walk said person to be executed).

That can make for an interesting complication, from my experience. Same would go for hating the grell.

So, you might see why I think that the DM's in this thread are a little more antagonistic than they might think of themselves.

I think we'll attribute why you might think that to different reasons. You've said you wished that people in this thread that get on your case for implying others are "bad GMs" would get on the case of people who have said "worse of you", or the like. In that spirit, I'd like to express that I'd like to see you start acknowledging all of the good things people have said could / do happen to the PCs, instead of blowing up only the bad ones that they bring up as possibilities. Just a wish, though. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

you fail to notice just how radically different your approach is compared to Manbearcat on this issue, conflating the introduction of the previously unknown invisible ink as result of a perception check (improvisation of task resolution) with the introduction of a previously unknown chasm as a result of a failed ride check (improvisation of conflict resolution). The two things aren't remotely similar.

Well obviously I think that they are. One is complication on a success (spot invisble ink that will advance your goals). The other is complication on a failure (spot a ravine that will impede your goals).

They're not identical - one is in the context of a skill challenge, the other a single skill check. But the single skill check was not task resolution, I dont' think, because there was no task that was resolved. It was actually, in resolution, in some ways closer to a Wise check in BW - the player is hoping his PC might find something helpful, puts his PC into a position where that might happen, and rolls. On a success I narrate something helpful. It's different from a Wise check in that the player hasn't posited what it is that his PC might find.

The nearest analogue I can think of in a D&D rules manual is the "roll an INT check to get a clue from the GM" that is mentioned in the 4e DMG, and perhaps (I can't remember) in the 3E one also.

My basic problem with his description of the standard narrative model is that it's so broad and qualified that just about any 'standard' sort of play fits it.

I find this claim utterly baffling.

Gygaxian "skilled" play does not fit the "standard narrativsit model". Dramatic tension is irrelevant to that sort of play.

Adventure path play does not fit that model either. So far from the GM going where the action is as established via PC building, the players have to take their PCs where the GM tells them that the action is.

Standard Rolemaster, Runequest or Classic Traveller play in no way resembles that model, because it has any number of action resolution elements that create exploratory priorities that override "going where the action is".

Conversely, the play of a game like MHRP, which does fit that model, prompts you to take it's play advice to task (as per your reply to [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] upthread). Which, at least to me, implied that MHRP is giving advice that you don't follow in your game. From which I infer that your play doesn't fit the model.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you screw your players over as much as you can as often as you can.

I just read the 2nd ed AD&D PHB for the first time a few weeks ago (a friend was doing some house cleaning and offloaded a copy) and it has some comments that come very close to this.

And I can confidently say that the picture of play it puts forward in no way resembles the standard narrativist model!

 

[pemerton]

That method means that he GM is forced to assess the priorities of the players.

How hard is that? They want some decent hirelings. If in doubt, get them to roll a Gather Information or Profession (mercenary captain) or whatever the relevant 3E skill check is, and for every 5 points over 15 (or whatever the system-appropriate threshold is) guarantee the hirelings at least a minimum of 2, 3 etc hp per hit die.

He must decide, or example, whether the PC's accurately assess the combat ability of the potential hirelings, and whether they determine hat one of them is unsavoury (perhaps a wanted criminal, perhaps just someone who won't have much loyalty to the PC's) and whether, having made those assessments, they would consider the combat ability of the unsavoury fellow to outweigh his less desirable attributes and hire him

The GM doesn't have to do this, because the GM can always choose not to introduce the unsavoury hireling into the encounter. Or, if the GM does decide that that would be a fun complication to introduce, there are literally dozens of other ways to have the players respond to or engage with that short of running the hiring episode that Hussar objected to.

So the GM can avoid being dumped on by the players only if he delivers the precise best case scenario the players desire each and every time, or he makes the players assess the options for themselves.

No, because as I've said above and upthread there are many other ways of letting the players discover or respond to complications.

But anyway, my advice to any GM who wanted to avoid being dumped on, or more likely just dumped, would be to let the players hire a handful of competent merecenaries with a minimum of fuss. Or, if the GM doesn't want the mercenaries in the game - eg because resolving their actions will slow things down at the table, or just because the GM wants all the focus to be on and all the effort to come from the PCs - then make that clear to the players out-of-character, at the metagame level.

And to elaborate on this - once you turn the hiring into a major piece of action resolution, you are conceding that - if the players succeed - then the PCs will have the benefit of the hired mercenaries. Which is to say you've conceded that the hirelings won't wreck the game. At which point, the players mght reasonably ask, as Hussar has, "Why are we wasting time on this boring hiring stuff when the real action is waiting for us with the grell?" Turning the hiring into a major piece of action resolution isn't serving any balance purpose (so it's not like, for instance, the classic D&D spell research rules, which are all about sucking up treasure). It's just making the game be about one thing (hiring) rather than another (grell vengeance). And a GM who makes the game be about stuff the players don't care for is (I think pretty obviously) running the risk of being dumped on, or dumped.

Which two statements?

Things that are not relevant don't add to my game. (And, as best I can tell, nor to Husssar's.) And the besieging force is not a distraction and a delay from the action. It is part of the action in a way that the desert obviously, to me at least, is not.

He believe that City B was where the action is, without setting foot in the desert. Unless he has read the entire scenario (the AP in this case, plus any modifications the GM may have made), he has no way of knowing where the action is.

This seems to me a pretty big point of difference between us. At least for my part, what you're describing here is a railroad - the scenario and sites of action determined by the GM without regard to the players.

So if the PC's are not omniscient - they must know the relevance, short and long term, of each and every action they take, this is a "railroad".

No - but see my next line of reply.

In a sandbox game, the players have no idea what may or may not be relevant, nor how they might tie together.

You didn't describe a sandbox game. As per my quote just above, you described a game in which the GM knows that something is relevant because the GM has a prewritten scenario. That's what I described as a railroad.

As it happens I'm not that into sandbox play, but not because I think it's railroady.

It hurts with reveals, twists, etc., but it's a fine way to play.

I don't think this is generally true, although it might affect particular techniques. For instance, if you want the twist or reveal to involve element A, you may have to frame the scene to also include element B which is a self-standing relevant element.

As near as I can tell, the relevance must be clear and obvious to the players/characters, or it is not relevant. The fact that it may be relevant without their knowedge of how or why is not sufficient - it must be known by the players to be relevant.

Correct. That is the difference between what I am characterising as player-driven, and GM-driven, play.

The players provide the hooks. The players decide where the action will be. The GM responds to them. If the player can't see his/her hook in what the GM serves up, the GM hasn't done his/her job. S/he has not "gone where the action is".

what's the difference between the desert stopping you from getting into the city as soon as you'd like to, and the siege? I mean, I know there are a lot of differences, but if both are impeding your goal of "get into the city", then what's the thing you're objecting to?

The difference is as per Hussar's post quoted immediately below. The goal is the city - the siege is about the city. As [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] pointed out, the players can even potentialy exploit the siege to facilitiate their dealings in the city.

Whereas the desert has nothing to do with the city. Unless (to borrow Hussar's phrase) the GM drops some bread crumbs that lead the players to something with info about the city (eg the hypothesised prisoner of the hypothesised nomads).

In dealing with the siege the players are in the action they want to be in. In dealing with the city they are not.

I have zero problems with the DM adding complications. That's fine. My issue is with the DM adding irrelevant complications to the game and losing focus. That's why I have no problem with the City Siege complication. It's directly related to our stated goals.

<snip>

The nomads though, aren't.

<snip>

the desert was never the goal. Our goal had nothing to do with the desert. Hiring the mercenaries was never our goal. It was simply the means to the goal. None of the mercenaries complications had anything to do with our goal.

To me, at least, this is crystal clear! In the terminology I've been using (borrowed from Eero Tuovinen) you want the GM to go where the action is, as flagged by the players. And that's the city, not the desert; the grell, not the intereview room.

It's not like one of the merc's had a big hate on for the grell. No one in this thread even considered bringing that up as a complication.

I did mention the related counterpoint, that one of the mercs turns out to be an aberration-worshipper. Depending on context and the mood at the table at the time, that could be kind-of fun without involving the boredom of job interviews. I certainly think it's more interesting than being a random criminal who will kill you in your sleep!

Still, I take your point.