You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Jackinthegreen]

I disagree (surprised, anyone? ). The players cannot see into the city past the siege to directly observe its impact. Perhaps the people have starved (including that fellow we want to contact) as all resources went to keep the military healthy, and only a skeleton guard with no remaining supplies is still in there. Maybe they have gardens and wells, and are patiently waiting for the invaders to give up and go home - just like the last three sieges of this generation alone. And if they happen to see the Chain of Office of the mayor of the city hanging from the neck of the Nomad Chief, still stained with blood, that may be a clue of something that has gone on in the city in which these nomads were involved.

I used the wrong words I think.

The characters and/or players may not be able to observe the exact changes happening to the city because of the siege, but it's very easy to tell that something is happening to it. A siege doesn't tend to happen unless it's making changes after all.

One of the issues with the desert is that it's difficult to make encounters such that the players can immediately know that something is happening to the city. It's difficult because there are few ways to do that in the first place, and if one gets introduced the player and even character might find it contrived. Happening upon a random nomad who can use a divination that shows what's happening to the city? That's gonna be at least a bit weird.

 

[N'raac]

The characters and/or players may not be able to observe the exact changes happening to the city because of the siege, but it's very easy to tell that something is happening to it. A siege doesn't tend to happen unless it's making changes after all.

I think someone above noted the possibility the siege has been going on for some time, but that's obviously much less likely.

One of the issues with the desert is that it's difficult to make encounters such that the players can immediately know that something is happening to the city. It's difficult because there are few ways to do that in the first place, and if one gets introduced the player and even character might find it contrived. Happening upon a random nomad who can use a divination that shows what's happening to the city? That's gonna be at least a bit weird.

To address the siege, I can think of:

- a patrol from the beseiging force (making sure reinforcements or supplies for the city don't get through, or that their own do, or just general reconnaissance in case something is coming up from behind);

- those nomads could provide any number of plausible hints like a lack of recent patrols from the city, a reduction in shipments to/from the city (and a commensurate reduction in their raiding opportunities), traffic of besieging warrior reinforcements and supplies for the siege passing through, refugees from the city passing through;

-the PC's can directly encounter many of the things the nomads have noticed picking up.

None of those sound as, much less more, contrived than the siege itself, at least to me.

And why do we need a random nomad who can use divination? Can't the nomads send out reconnaisance? Can't the PC's use divination?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I prefer @Hussar's account of his preferences to your account.

1) I've been using what he's told me is his preference, as far as his take on "setting" and "plot" go.
2) While I accept his preference is skipping the desert, I can't see how the desert is inherently any different from the city, still.

Upthread, when the siege was first mentioned, I predicted that Hussar would not object to it. And that prediction was correct.

To an extent. He did say it felt a little contrived. He also called making the desert relevant "contrived". He just said the siege was better. Both, according to him, were contrived (when they were introduced).

The reason for my prediction was obvious to me, namely, that the siege speaks to Hussar's play desires (doing stuff in the city) in a way that the desert does not. And Hussar's own posts have borne out my reasoning.

No, Hussar's posts have agreed with you about the siege, but he hasn't said anything to back up the reasoning you just described.

If you want, I can upack some of those preferences. For instance, contrary to what you say, the city is (for the real Hussar) not just setting, but situation. The siege complicates that situation in an interesting way. The desert does not.

You have, once again, made the siege into an interesting and relevant piece of the situation, and made the desert uninteresting and irrelevant. In those terms, of course you're right.

However, let's say that the desert encounter has those nomads who are leading refugees, and being escorted by mercenaries, and all because of something going down in the city that involves the goal inside the city. And now, let's say the siege is just a quarantine of the city out of precaution (nothing's wrong inside), they're willing to let people inside, and the party can fly over them anyways. Which one is relevant to the player goals inside the city, and which one is irrelevant?

But, once again, you've framed it in a way where the desert isn't relevant to the goals, and the siege is. And my point is that it entirely depends on context that the GM gives it.

You may be able to construct, in your imagination, some pseudo-Hussar who would object to the siege as much as the desert but that would not correspond to the actual Hussar's preferences, and I don't yet have a clear handle on what motivates your pseudo-Hussar RPGer. Whereas the actual Hussar's motivations as an RPGer are completely clear to me - as shown by my ability to correctly predict the preferences that would flow from them.

Again -to an extent. He called your siege "a little contrived." But, regardless, I'm only working on what the real Hussar has written here. Sorry about that.

The desert is not inherently part of the situation in the city. The siege is.

No it's not. Neither are inherently one way or the other.

A player might cheerfully have his/her PC enter the desert, trusting in the GM to somehow connect it to the situation in the city. But the same player might even moreso want to cut straight to the known situation ie the city.

Yes! This is true, and very evident from this thread. I just don't see how "the siege is always relevant" and "the desert is never relevant" is true. And that's not really what Hussar has said; he just called the desert a lot more contrived than the siege was, and that he preferred the siege because it was relevant (even though I can make an irrelevant siege).

My preference, both as GM and player, is to cut to the situation. It is clear to me that Hussar is the same in that respect.

That's fine. But, again, I don't see any inherent different between a desert encounter with nomads and a siege. The GM can make them different, relevant, irrelevant, related, or whatever. He can even use player cues to make those decisions. But it has nothing to do with whether the desert or city is "inherently" relevant. It's not. As always, play what you like

The characters and/or players may not be able to observe the exact changes happening to the city because of the siege, but it's very easy to tell that something is happening to it. A siege doesn't tend to happen unless it's making changes after all.

Seemingly. Take my "quarantine siege", above. Completely irrelevant to the PCs and their goals.

One of the issues with the desert is that it's difficult to make encounters such that the players can immediately know that something is happening to the city. It's difficult because there are few ways to do that in the first place, and if one gets introduced the player and even character might find it contrived. Happening upon a random nomad who can use a divination that shows what's happening to the city? That's gonna be at least a bit weird.

Take my nomads leading refugees accompanied by mercenaries, above. If there was an attack on the temple (where the PCs are headed) in the city, and a siege isn't very contrived, I'd imagine that this is okay too. Yeah? As always, play what you like

 

[Jackinthegreen]

And why do we need a random nomad who can use divination? Can't the nomads send out reconnaisance? Can't the PC's use divination?

The nomads having divinations was an example that I came up with off the top of my head. It was not the example though, nor would I claim it ever would be the definitive one because there are simply so many possibilities that it's quite obvious it's not the only one that could be appropriate for the situation. I wouldn't claim to have an exhaustive list because doing so would be absurd. If I could do that in such a short amount of time I'd be busy writing novels or something instead of posting here.

I'm not sure you fully got what I was trying to convey though. What I think I've observed is that the desert was regarded as not relevant to the city because encounters presumably couldn't directly show an effect on the city. And by directly show I mean they can see that something is happening to the city because they're looking right at the city. They can surmise something is happening, such as encountering an increased flow of refugees leaving it, but they can't observe the effect on the city itself because they aren't there.

Is that train of thought reasonable? To some, yes. To others, no. Are those who think it's not reasonable going to be able to understand why another might think it is? Maybe, and maybe not. Do I understand it? I don't think I do entirely. But it's okay that I don't understand it because I don't have to understand something to accept it.

 

[N'raac]

Ultimately, I can't see any real differentiation between the siege and the desert other than proximity. I find it tough to credit that geographic proximity impacts thematic relevance, especially to the extent being argued here.

Can I understand that Pemerton and Hussar perceive a marked differentiation between the two? Sure. Could I predict their assessment of an encounter set in a third location? Not really. Presumably, anything closer to the city than the seige force would be, and anything further away than the edge of the desert would not, I suppose.

So what if I move the seige out 100 yards into the desert so we encounter the siege before leaving the desert? Is it now irrelevant because it's in the desert, or relevant because it is the siege? Let's pull back more - they have surrounded the city at a sufficient distance hat the PC's must get past the first physical impediment created by the siege before being able to see the city, and are still in the desert. Relevant or not relevant?

I prefer JamesonCourage's approach that the link to player goals, not physical or visual proximity to the city, would be the prime or sole determinant of relevance, but Pemerton and Hussar's comments to date indicate that's not their approach.

 

[pemerton]

I find the assumption the GM will insist on playing out irrelevant and boring aspects of the journey baffling.

Yet Hussar's GM actually insisted on playing out the job interviews with the hirelings. It may be baffling, but it actually happened.

 

[pemerton]

I can't see any real differentiation between the siege and the desert other than proximity. I find it tough to credit that geographic proximity impacts thematic relevance

I think there is something that you are missing - perhaps becaus, for you, it is not an important aspect of RPG play, or one that you don't focus on - but which is important to me and to Hussar.

You are looking at inworld features of the two scenarios, and the only inworld difference you see is geographic proximity. But that inworld difference gives rise to a real-world difference, to do with the resources available to the players, and different dynamics in their relationship with the GM.

The rest of this post will elaborate these ideas.

I think what many of us don’t get (I know I don’t get it) is this seeming “proximity to the city” link. The only difference, fundamentally, between the desert and the siege is that we are closer to the goal.

That geographic proximity makes other differences. The situation the players want to engage is (in) City B. The siege is a potential resource for the players to leverage in respect of doing stuff in City B. To use a semi-technical phase, the fictional positioning is completely different in the two cases:

* desert: until the GM introduces more content (per Hussar, "lays a trail of breadcrumbs"), the fictional positioning of the PCs does not give the players any capacity to leverage the desert in pursuit of their goal;

* siege: the fictional positioning of the PCs gives the players capacity to leverage the siege in pursuit of their goal, to be proactive and require the GM to respond to their plans (eg sneaking in under cover of bombardment).​

One of the issues with the desert is that it's difficult to make encounters such that the players can immediately know that something is happening to the city.

It's actually worse than that.

Until the GM runs some encounter or other, the players have no resources to leverage in pursuit of their goal. Whereas the siege is, per se, a resource that the players can leverage.

But, yes, if the GM sets the siege up that way, yes. Like a desert encounter could be.

This has now morphed to "only a desert" instead of an engaging and relevant nomad encounter.

<snip>

You can tell me the desert is "only sand" all you want, but it's not what I've been using as a comparison, and the "nomad" example has been being used for pages and pages now.

let's say that the desert encounter has those nomads who are leading refugees

<snip>

I don't see any inherent different between a desert encounter with nomads and a siege.

The nomads are not inherent in the desert. The players have to narrate their PCs entering the desert and wait for the GM to frame a nomad encounter (in Hussar's terms, wait for the GM to lay a trail of breadcrumbs). This is reactive, not proactive.

Whereas, with the siege, the players aren't waiting for the GM. There is something to which they can react.

Now, perhaps what you have in mind is the following: rather than narrating, "After your Plane Shift you find yourselves in what seems to be an endless wasteland", the GM narrates, "After your Plane Shift you find yourselves in a seething mass of humanity, seemingly desert nomads leading a group of urban refugeees". That would be much closer to the siege, but that bears no connection to the GMing that Hussar and I are criticising. Hussar's GM did not, in response to the Plane Shift, narrate a situation of that sort immediately linked to the players' goals (although not quite as immediate as the siege). He narrated the presence of an expansive wasteland. And,at best, waited for the players to find his trail of breadcrumbs.

 

[Hussar]

I think I've finally had a... what is it called? epifanny?

The one thing that everyone in this thread has agreed on is that if the players had the proper in-game resources to skip the desert, such as teleportation or Overland Flight, then skipping the desert would be absolutely no problem. So, the issue isn't really whether or not the desert is relevant. If it was the relevance of the desert that was important, then there should be objections to any means for skipping the desert.

No, the objection boils down to the fact that the group does not actually have the in-game sanctioned resources to skip over the desert. I tried to make a plausible one by summoning a mount, but, at the end of the day, the critics are right, it doesn't really skip over the desert. And, really, there's a great point here. If I want to travel to Las Vegas on foot, the desert is going to be relevant.

But, that presupposes a certain playstyle where the physical reality of the game world is such that only the DM can determine when parts can be hand waved. It's very much like an MMO game world. If I want to travel in an MMO, I have to travel through each of the regions in between, risking being attacked or whatnot on my way from start to finish. ((Note, I'm not trying to bring in a video-gamey canard here, just making an example))

I don't, and I get the feeling that Pemerton doesn't, feel that the DM should have the sole say in what parts of the game can be hand waved. Yes, it would likely be best had we had the proper in-game resources, but, we didn't. But, since we're playing a game, I don't feel that the players need to be forced to play out the consequences, when they don't want to play out those consequences. Most of the time, players will want to play out the consequences. Your ship sinks and you make it to the desert island - presuming buy in from the players, you are good to go.

But, I also don't have a problem with the players having strong enough opinions to say, "Hey, y'know what? Let's skip over the Castaway scenes and I don't even have a volleyball - can we just get to the part where we leave the island?" Obviously, some people do.

-----------

On a side note about relevance between the desert and the siege. Imagine for a second that the party does have a teleport spell. Now, they've arrived in the city with the city under siege. The desert in this scenerio is entirely irrelevant. Is the siege still irrelevant? I would say no. If nothing else, the players must achieve their goals before the siege breaks into the city. Plus, the presence of the siege is going to radically change the reactions of the NPC's. A peaceful city is going to be completely different than one under siege. However, the presence of the desert around the city doesn't really have much of an effect - the city happens to be in a desert and that's about it. It's entirely background and has very little impact on play.

That's why the siege is relevant. It's always relevant no matter what the players do. Even if they just fly over the siege, the city is still under siege. But, the desert? Doesn't really matter a whole lot. The nomads are still out there somewhere but, since they aren't linked to our goals, who cares?

Can you make the desert relevant by forcing the issue? Oh sure. The nomads have recently stolen the MacGuffin and we have to go back out to the desert to find it. Fair enough. Although, again, we couldn't have known that at our arrival point in the scenario. We had to go to the city first to find that out. I suppose we could "randomly" meet that group of nomads on our way to the city, who just happened to be the nomads that we need to meet, but, that's about as contrived as you can possibly make it. Our random Planar Travel destination results in our landing in exactly the right place to meet the nomads? If this was a novel or a movie, I'd stop right about there. That's Syfy level writing.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The nomads are not inherent in the desert.

That's true. Nothing is inherent in either encounter.

The players have to narrate their PCs entering the desert and wait for the GM to frame a nomad encounter (in Hussar's terms, wait for the GM to lay a trail of breadcrumbs). This is reactive, not proactive.

Whereas, with the siege, the players aren't waiting for the GM. There is something to which they can react.

What? The players say "I go through the desert to get to the city" and I interrupt the travel with the nomad / refugee / mercenary scene, and the players react to it. That's fundamentally the same as "we go into the city and to our goal in it" and me interrupting it with a siege / quarantine scene.

Now, perhaps what you have in mind is the following: rather than narrating, "After your Plane Shift you find yourselves in what seems to be an endless wasteland", the GM narrates, "After your Plane Shift you find yourselves in a seething mass of humanity, seemingly desert nomads leading a group of urban refugeees". That would be much closer to the siege, but that bears no connection to the GMing that Hussar and I are criticising. Hussar's GM did not, in response to the Plane Shift, narrate a situation of that sort immediately linked to the players' goals (although not quite as immediate as the siege). He narrated the presence of an expansive wasteland. And,at best, waited for the players to find his trail of breadcrumbs.

What I'm discussing is Hussar's "nuclear option", where he wants to skip scenes, and his stated desire to skip the desert scene, even though no context had been established. He did not know if it was relevant, but wanted to skip it.

Now, I get why he'd like to limit the number of complications, and resolve stuff. That part makes sense to me. But, I would imagine that this would extend to the siege as well, and he hasn't objected nearly as much to that, and that baffles me. Because I don't see what relevance the siege has, inherently, that the desert encounter can't have. As always, play what you like

I don't, and I get the feeling that Pemerton doesn't, feel that the DM should have the sole say in what parts of the game can be hand waved.

I wanted to XP this section, but can't yet. I get this part, and you explained it very well. Thanks.

On a side note about relevance between the desert and the siege. Imagine for a second that the party does have a teleport spell. Now, they've arrived in the city with the city under siege. The desert in this scenerio is entirely irrelevant. Is the siege still irrelevant? I would say no. If nothing else, the players must achieve their goals before the siege breaks into the city. Plus, the presence of the siege is going to radically change the reactions of the NPC's. A peaceful city is going to be completely different than one under siege. However, the presence of the desert around the city doesn't really have much of an effect - the city happens to be in a desert and that's about it. It's entirely background and has very little impact on play.

That's why the siege is relevant.

Again, though, haven't you framed this in a way that you purposefully made the siege relevant to you? And, on that note, can't you frame the desert scene with nomads in such a way that it is relevant to you?

It's always relevant no matter what the players do. Even if they just fly over the siege, the city is still under siege. But, the desert? Doesn't really matter a whole lot. The nomads are still out there somewhere but, since they aren't linked to our goals, who cares?

Well, you can tie them to your goals. That's what I guess I'm saying. You don't need to, but you don't need the siege to matter, either (the city has been under siege many times in recent decades, has great food stores, a wonderful garden, magic to make food and water for its people, and the siege is only a cautious quarantine when nothing is actually wrong and the people know it, and the siege lets people in without issue, even though you can teleport past them or fly over them anyways).

Can you make the desert relevant by forcing the issue? Oh sure. The nomads have recently stolen the MacGuffin and we have to go back out to the desert to find it. Fair enough. Although, again, we couldn't have known that at our arrival point in the scenario. We had to go to the city first to find that out. I suppose we could "randomly" meet that group of nomads on our way to the city, who just happened to be the nomads that we need to meet, but, that's about as contrived as you can possibly make it. Our random Planar Travel destination results in our landing in exactly the right place to meet the nomads? If this was a novel or a movie, I'd stop right about there. That's Syfy level writing.

Okay, three things, I think. One, what you find contrived (or not) I can only guess. You've mentioned before just how fickle people's suspension of disbelief is.

Two, you're offering a nomad scenario that nobody else has offered, and then saying you wouldn't like it because it's contrived. What about my nomad scenario? If the siege isn't too contrived, certainly refugees aren't too bad, right?

Third, and most importantly, you accept the desert potentially being relevant. This is a huge thing in my view. This seems to have been outright objected up to this point, though more forcefully (or stubbornly) by pemerton. Your objection seems to be based on your suspension of disbelief, not on relevance. And that's totally cool, and so much more enlightening. Thank you for your post. As always, play what you like

 

[Umbran]

Yes, it would likely be best had we had the proper in-game resources, but, we didn't. But, since we're playing a game, I don't feel that the players need to be forced to play out the consequences, when they don't want to play out those consequences.

Yes, that's certainly a playstyle thing. I think the relevant phrase I've heard bandied about in the past is "meaningful choices". There has been around here a sizable chunk of people who want/need the game to be largely about player choices, and the consequences of those choices. If you get to say, "I just don't feel like playing through the consequences," then you remove the meaning of the choices that led up to that situation.

Now, if you were on a railroad prior to that, this argument doesn't really matter, as you didn't have many meaningful choices up until that point. But, as broad generalization, a case of, "I don't feel like it, please fast forward" will tend to run up against this issue.