You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Jacob Marley]

Amused. The siege example was pretty much an afterthought in my post on using Mythic:GME to adjudicate the crossing of the desert. Or, as I have come to learn, an Abyssal wasteland.

In reality, there is nothing inherent to the siege that makes it more interesting than nomads, a giant scorpion or the Grand Canyon - in the right context, all can be made equally enjoyable. Likewise, all can come across as boring or contrived. The key, I find, to whether a particular encounter is interesting or not comes from understanding what provokes my players to act.

Aside: you all are way too prolific posters. I took a weekend vacation and it took me four days(!) to catch up on this thread.

 

[pemerton]

Let’s flip that around. Why are we playing out the Grell battle? I’ve conceded that – if the players succeed – they get the benefits of having defeated the Grell. I’ve concluded it won’t break the game. So let’s just call the Grell defeated and move on.

Of course you might do this if the grell battle was just a grind. But we've already establish that the players were invested in it. Given that, why would we skip over the bit the players are interested in? The whole point Hussar and I are trying to make is that we want a game where the focus of play is on the stuff that the players are invested in.

Why do you not accept that your desire that a given task be accomplished without complications does not mean that it can, or even should, be?

At least in my case, because the tasks in question are narratively trivial ones the detailed resolution of which would add nothing of interest to play. It's not as if, because we skip over them, we won't have anything to do in our game! We'll do the interesting stuff, like getting vengeance on the grell!

I've avoided this thread

Welcome!

I think scale is making this example more complicated than necessary. We could restate this example

Nice restatement.

I could, possibly, do something like: "You see an old man on a bicycle get clipped by a car and knocked over. You see blood spilling onto the pavement." If in that situation the player had reason not to want to draw attention to their visit to the shop, then suddenly I've created a moral dilemma for the player - do they get involved? Give their name and number and location to the emergency services?

So it's not completely cut and dried. But I have to know the players very well and be very conscious of what pushes their buttons to go that route. Because they can refuse my moral dilemma and simply say 'Yeah, well, someone will call an ambulance - I go to the shop."

And a nice illustration of some complexities that can arise.

The desert, even without anything extra, is serving the same exact purpose as the siege -stopping you from getting in the city. The circumstances are different, as are the ways of dealing with it, but both the desert (without anything extra) and the siege both only serve one function at any base level: they stop you from getting to your goal in the city. You can make both more relevant by adding more to it.

Suppose we look at it this way. The players can make the siege relevant to their goals in the city just by engaging with it - [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] mentioned some possibilities upthread, like using the disruption caused by the siege to cover up or facilitate their own skullduggery in the city.

Whereas the players can't make the desert relevant to their goals. Only the GM can do that. Which is what Hussar was getting at with reference to "bread crumbs" upthread, I think.

you'd skip through the bits of desert where nothing happens until you've met the nomads.

Now, the examples are "nomads in the desert" and "siege". Both can be related or unrelated. We can make either one relevant or irrelevant.

Well, the nomads can, too. We're just missing context on them. But the siege could be there for a reason entirely separate from your goal. It's just a roadblock, like the context-less desert is. That is, they both are irrelevant, until we make either one relevant.

Again, the difference to me at least is night and day. The relevance of the siege is self-evident - our goal is under siege! - and there is a situation that the players can, proactively, leverage in pursuit of their goal.

Whereas the relevance of the nomads is entirely in the hands of the GM.

the siege allows the players to pro-actively determine their means to achieving their goals. The desert is entirely reactive.

<snip>

the siege presents very clear opportunities and challenges.

<snip>

The siege cannot be delinked from our goals in the city. There's no way it couldn't be related to any goal within the city. Even if the siege is just a bunch of barbarians who want to burn the city, that's still directly linked to whatever we want to achieve in the city. If they succeed, then we fail. No matter what, the siege is relevant. There is a definite incentive to interact in some form (sneak past, break, talk, whatever) with the siege.

As far as I can see we are on exactly the same page, and see the situations in exactly the same light! Everything you say here is crystal clear to me, and makes perfect sense.

Before it was just tedium, but it seems like it's boiled down to "I want to deal with my goal, and not deal with stuff unrelated to it (or some variation of this... it's been hard to pin down)". If that's the case, then the city is just as much an unrelated roadblock as the desert. It's related to the city, but that's just "setting".

<snip>

The difference is because the siege may have absolutely nothing to do with the goal in the city. If, say, the siege was there to obtain the same object, or whatever, then now it's related. But, the desert can be related in the same manner (though different means).

Why? If the siege is the aforementioned zombies, they are essentially mindless. If you say, "Well, I can control zombies so they are potentially a resource", then we can always replace them with chaos beasts or something else uncontrollable. There is nothing inherently interactive about the siege.

The tedium and the "goal blockage" are the same thing - the reason the desert is tedious is because it's not implicated in the goal.

I guess it's possible that a GM could set up and run the siege in such a way that it ends up having no bearing on the PC's goals, and all their attempts to interact with or leverage it in pursuit of their goals come to naught. But I personally don't see why a GM would do that.

If you cannot see the difference between the two complications, and refuse to accept that for me there really is a difference, then obviously we are not going to come to any sort of agreement.

I've explained the difference multiple times. Permerton has also tried several times to explain the difference. Despite that, there is this insistence that we are wrong and there is actually no difference. Why not take the position that, even though you don't see the difference, you accept that we do, and for us, it would be a very important criteria for whether or not we want to engage in something at the table?

I agree. [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] upthread actually suggested that we were in bad faith, denying that the desert and the siege are the same simply for the sake of rhetorical advantage.

It's one thing for a poster to say that, for them, they wouldn't care which complication the GM used. But it continues to baffle me that some posters can't see why, for others (eg you and me) there would be a pretty obvious and important difference.

I accept that for the purposes of this thread you have a subjective personal preference for 'seiges' over 'deserts'. I believe that it a real experience for you, however illogical and ineffable the reasons may be for it.

I guess that's one take on it, that Hussar and I differ from your own play preferences only in having some illogical and ineffable idiosyncracies.

 

[pemerton]

I meant something like 'amorphous'. In fact, the word was meant to refer back to the point I had made in the prior sentence - "neither you nor the players knew what would happen until you improvised it". Whatever word I used meant to refer back to that idea.

I still stend by my earlier comment. A plane like limbo is "amorphous". An ochre jelly is "amorphous".

A situation in which neither the players nor the GM know what would happen until it was improvised does not entail an "amorphic world". It is just a different technique from pre-prep for settling the content of the gameworld.

In normal process simulation, the stakes on something like a ride check are clear to all parties - I either stay on the horse, or I don't depending on the fortune result. In the case of a perception roll, it's usually something like "I either gain a bit of information, or I don't."

That's not quite how I see it. In classic D&D, for instance, the stakes in a perception roll (listening at a door, or searching for a secret door) are "Do I hear whatever is to be heard on the other side of the door" or "Do I find any secret door that is there to be found?" It is presupposed that the GM already knows what is there to be found.

The idea of the GM making something up because the player made a good roll and the GM think it would be interesting to run with it is not really consistent with Gygaxian "skilled play".

If you look back at the 1e advice on running a prepared module, there was an assumption that the text was incomplete and the skilled DM would expand upon it and incorporate it within his own game in an interesting manner.

<snip>

talk to the guys that turned DL into primerally a naval campaign based in the players taking the PCs where they thought the action was. Were they suddenly not playing D&D? Was it suddenly a narrativist game?

If you're suggesting a contrast between "playing D&D" and playing "a narrativist game" then I don't accept the contrast; D&D can be played in a vanilla narrative way.

But I don't see what you're describing here as core cases of playing an adventure path.

Once again, you are using 'railroad' in a way that it is not defined, and which leads me to believe that you just use the term to mean 'badwrongfun'. 'Railroad' has to do with GM force, not with whether some details of setting are present before play.

[MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] was not just descrbing a game in which details of setting are present before play. He was describing a game in which the GM knows what is relevant and what is not before play. It's the second element that (i) distinguishes what he described from a sandbox, and that (ii) led me to characterise it as a railroad.

 

[pemerton]

I agree. My problem with spells like Plane Shift (keep in mind that I think they should exist) are that they tend to punish the DM as much as the players. What if I don't have anything prepared for a 100 miles from the destination?

<snip>

They're tough spells to manage without preparation.

Given what you say here, if a player provides you (as GM) with an "out" by conjuring a huge centipede to traverse the wasteland, why would you not gratefully accept the offer?

In the experience Hussar related, his concern is not that the GM found the resolution difficult. It's that the players offered a clear solution to the problem and the GM insisted on not taking it.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Suppose we look at it this way. The players can make the siege relevant to their goals in the city just by engaging with it - @Hussar mentioned some possibilities upthread, like using the disruption caused by the siege to cover up or facilitate their own skullduggery in the city.

Whereas the players can't make the desert relevant to their goals. Only the GM can do that. Which is what Hussar was getting at with reference to "bread crumbs" upthread, I think.

Can't the encounter with the nomads in the desert be set up this way? Like, the nomads can be hired to cause a distraction in the city while they try to make their way to the goal inside? Again, this is all decided by context.

Again, the difference to me at least is night and day. The relevance of the siege is self-evident - our goal is under siege! - and there is a situation that the players can, proactively, leverage in pursuit of their goal.

Whereas the relevance of the nomads is entirely in the hands of the GM.

Well, the relevance of the siege is entirely in the hands of the GM. He can make them completely hostile to the players, willing to work with them, immune to being distracted, or whatever. Or, he can work with their plans. Why can't the same be applied when the GM frames the desert encounter? I think it definitely can be.

The tedium and the "goal blockage" are the same thing - the reason the desert is tedious is because it's not implicated in the goal.

I guess it's possible that a GM could set up and run the siege in such a way that it ends up having no bearing on the PC's goals, and all their attempts to interact with or leverage it in pursuit of their goals come to naught. But I personally don't see why a GM would do that.

On that note, the GM need not make the desert encounter unrelated to their goals. He can completely tie it in, and give it context that makes it fit. The same exact logic that you're applying to the siege can be applied to the desert encounter, can't it? You say it's possible to make the siege disconnecting, but you don't know why a GM would. If you want, can't you just make the desert encounter relevant? As always, play what you like

 

[Jackinthegreen]

If you want, can't you just make the desert encounter relevant? As always, play what you like

That one's iffy, depending on the player(s). A big problem with trying to make the desert encounters relevant to the city is that it's not usually going to be immediately visible what changes have gone on. The siege though? They can directly and immediately observe the changes it's causing in the city. For players who prefer things to have more of an immediate (or at least known ahead of time) impact like Hussar seems to, that's going to make things a bit limiting. Granted, some of the most interesting stuff comes out of being limited, but it's possible it'll take a bit more work to keep things going.

 

[Celebrim]

I guess it's possible that a GM could set up and run the siege in such a way that it ends up having no bearing on the PC's goals, and all their attempts to interact with or leverage it in pursuit of their goals come to naught. But I personally don't see why a GM would do that.

Well, I guess it's possible that a GM could set up and run the wilderness in such a way that it ends up having no bearing on the PC's goals, and all their attempts to interact with or leverage it in pursuit of their goals come to naught. But I personally don't see why a GM would do that.

Let's say I roll 5 wandering encounters from the wilderness chart. Then, instead of coloring them as being encounters in the desert, I have the group beseiging the Cathedral of the original example (really, there is no city). Further, I note that the natives have a strong reason for not wanting a non-native to enter the Cathedral which is relevant to setting and true to the scenario. I then run each of the wandering encounters colored as battling through to the Cathedral, which doesn't even require much GM force using 4e and its encounter powers. Now, is this strong scene framing, or weak scene framing? The only difference between this and the original scenario is the amount of imaginary space we say exists in between the imaginary and largely featureless battlefields where the 5 encounters take place. The motives of the monsters are the same. The motives of the PC's are the same. The actual events of play are the same. Moreover, I would argue that this the the most likely result of either wilderness encounter complications or seige complications. According to the setting, anything beseiging the cathedral would also not want the PC's to enter. There isn't a lot of room for negotiating with them (they are hostile demons), or for leveraging the beseigers (you have nothing they want except you dead), and the seige will never succeed since its main purpose isn't to enter into the Cathedral (the magic of which they have no means to break) but to keep you and your kind out. And as I said, evading the 'seige' and evading the encounters in the desert are fundamentally the same. The wandering encounters in the desert are just as equally randomly hostile and randomly desirous to keep you from the Cathedral if they are 100 yards from it or 100 miles.

[MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] upthread actually suggested that we were in bad faith, denying that the desert and the siege are the same simply for the sake of rhetorical advantage.

It's not like anyone has offered a coherent non-subjective distinction between the two. So far as I can tell the seige becomes relevant if you interact with it in a meaningful way (otherwise not), and the desert becomes relevant if you interact with it in a meaningful way (otherwise not) and the only difference is you prefer the seige.

It would be one thing if you could say, "I have this agenda of play more strongly or less strongly than you do." Or you could claim that you just like the imagery of the siege better. But claiming that there is some objective reason why the seige around the city relates to it, but the environment around the city doesn't make a whole lot of sense given that we can show that the content and action of both is in many cases exactly the same. Yes, I'm sure we could probably think of a way to make the seige more interesting than the suggestions I've hitherto made, but it is equally clear that we could make the journey more interesting as well and using the same techniques.

 

[Celebrim]

That one's iffy, depending on the player(s).

Well, yeah, but that's not a very strong observation. We can also always postulate a player that is going to be unhappy with anything.

So, one of the strongest framings of a seige you could make in the original scenario is to introduce two of the three possible factions to the players - the demons and the fallen angels - and to have the 'seige' actually be a battle be waged around the Cathedral for contol of access to the Cathedral. This lets of get the player involved, which they otherwise really won't be. It's not sufficient to fix the scenario in my opinion, but it's a reasonable step.

But, as I previously indicated, the strongest framing of the journey involves doing rather much the same, providing some sort of coveyance to the PC's that shortens the journey and then in the process of the journey introduce the competiting factions to the players to get them involved in the conflict. Maybe you have one side raid the caravan, another side supply the caravan, maybe you encounter a battle between the two (it doesn't have to be at the Cathedral in order to convey the point). This all relates directly to the player's goal and helps inform them about their destination and the setting in a way that the players just otherwise wouldn't be involved in because its not at all clear what is going on. The players are unaware of the stakes, which can be dramatic if done right, but one of the more likely results of playing the scenario out as written with good characters is that the players will finish it and never really be involved in the themes or face the intended dramatic conflict.

Either preparing these themes in the journey or in a 'seige' around the cathedral accomplishes the same purpose. It's not at all clear to me which is better framing, but personally I prefer the caravan/conveyances because there is less chance of the players just missing it by evasion or brute forcing the problems they face. Chances are, I'd do both and not risk it.

 

[JamesonCourage]

That one's iffy, depending on the player(s). A big problem with trying to make the desert encounters relevant to the city is that it's not usually going to be immediately visible what changes have gone on. The siege though? They can directly and immediately observe the changes it's causing in the city. For players who prefer things to have more of an immediate (or at least known ahead of time) impact like Hussar seems to, that's going to make things a bit limiting. Granted, some of the most interesting stuff comes out of being limited, but it's possible it'll take a bit more work to keep things going.

Well, okay, take the siege as a starting place to use as an example. We'll keep that in mind while we address the desert.

Okay, so you're going through the desert on the way to the city. Ahead, you see a large group of city people being led by nomads, with various bits of stuff they've got bundled in arms or in makeshift sacks. They're heading your way. Some are asking for help, or directions, since they've had to flee their city (the players don't know it, but the city has been attacked, or ransacked, or is under siege, or whatever). With them is a couple groups of mercenaries.

If the players shake their heads and keep walking, it's okay; if they stop to ask "where are you from" or "what happened" or whatever, they know this. If they don't, it won't surprise them when they get there; after all, now those refugees make sense. If they want to, they can even hire the mercenaries away from the refugees. They can ask the nomads questions. Whatever.

This, however, is not acceptable. It's been communicated as contrived, or irrelevant. But there's no need for it to be. You just make the scene relevant. If you want it to be even more relevant, have it be religious refugees, fleeing after the temple was sacked, or whatever. The temple in the city, where the goal is. You just tie it to what is relevant.

I don't want to accuse people of not wanting to budge just for the sake of argument, but the desert is being judged regardless of content (and continually assumed its irrelevant), while the siege is continually put into a light where it is relevant. Why can't they both be easily as tied to the city, or even the temple? Maybe it's just me, but I think they can be. As always, play what you like

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Well, okay, take the siege as a starting place to use as an example. We'll keep that in mind while we address the desert.

Okay, so you're going through the desert on the way to the city. Ahead, you see a large group of city people being led by nomads, with various bits of stuff they've got bundled in arms or in makeshift sacks. They're heading your way. Some are asking for help, or directions, since they've had to flee their city (the players don't know it, but the city has been attacked, or ransacked, or is under siege, or whatever). With them is a couple groups of mercenaries.

If the players shake their heads and keep walking, it's okay; if they stop to ask "where are you from" or "what happened" or whatever, they know this. If they don't, it won't surprise them when they get there; after all, now those refugees make sense. If they want to, they can even hire the mercenaries away from the refugees. They can ask the nomads questions. Whatever.

This, however, is not acceptable. It's been communicated as contrived, or irrelevant. But there's no need for it to be. You just make the scene relevant. If you want it to be even more relevant, have it be religious refugees, fleeing after the temple was sacked, or whatever. The temple in the city, where the goal is. You just tie it to what is relevant.

I don't want to accuse people of not wanting to budge just for the sake of argument, but the desert is being judged regardless of content (and continually assumed its irrelevant), while the siege is continually put into a light where it is relevant. Why can't they both be easily as tied to the city, or even the temple? Maybe it's just me, but I think they can be. As always, play what you like

So far we've gotten no indication from Hussar (as far as I can tell, and I'm not about to go through the whole thread again at this point) to determine what exactly was the goal other than "the city." So the only thing I think I can say to that is "There's a siege on the city, and since 'the city' is the goal then the siege is relevant regardless of the specifics of what the siege is doing besides attacking the city."

I can't make it my own little story because it never was and never will be mine since it was that singular experience @Hussar had. After contemplating it a bit I'm wondering if there simply isn't enough information to even do "what ifs."

But I do think that I would change things for different groups of people, even if it was a published adventure. And those players are going to influence what I play for them. What I like isn't the biggest factor because I am merely an accomplice to the players. A DM without players is like a business without customers. And like any good business, I'd better be able to change if my customers change. I'd also better make sure I don't get too comfortable if my players do stay the same because doing the same old stuff can get old.

I dunno, maybe I'm just a neophyte hoping I don't suffer the same fate as getting into a rut where I have such a strong preference for a mode of play that I can't even imagine doing anything else much less attempt it. Here's hoping my ADHD will keep me from getting so attached to a certain playstyle that I can't understand or do anything else.

Sorry for the rant, but I felt I needed to say some stuff. I can't imagine not taking the players into account, and the fact that there will be different players than the ones I'm used to means that I need to be flexible both within and without certain comfort zones.