Hussar
Legend
Sure, it s a play style. But it's not simulation: it's the GM responding to player cues and the GM not undercutting player choices with force. Negating a consequence that is entirely within control of the player does a couple of detrimental things in my view:
1) It negates player choice. If one or more of the players likes this type of struggle and has chosen appropriately for those desires, the application of GM force negates their choice to engage the game this way. This is particularly problematic when only a single player is asking for the pass. Table dynamics being what they are, someone who wants to do something will often remain silent if someone else is vocal about how he doesn't want to do it.
Only important if you feel that it's fine to have fun while the guy sitting next to you hates the game. If that's the way you want to play, no problem. I do not.
2) It skews choice value. If the players know that X can and will be hand waved away then there is (almost) no reason for the player to choose resources that handle that situation rather than taking the wave. This ends up making non-hand waved choice relatively more valuable and makes the PCs more rich in resources in other aspects of the game. This in turn makes the PCs more capable in situations the table doesn't advance pass and in more extreme cases make the PCs breeze through situations designed to challenge more balanced designs.
Only a problem if you presume that players will abuse this option. The only reason to hand wave the situation is because someone at the table hates it. It's not, "I will always hate going into the desert", it's "I hate the road blocking that you are doing, can we skip it". The next desert scenario - exploring the desert - is perfectly fine. Again, not a problem.
3) It negates previous player choices. This was stated above. The party is facing the consequence of previous choice. I expect the advantages from their choices have appeared; here is a visible indicator of what they surrendered to get those other resources.
Only true if the DM chooses the consequence that is most punishing to the players. There are many, many consequences of any action. Choosing one that is fairly easily bypassed is no less valid than choosing the one that soaks up hours of table time.
4) It rewards poor planning. If X is a known consequence and the players decide to do it without mitigation, they should live with those results.
Poor planning by who? By the players or by the DM for trying to force a scenario that one of the players hates? Again, this is a style of sim play that I don't do. I simply don't care. Skipping ahead to the stuff that everyone at the table enjoys is far, far more important than tracking the realities of the scene. To me.
As soon as the GM mentions the esert, the players can become proactive - asking questions about it (do they have relevant knowledge skills? Ranger favoured territory? character background?), casting scrying spells (if they have them), sending scouts (if they have them), making plans for their PCs'. Substitute "nomads" for "siege" or "desert", and the same applies.
Why? Why would the players become proactive about the desert? They DON'T WANT TO INTERACT WITH THE DESERT. OTOH, they want to interact with the city. Can you really not see the difference here?
If that is the way the GM chooses to run things. Maybe they have magical supply lines, so there is no shortage of goods for purchase. JC has postulated a siege where the city is not being damaged; the city might also have magical protections. The siege will colour the encounters in the city to the extent the GM wishes, and no more.
Yup, the DM has to actively work to make the siege irrelevant. But the desert is irrelevant by the application of one spell. And you don't mind if I make the desert irrelevant by casting Teleport. So, just how important is the desert?
Does it really kill all the fun of the game for a player to be bored once in a while? Especially if what bores them greatly engages one or more of the other players? Again, I come back to how bored is the player, and how often does this happen? If, on very rare occasions, a number of players are disengaged, speed the scene along and get to something more interesting. However, if one player is commonly bored by the campaign events, then maybe that player is a poor fit for this campaign.
Emphasis added. There seems to be an assumption of some posters that players have a hive mind. If most/all the players are bored, there is a problem with the game being run. If one player is bored by aspects of the game that interest the others, the game seems no longer to be the problem.
I don't know about your game, but, if one of my players came away from a session frustrated and bored, I'd certainly consider that a failure on my part as a DM. You are right, the game isn't the problem. It's a single scene. You think that it's perfectly fine for a player to not enjoy the game and should shut up and sit back while the scene plays out, so long as someone at the table is enjoying the scene. I do not. If any of my players are bored enough to actually voice a complaint and try to bypass the scene, that's good enough for me. Because I know that my players will only actually speak up when it's gotten to a certain point. They will certainly give things a chance. But, on the rare occasion when someone steps up and says, "Let's skip this", I have zero problems with it.
I think it makes the game better when players aren't forced to eat their broccoli out of some sort of misplaced sense of obligation to the table.