You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Aenghus]

Finally! It's taken me days to read this thread of mutual incomprehension and slack-jawedness.

So my bystander's perspective of desert vs siege.

To me the player a desert is a mostly empty hostile environment where any encounters are likely to be wandering monsters i.e. random encounters with no treasure, no useful information, merely extra risk and drain of resources, and some or all of these encounters can be reasonably avoided. From the PC's perspective any encounters are probably just obstacles on their journey to their goal in the city, and are preferably avoided.

So it's entirely understandable to me that players would avoid as many encounters in the desert as possible, having their PCs sneak, fly, teleport or simply flee every encounter offered in the desert. I've been in a number of mission-oriented games which permitted PC agency with journeys like this. The more degrees of freedom the PCs have to avoid encounters, the more the players and PCs need to be actively hooked into engaging with optional encounters such as those in the desert.

Whereas to the players the siege likely isn't a wandering monster, it's a planned event that may have a severe effect on the mission and the PCs. Even if the PCs bypass the siege somehow, it's reasonable for them to gather information about what's going on, and maybe interact with the situation between the cities inhabitants and the besieging force.

So to me that's what stands out, the players and PCs, given their lack of information, have every reason to avoid encounters in the desert, but could reasonably gather data on the siege and decide to interact with one or more of the factions involved.

And on the "skipping a scene" issue, what stands out to me is that demanding players have the minimum system mastery to know to have the plot coupon required to skip a scene(e.g. teleport or wind walk), or have to endure a monster-filled trek through the desert can act to discourage and drive away players lacking this system mastery, or those who deliberately skip the relevant powers because they don't fit their character concept etc.

I can see that allowing a wider range of justifications/excuses for skipping a scene might work very well in a variety of games, right down to a simple request from a player.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

It seemed to me that you have strong views on the nature of "true kingship", such that you have trouble entertaining the idea that a game could leave the matter open.

I pesonally have no such issue with respect to "true kingship" - for instance I can easily imagine a game which, in play, pits the monarchical conservative conception of true kingship against the REH/Conan-esque conception of true kingship (in which we see Conan foreshadowed as a true king before he seizes the throne of Aquionia, and then in the novel-length stroy whose name I can't remember (with the black hand of death sorcerers in the Stygian tombs, etc) we see his true kingship reaffirmed despite his status as a usurper).

I gave an example of something different where I have strong views and hence would have trouble entertaining the idea that a game should leave the matter open. Because of board rules, I'm not going to elaborate on why I would have such trouble, but I hoped that the example would make those underlying reasons self-evident.

 

[pemerton]

this desert/seige split is at best a tenuous indicator of player empowerment in the way that Hussar describes. I think questions like 'Who authored the need to go to the city - GM, player or group?' would reveal those authority structures more directly.

Do you think it can be a matter of degree?

For instance, in the actual play events Hussar is describing, it seems that the GM (via the module) rather than the player decided that the PCs would have to go to the city.

But within the overarching constraints of that GM-authored goal, I still think there can be a difference between just following the GM's bread crumbs (to use [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s phrase) and the players being proactive in the way they realise that goal (eg by leveraging the siege).

 

[pemerton]

In most cities, though, "The siege is not inherent to the city."

The siege is not inherent to the city. This city might be inherent to the siege.

You are the one who introduced the phrase "the siege is inherent to the city", as (I assume) a paraphrase of [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s "the siege is inherently linked to the city". You may have been misled by your own paraphrase into imputing a view to Hussar and I that we don't have.

Neither of us has claimed that the city wouldn't be the city without the siege. We have both claimed that the siege wouldn't be the siege without the city, and hence that to interact with the siege is also to interact (perhaps in a mediated way) with the city.

The desert, in general, does not resemeble the siege in this respect. Your example of the sandstorm that locks down the city - provided that the players are in that sandstorm, and not 200 miles away from it with no way of moving - does resemlbe the siege in this respect.

I have a personal preference nevertheless for the siege over the sandstorm, because (as [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] noted in a recent post) I prefer social conflict to environmental challenges. But that's a further idiosyncratic fact about me (and one that I don't think is true of Hussar, given that he said upthread he'd enjoy playing an exploring game).

 

[JamesonCourage]

You are the one who introduced the phrase "the siege is inherent to the city", as (I assume) a paraphrase of @Hussar's "the siege is inherently linked to the city". You may have been misled by your own paraphrase into imputing a view to Hussar and I that we don't have.

The siege is inherently linked to the city, yes. But you also left out where he said "It's an element of the city, no different than walls or anything else. It's framing the city. This isn't just a city in a desert. It's a city under siege. That's part of the framing of the city."

And I pointed out that it's not inherent. Because his full sentence more than implied it was, from my reading. I quoted the definition of inherent, including "existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute; innate." Hussar called it an element of the city. I disputed that.

Neither of us has claimed that the city wouldn't be the city without the siege. We have both claimed that the siege wouldn't be the siege without the city, and hence that to interact with the siege is also to interact (perhaps in a mediated way) with the city.

Regardless of my former disagreement, I do agree with how you characterize the city. And, depending on context, how you characterize the siege.

The desert, in general, does not resemeble the siege in this respect. Your example of the sandstorm that locks down the city - provided that the players are in that sandstorm, and not 200 miles away from it with no way of moving - does resemlbe the siege in this respect.

Again, the focus is on "the city" and not Hussar's goal (as a player) to get to his PC goal (deal with the thing inside the city). So, I feel like you've shifted things again.

But, regardless, the desert is now relevant to his goals. Which is what I've been saying. The desert is only irrelevant if you make it irrelevant.

I have a personal preference nevertheless for the siege over the sandstorm, because (as @Manbearcat noted in a recent post) I prefer social conflict to environmental challenges. But that's a further idiosyncratic fact about me (and one that I don't think is true of Hussar, given that he said upthread he'd enjoy playing an exploring game).

I'd probably also enjoy the siege more most of the time, since it'd have a bigger impact on the game in the long term, but I think I'd enjoy a sandstorm, too (a blizzard that my players had to weather is still remembered fondly). But, yeah, it's just preference. As always, play what you like

 

[N'raac]

It seemed to me that you have strong views on the nature of "true kingship", such that you have trouble entertaining the idea that a game could leave the matter open.

I pesonally have no such issue with respect to "true kingship" - for instance I can easily imagine a game which, in play, pits the monarchical conservative conception of true kingship against the REH/Conan-esque conception of true kingship (in which we see Conan foreshadowed as a true king before he seizes the throne of Aquionia, and then in the novel-length stroy whose name I can't remember (with the black hand of death sorcerers in the Stygian tombs, etc) we see his true kingship reaffirmed despite his status as a usurper).

Howeverm, if the player envisions "my character will play like Conan, battling for Kingship against the monarchical conservative conception" this presupposes a setting which features that monarchical conservative conception, so it cannot be structured in a vaccuum, contrary to your " no backstory exists" assertion. If his expectation is a "noble bloodline retaking the throne from the usurpers", and you make him into the usurper, I don't foresee a happy player. For the game to play out with the player's vision in mind, his vision must be clarified.

This is so regardless of the game system.

I gave an example of something different where I have strong views and hence would have trouble entertaining the idea that a game should leave the matter open. Because of board rules, I'm not going to elaborate on why I would have such trouble, but I hoped that the example would make those underlying reasons self-evident.[/QUOTE]

 

[pemerton]

contrary to your " no backstory exists" assertion.

I didn't make any such assertion. I said that, in BW, a Belief is not a statement of backstory. But yes, it may presuppose backstory eg "My dead wife will be returned to life", as a Belief, presupposes that the PC in question once had a wife.

BW has rules on backstory authorship - some is authored by the players, some by the GM, some jointly. This was set out and then discussed in some detail on the BW thread on this board a couple of weeks ago.
[MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION], I really don't understand what you are trying to establish in relation to BW. Are you trying to show that I've got its rules wrong? That it doesn't work as I'm describing it? That I'm misdescribing how it plays?

I also don't get what you think is going on with the "I'm the true king of this land" example. Are you saying that an RPG campaign can't be run in which, at the start of the game, none of the participants in the game no whether or not this is true, and by the end of the game some sort of resolution of the question has been achieved?

What if the Belief in question was "Loyalty demand sacrifice"? Would you run the same arguments in relation to that?

 

[pemerton]

If his expectation is a "noble bloodline retaking the throne from the usurpers", and you make him into the usurper, I don't foresee a happy player. For the game to play out with the player's vision in mind, his vision must be clarified.

Two things.

First, it would be clarified. I mean, you can just ask!

And second, in BW it would also be clarified by the rules. There are rules that govern starting the game as someone with a noble background. The player can't just write it into his/her PC's backstory without complying with those rules (some of which I mentioned upthread).

If the player wants to play a game which focuses on whether or not his/her noble PC reclaims the throne (say an Aragorn-style thing, or one version of a Robin Hood-style thing) then the PC backstory would have to be established in the mechanically correct way, and the appropriate Belief would be along the lines of "I shall reclaim the throne that is rightfully mine."

But that wasn't the example being discussed. That example was of a player playing a peasant PC whose Belief is "I am the true king of this land." The two games would be quite different, I think. Surprising things can happen in play, of course, but at least in terms of framing the first one - noble reclaiming throne - seems to be framed in terms of conservative monarchical values, whereas the second - peasant as true king - seems to be framed in terms of different values, perhaps radical ones or at least anti-establishment in some fashion.

In literary terms, the first might end up being romantic and Tolkienesque - an Aragorn story - though of course the Tolkienian happy ending is not guaranteed; whereas the second might end up resembling REH's modernist, anti-establishment Conan stories - but again with no guarantee of a happy ending.

 

[pemerton]

But, regardless, the desert is now relevant to his goals.

Does your "now" refer to "because there's a sandstorm locking down the city"? If so, then yes, you're reasserting something I agreed to several posts back now. As I said then, the sandstorm example is strictly analogous to [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s example way upthread of how the barber shop episode can be framed in such a way as to draw the players into the street because that is where the barber shop that they care about is located.

If he finds the little things (summon duration, weight, food, etc.) boring, I understand that. If he finds "sand" boring, I understand that. I just don't know how he can knowingly skip the scene claiming that it is irrelevant when no context has been given.

But this still puzzles me. In [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s game there was no sandstorm as the PCs approached the city (which is one of your devices for making the desert relevant). There were no nomads with refugees foreshadowing or carrying information with respect to the city (which is another of your devices for making the desert relevant). All there was was an expanse of wasteland needing to be crossed. That is not relevant. It lacks what is common to both your devices, namely, some (non-procedural) connection to the city.

 

[pemerton]

settings have resolute views about what a true king must be. The statement, "I am the true king", is either delusional or asserts a fact about setting and backstory that must be congruent with each other from the outset.

<snip>

If you don't create a Myth, it's 100% gauranteed that everyone at the table will have a some version of the myth in their heads and conflict at the table level is just or more likely than conflict in the story.

<snip>

I believe that your insistance that there is no setting, that the belief 'I am the true king' need only have forestory relevance, all but guarantees that a player that is putting the nature, source, and character of true kingship up for grabs won't get the story they expect.

This makes your view clearer, thank you.

But I don't see why a setting must have a resolute view about what a true king must be. The real world doesn't, after all - I know a lot more about the real world then anyone will ever know about a fictional setting, however detailed, and I can't just "read off" from that, without contention, any necessary theory of true kingship. (To make it slightly more concrete, for instance, I live in a (constitutional) monarchy and, for various reasons to do with the history and constitution of my country, am a monarchist, but I think I have a different conception of "true kingship" from nearly every other monarchist in my country. Naturally I think I'm right and they're wrong, but I can't just point to any "resolute view" encoded in the history and constitution of my country to prove them wrong.)

As for disagreement among participants relating in table conflict - perhaps, I don't know. I think that depends heavily on the personalities of those involved. But I don't see how such conflict can be prevented by trying to encode an answer into the setting. (Say along the lines of an alignment mechanic of the traditional D&D variety.) That just moves the bump in the rug somewhere else.

As for the player not getting the story they expected - I read that and think, "Yes, that's the point. You're not meant to know what the ending is. But it's pretty likely the game will (among other things) be about what true kingship entails, and that's what you asked for when you wrote that Belief on your character sheet." But maybe I have not undertsood what you're getting at.

if you can't run stories about the conflict between your own consciousness and divine dictates, and you can't run stories that test whether the ends justify the means

I didn't say I can't run stories about conscience vs divine dictates. I said that, in a certain case - namely, where the game was set up such that to do so would deprotagonise the player - I wouldn't.

I also never said that I can't run a story that tests "whether the ends justify the means" - after all, as Bertrand Russell once asked, What else would? - but gave a much more specific statement of Belief - namely, "If there's a ticking bomb, I torture them until they tell me where it is."

[EDITED to insert the word "never".]