You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[pemerton]

In Hussar's experience, there was a desert he didn't know much about. So, he wanted to skip it, because there's nothing relevant there for him to interact with. But, as we both know that this entirely depends on context of what the GM "puts" there, can't we agree that it's a little premature to judge relevance?

I don't think we can agree, sorry.

I don't want a game (as either player or GM) where the players flounder around waiting for the GM to frame the scenes that signal the connection of what is happening to the players' goals.

And, if we can trust a GM to give the siege stuff for the "players to leverage", let's trust him to do the same in the desert.

This seems to be a fundamental point of different play expectations. The GM doesn't have to give the siege stuff for the players to leverage. As soon as the GM says "You see an army laying siege to the city" that stuff is there.

But, they have to wait for the GM to narrate the discovery of the siege.

<snip>

my complaint with Hussar, which is his judgment of the situation without so much as a description.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] didn't judge the situation without a description, as best I understand it. The GM has described a desert; Hussar has responded by conjuring a centipede.

As for the narration of the siege, the players don't have to wait in any signficant sense: the player declares the centipede summoning; the GM narrates with appropriate pith and brevity the desert crossing; the GM narrates the arrival at the city under siege.

This is very different, in my view at least, from the players declaring the PCs plunging into the desert on spec that the GM will narrate an interesting encounter.

As I've said upthread, if the GM wanted something interesting in the desert, to occupy the same functional location as the siege, s/he should have narrated it at the point in play when the PCs arrived in the desert; or in response to the players announcing the commencement of their centipede-borne trek. Hussar's GM did not do either of those things.

 

[pemerton]

Getting through the desert is a challenge the PC's must accomplish to access the city they have chosen to leverage.

<snip>

"I do not like this challenge so we should autosucceed" is certainly one way to run a game. I do not agree that it is mandatory, nor that it is the best way to run the game.

Neither Hussar or I have said anything about approaches to play being mandatory. But you seem to be saying that we don't know what is best for ourselves in gaming.

"I do not like this challenge so please move on so we can get to something interesting" is in my own view an excellent way to run a game that I will enjoy. It's not as if there's any shortage of interesting challenges so that I have to play through dull ones too in order to fill my quota.

This is no different from the players deciding to scale the city walls, and having it pointed out that a +3 Climb Check will not allow the PC group to readily scale the sheer city walls

I don't agree. The centipede has the carrying capacity. And can be summoned at will. And has the mobility. The centipede on its own could therefore carry the party through the desert. The only issue is the ride checks; and it is clear that the GM has flexibility in how to call for these.

if the rules show that riding the centipede would require a DC 20 Ride check to remain mounted for 2 minutes

But it's perfectly obvious that the rules don't say that - hence the whole point of [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s plan.

No matter how interesting interactions with the soldiers, commanders, siege engines etc. may be, if the ultimate purpose of interacting with them is simply to gain access to the city, then those encounters, interactions and challenges are no more, and no less, relevant than the encounters in the desert which are resolved in order to permit the players to achieve their goal of entry into the city.

You seem to have a very different conception from me, here, of why and how a player might relate to the siege's presence in the fiction.

You are framing it in terms of "interesting interactions"; for me the issue is player resources, and hence the ability, of the player, to add to the shared fiction. If the encounters with the siege permit the player to change the fiction so as to bring it about that his/her PC is in the city, that's fundamentally different from playing through the desert exploration, where the power to change the fiction lies primarily with the GM, not the player.

Perhaps that front line of spearcarriers greets them with "You shall not pass. We were hired to prevent anyone from passing.

Sure. The PCs can then attack them, or try to Intimidate them, or persuade them, or charm them, or otherwise engage the action resolution mechanics.

So you had the players exploring an unknown area (which could be a desert)

No. The players chose to have their PCs explore an area they had passed through before in an episode of free narration, and which I had foreshadowed with clues related to the niece's presence in the area, in anticipation of doing something with it later on. (I think the idea that she'd disappeared came to me later, but it's a while ago now.) When they did their exploration, they followed up on some of those clues.

I see no reason that a rival faction to one favoured by the PC's (Kas vs Vecna), a character linked to a prized possession (Kas and the Sword of Kas), an old enemy or an old friend, or any number of other matters that link to past experiences and aspects of the PC's could not be integrated into the desert encounters

I don't see any such reason either. Nevertheless, Hussar's GM did not do this. That's part of the point of the complaint.

Had Hussar's GM opted for free narration of the centipede crossing, and then cut to the PCs' encounter with some person or place or event or clue that related in some way to the city, or to the players' goal in the city, I'm pretty sure Hussar would not have posted his irritation at his GM in this thread.

not seeing anything revolutionary in the above, nor any necessary huge deviation from Hussar's game

I once again do not see the huge difference you seem to perceive between pemerton's game and a standard & game, deftly planned and run by an experienced GM and tailored to the players and their characters.

Suppose that to be so. How is that remotely a defence of Hussar's GM - given that the primary complaint against Hussar's GM is that he did not respond to the wishes of his players?

Their goals have lead them to want something in the city, so they need to get there, led into the desert by that desire. They will choose how to react to events in the desert (fight, negotiate with, ignore or flee from a group of nomads, or mercenaries, or refugees, or what have you).

There is no evidence that any such events, relating back to the players' goals for their PCs, or the rationale for being in the desert, were being put forward by the GM. That's the problem.

You can conjure up,in imagination, completely different play experiences from what Hussar has described, in which the game is wonderful, the GM frames clearly relevant scenes, free narrates through irrelevant and/or transition scenes, etc. None of that is a defence of Hussar's GM who didn't do any of those things.

Let us assume that the players previously rejected every adventure hook offered which would enable them to gain that political clout.

If the players don't take steps to gain political clout for their PCs, then their PCs won't have it. Which means, for instance, that the attempt to persuade the Baron to hold his niece to account for her necromancy might play out differently - both in resolution (perhaps less Diplomacy, more Intimidate) and in narratin of consequences. (The Baron might end up a bullied victim rather than a reluctant partner.)

those choices did not exist until you dropped the niece in their path

But I didn't "drop the niece in their path". The players had their own reasons for having their PCs deal with the Baron, and the existence and disappearance of the niece came up in the context of those dealings. There was no point where the players had their PCs simply wandering through the fiction, without context or connection, waiting for me as GM to drop in something for them to act on or to point them in some desired direction.

I'm removing the chase scene, as it (like the above) consists only of the players reacting to what the GM dropped in their path.

No. It consists in the players reacting to a GM-authored consequence of their own decision to have the niece detained, which also forces the players to sharpen their attitude towards the niece. How much do they (and their PCs) care about her necromancy? Answer: enough to kill her, even though this jeopardises their PCs' relationship with the Baron.

That's not just the players reacting to something the GM drops in their path.

If her escape attempt was so predicatable, why were no efforts made to prevent it?

By whom? The PCs? - they were dealing with the Baron. The Baron? - he posted guards, whom the niece killed. Had the players decided to try and prevent her escape, the action resolution mechanics would have come into play. They didn't, though.

No "critical goals"? Then why will the niece and Kas show up later?

Because they're fun. In what way is the GM introducing something into the fiction because it's fun a "critical goal"? It's no one's goal, and it's not critical to anything.

here are some other ways she and Kas can be introduced to allow them to play their inevitable roles in the storyline

There are no such inevitable roles. Kas ended up an ally, and indeed someone to whom the PCs swore an oath. The niece, the granddaughter of someone the PCs befriended in the past, ended up being killed by them. It could easily have played out the other way, or in some differen way again.

The language of "inevitable roles" may have some currency in Adventure Path play - it has no relationship to the episode of play that I described.

As to the question of whether there is anything "revolutionary" about my game: I have never asserted that; it's a claim foisted on me by you and Celebrim. I have said that my game is different from the one Hussar described, and my description bears that out - you yourself note that my game is responsive to my players, and it is precisely the absence of that that has led to Hussar's complaint.

But there are other things that make me think my game may be different from yours - that you impute "critical goals" and "inevitable roles" in relation to a game which, as I have described it, lacked either such thing.

 

[N'raac]

I don't think we can agree, sorry.

Paradoxically, I believe that may be something we CAN agree on.

I don't want a game (as either player or GM) where the players flounder around waiting for the GM to frame the scenes that signal the connection of what is happening to the players' goals.

So how does a game begin? The GM provides a complete blank slate? The PC’s float in a void until they express a goal, so that the GM may frame something that takes those goals into account? Once again, I think you overstate the case markedly.

@Hussardidn't judge the situation without a description, as best I understand it. The GM has described a desert; Hussar has responded by conjuring a centipede.

So far, so good. It is his subsequent statement that any GM adjudication of that action other than “you arrive at the city encountering nothing in between” will cause him to get “shirty”.

As for the narration of the siege, the players don't have to wait in any signficant sense: the player declares the centipede summoning; the GM narrates with appropriate pith and brevity the desert crossing; the GM narrates the arrival at the city under siege.

We do not agree on the appropriateness of pith and brevity. For some reason, you can envision no possible encounter in the desert prior to the city that would be acceptable. Let me provide one more example – perhaps, rather than encounter the siege in progress, the much faster centipede catches up to that force on its way to the city. If the siege is relevant at the city, it should also be relevant in the desert.

This is very different, in my view at least, from the players declaring the PCs plunging into the desert on spec that the GM will narrate an interesting encounter.

Seems to me that the players state that the PC’s enter the desert, seeking to get to the other side. The GM provides the consequences of that action, be it “after a hot and sweaty two weeks on centipedeback, you see a city in the distance” or “after an hour’s travel, you see a group of people ahead” or “a gigantic bug-like creature burrows from the ground ahead and chitters menacingly”.

Hussar's GM did not do either of those things.

Unless I misrecall, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s GM allowed the desert crossing. The discussion stems from the numerous responses that suggested that was not the only possible right answer.

Neither Hussar or I have said anything about approaches to play being mandatory. But you seem to be saying that we don't know what is best for ourselves in gaming.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has also told us he will get “shirty” with any GM not acquiescing to his wishes. That, to me, is an effort to impose his will on a different person in the game.

I don't agree. The centipede has the carrying capacity. And can be summoned at will. And has the mobility. The centipede on its own could therefore carry the party through the desert. The only issue is the ride checks; and it is clear that the GM has flexibility in how to call for these.

Actually, it has been established, I believe, that the centipede lacked the necessary carrying capacity (I have not vetted that statement), may or may not stick around without being re-summoned on a regular basis and is not all that speedy compared to other possible desert life forms. It would not appear as a distant dust cloud, then pass possible encounters in a blinding blur of speed, disappearing in the opposite direction with the only possible action of those witnessing it being a gasped “what was that!?!”.

As to the Ride checks, with a specific rule that each of ill suitability as a mount and riding bareback imposing a -5 penalty, it seems quite possible the usual 5 DC check to stay in the saddle when the beast moves unexpectedly may not succeed with a “take 10”. Add vertical inclines and I’m more incredulous. It should not be inordinately difficult to make a simple horizontal ride fairly mundane, but vertical inclines or attacks by predators are another matter entirely.

Oh, and those would be predators that, perhaps, the PCs can leverage into a stampede or other attack on the besieging forces in a very exciting and cinematic manner. Even if the players did not say “May we encounter some predators in the desert that I may later think to use against enemy forces?”

Had Hussar's GM opted for free narration of the centipede crossing, and then cut to the PCs' encounter with some person or place or event or clue that related in some way to the city, or to the players' goal in the city, I'm pretty sure Hussar would not have posted his irritation at his GM in this thread.

Hussar has consistently indicated he did not wish to interact with or encounter anything, of any kind whatsoever, during the desert crossing. He wanted to move immediately to the carrying out of his business in the city. Hussar’s GM allowed that.

You can conjure up,in imagination, completely different play experiences from what Hussar has described, in which the game is wonderful, the GM frames clearly relevant scenes, free narrates through irrelevant and/or transition scenes, etc.

Or that he refused to let the centipede act as a fast forward button, since his GM did not play out the desert crossing.

But I didn't "drop the niece in their path". The players had their own reasons for having their PCs deal with the Baron, and the existence and disappearance of the niece came up in the context of those dealings. There was no point where the players had their PCs simply wandering through the fiction, without context or connection, waiting for me as GM to drop in something for them to act on or to point them in some desired direction.

Nor were Hussar’s group. They were moving through the desert to get to the city. That they might encounter something they did not expect – whether a Baron’s niece, Kas the Conqueror or wandering nomads – is a valid occurrence to me, but will cause Hussar to get “shirty” and want to go home until you reach his point of interest, the city.

Because they're fun. In what way is the GM introducing something into the fiction because it's fun a "critical goal"? It's no one's goal, and it's not critical to anything.

I see – something that is fun, even if not related to someone’s goal or really critical to anything, IS a legitimate encounter after all. It seems to me that is what many of us have been saying all along, and you and Hussar had disagreed. Now, however, you seem to think that they are clearly and obviously appropriate, and have been all along. Go figure!

From your comments it was inevitable they would show up. From there, they would play whatever roles they would play, as dictated by in-game events. Nothing, you claim, is foreordained. So, was it possible Kas would become a willing lackey to the PC’s, and the baron’s niece would marry their torchbearer and stay in their log cabin raising and bearing their numerous children? Or was there some preconception as to their roles after all?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't think we can agree, sorry.

Which kinda amazes me, but okay. I can accept that.

I don't want a game (as either player or GM) where the players flounder around waiting for the GM to frame the scenes that signal the connection of what is happening to the players' goals.

Then you need to give the ability to frame things to the players. Not just ask permission, or give you implicit cues, but actually frame things. Otherwise, they cannot act until you frame things. Which, by the way, I am okay with groups playing this way. But it does not strike me as your style of GMing in any strong sense. Yes, you've had a paladin say "but she made me not a frog" and it was true. So, it's not absent from your game. But that's not scene framing.

This seems to be a fundamental point of different play expectations. The GM doesn't have to give the siege stuff for the players to leverage. As soon as the GM says "You see an army laying siege to the city" that stuff is there.

Again, that depends on the context of the siege. I had just established that.

And, of course, as soon as the GM describes the nomads / refugees / mercenaries, there's stuff for the players to leverage. But Hussar doesn't want to deal with it.

Hussar didn't judge the situation without a description, as best I understand it. The GM has described a desert; Hussar has responded by conjuring a centipede.

Yes, to skip the desert because "nothing can be too terribly relevant" to his goals. I'm disputing this.

As for the narration of the siege, the players don't have to wait in any signficant sense: the player declares the centipede summoning; the GM narrates with appropriate pith and brevity the desert crossing; the GM narrates the arrival at the city under siege.

This same wait occurs with the desert encounter. The player summons the centipede, the GM quickly narrates crossing the desert until they see the nomads / refugees / mercenaries, with some shouting out to them.

Neither the siege nor the nomad encounter is framed by the players, other than it came up on the way to their goal. They did not act in a way that set the siege up; no, the GM just dropped it in front of them, like the desert encounter. Both are in response to the player decision to cross the desert to get to the city, and both can be used as "leverage" by the players. And yet, to Hussar, the siege is okay, but the desert encounter isn't. And that's why I'm still struggling to understand his wants.

This is very different, in my view at least, from the players declaring the PCs plunging into the desert on spec that the GM will narrate an interesting encounter.

It's not about him needing to encounter something in the desert. No, it's about Hussar's assertion that nothing can be relevant in the desert before he even interacts with it. I don't mind nothing going on in the desert, and the PCs just skipping it. I do not think, however, that the statement that "nothing too terribly relevant" can happen in the desert somehow follows. That doesn't make sense.

As I've said upthread, if the GM wanted something interesting in the desert, to occupy the same functional location as the siege, s/he should have narrated it at the point in play when the PCs arrived in the desert; or in response to the players announcing the commencement of their centipede-borne trek. Hussar's GM did not do either of those things.

Okay, true. But that's not what I'm addressing, even if you keep bringing it around to this. I'm talking about Hussar's claim that "nothing can be too terribly relevant" to his goals in the desert. And I bring it up because that's just untrue, as it depends entirely on context.

"I do not like this challenge so please move on so we can get to something interesting" is in my own view an excellent way to run a game that I will enjoy. It's not as if there's any shortage of interesting challenges so that I have to play through dull ones too in order to fill my quota.

But, don't we need to know the challenge first? That's what I'm objecting to. Hussar doesn't know what's going on in the desert before he judges it as boring and irrelevant. I mean, what does he expect it to be? Random encounters the whole way? If he does, why is he playing with someone who doesn't fit his style by such a huge degree?

No, I feel like Hussar is saying "nothing can be relevant in the desert (because he has said that) so I don't want to deal with it." Which is fine, except that stuff can be relevant in the desert. Yet, he doesn't want to deal with it. And thus I'm curious about his reasoning.

I see no reason that a rival faction to one favoured by the PC's (Kas vs Vecna), a character linked to a prized possession (Kas and the Sword of Kas), an old enemy or an old friend, or any number of other matters that link to past experiences and aspects of the PC's could not be integrated into the desert encounters

I don't see any such reason either. Nevertheless, Hussar's GM did not do this. That's part of the point of the complaint.

Had Hussar's GM opted for free narration of the centipede crossing, and then cut to the PCs' encounter with some person or place or event or clue that related in some way to the city, or to the players' goal in the city, I'm pretty sure Hussar would not have posted his irritation at his GM in this thread.

Hussar has said in this thread that the siege is a little contrived, that he'd ignore and walk past the nomads / refugees / mercenaries, and that he has no interest in the Vecna tomb. He may not have posted in this thread (about surprising the GM), but I think he'd have been irritated.

Suppose that to be so. How is that remotely a defence of Hussar's GM - given that the primary complaint against Hussar's GM is that he did not respond to the wishes of his players?

I suppose because the GM needs to have some idea what their player wants, without being told at each point as the game progresses. And Hussar has made it very hard to get an idea of what is acceptable and what's not.

There is no evidence that any such events, relating back to the players' goals for their PCs, or the rationale for being in the desert, were being put forward by the GM. That's the problem.

Not to Hussar. He'd walk past them. He's not interested in that type of game. But, he's tentatively okay with the siege, even if it's a little contrived. And I can't figure out why, yet.

You can conjure up,in imagination, completely different play experiences from what Hussar has described, in which the game is wonderful, the GM frames clearly relevant scenes, free narrates through irrelevant and/or transition scenes, etc. None of that is a defence of Hussar's GM who didn't do any of those things.

Well, I don't know what his GM did. But, I do know that in this conversation, he doesn't accept the nomads / refugees / mercenaries, but he does accept the siege. And I haven't heard the difference yet.

But I didn't "drop the niece in their path". The players had their own reasons for having their PCs deal with the Baron, and the existence and disappearance of the niece came up in the context of those dealings. There was no point where the players had their PCs simply wandering through the fiction, without context or connection, waiting for me as GM to drop in something for them to act on or to point them in some desired direction.

This isn't even what's happening in Hussar's desert complaint. They players have their own reasons for heading to the city, based on the rest of the game thus far. They head to the city. The GM interjects a relevant complication (a siege, the nomads / refugees / mercenaries, etc.), giving it context. The players deal with the complications, "leverage" it with mechanics, and continue play towards their goal.

This is the same as yours in that, the Baron didn't exist until introduced, and neither did the niece. Nor did anything, really, until you introduced it to the players. But, hopefully, when you introduce things, they're set up in a relevant way. This is what I'm saying can happen in the desert, but this doesn't seem good enough to Hussar. Without context, he rejects all encounters as not being "too terribly relevant" to his goals. But the siege is acceptable, if a bit contrived. And for the life of me, I can't figure out the difference.

No. It consists in the players reacting to a GM-authored consequence of their own decision to have the niece detained, which also forces the players to sharpen their attitude towards the niece. How much do they (and their PCs) care about her necromancy? Answer: enough to kill her, even though this jeopardises their PCs' relationship with the Baron.

That's not just the players reacting to something the GM drops in their path.

Well, the desert encounter might be the consequences of the players' decision to use Plane Shift and then crossing the desert. Or, like your Kas example, it might just be fun. It can be a number of things. But "relevant" (to player goals) is something that it undoubtedly can be, and Hussar's statement that "nothing [in the desert] can be too terribly relevant [to my goals]" is just untrue. And that's what I'm taking issue with. As always, play what you like

 

[Libramarian]

I think @pemerton et al have done a very good job explaining the playstyle in which it's reasonable for @Hussar to make scene-framing suggestions directly to the DM in the middle of a session. I think I have a good handle on it and I can see how a DM could be expected to skip the desert scene and could know how and why to do it, in certain groups. But I don't think that the text & play culture of 3e (or any edition of D&D?) is aware and supportive enough of this playstyle to make it acceptable to pull this with a DM without pregame coordination. That seems like suddenly mentioning you're a vegetarian after you're already arrived at a dinner party.

So I don't think there's anything wrong with Hussar's play preferences but I still think it's rude and unfair to get shirty with a DM and accuse them of passive-aggressive roadblocking for doing what their game and the play culture surrounding it strongly encourages them to do.

I think maybe what @Celebrim , @N'raac et al really want to criticize is this particular method of expressing and advocating your preference (reasonably IMO because it is rude), but somewhere along the way it turned into an argument about the coherence and validity of the preference.

Like:
"You can't just suddenly bring up the fact that you're a vegetarian!"
"Why not? There's nothing wrong with being a vegetarian."
"How am I supposed to know what it means? Are you prohibited from eating eggs? Dairy? Fish? There are traces of animal products in almost everything you know. Are you sure you're even a vegetarian?"
and so on.

 

[N'raac]

So I don't think there's anything wrong with Hussar's play preferences but I still think it's rude and unfair to get shirty with a DM and accuse them of passive-aggressive roadblocking for doing what their game and the play culture surrounding it strongly encourages them to do.

I think maybe what @Celebrim , @N'raac et al really want to criticize is this particular method of expressing and advocating your preference (reasonably IMO because it is rude), but somewhere along the way it turned into an argument about the coherence and validity of the preference.

BINGO - while there are inconsistencies many of us seem to perceive in "siege vs desert", "Player vs GM framing", and when it is reasonable to decide a scene is destined to be dull, boring and irrelevant, the insistence that the GM deserves attitude/shirtiness/rudeness if he fails to acquiesce to one player's desires, whether implied or clearly stated, is (at least to me) clearly wrong, and not just a question of play style.

 

[pemerton]

So how does a game begin? The GM provides a complete blank slate? The PC’s float in a void until they express a goal, so that the GM may frame something that takes those goals into account?

There are a few ways a game can begin without the players having to "flounder around waiting for the GM to frame the scenes that signal the connection of what is happening to the players' goals" (my words from upthread).

One is the player-authored Kicker from Sorcerer - basically, the player frames their PC's starting scene.

Another is the approach I used in my 4e game - I told each player to be build into their PC a reason to be ready to fight goblins. (This is also a little like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s group template.) So the players know that, in the first instance at least, they are heading into a fight with goblins.

A third approach is the BW one, in which backstory - including PC relationships - is built collaboratively between players and GM, and in which the players also have mechanical resources (Circles, Wises) that permit them to introduce new backstory elements. On this approach, when play actually starts the fictional positioning of the PCs is rich enough that the players can declare actions for their PC from the outset, obliging the GM to respond by playing NPCs, narrating additional backtory etc (@chaochou has described his use of this sort of approach in detail upthread).

Then you need to give the ability to frame things to the players. Not just ask permission, or give you implicit cues, but actually frame things. Otherwise, they cannot act until you frame things.

This is not true. In conventional BW, for instance, it is the GM who frames scenes, but from the very start of the game the players can still declare actions for their PCs which oblige the GM to frame those scenes - because their PCs have the requisite fictional positioning to ground such delcarations of action. The siege is relevantly simiar in this respect - before the GM frames any scene involving the siege, while the siege is still just part of the colour narration of the desert crossing and arrival at the city, the PCs are fictionally positioned with respect to it and hence in a position to leverage it.

For some reason, you can envision no possible encounter in the desert prior to the city that would be acceptable.

Not at all. In fact, I've made it pretty clear that if the GM framed the PCs into some sort of releavnt context - eg as they arrive in the desert via Plane Shift they see a dustcloud in the distance and a long line of human figures (the much hypothesised refugees!) - then that would be fine, although some contexts are more compelling than others.

My objection is to the PCs being framed into a wasteland, and the players being expected to play through a desert exploration until the GM gets round to framing something relevant. If you don't particularly care for exploratory play (which I don't) then all that wandering around is doing nothing but soak up time at the table - especially if it brings the resolution of needless mechanical minutiae with it.

If the siege is relevant at the city, it should also be relevant in the desert.

Why? In the city it's a property of the city. In the desert, it's not. A giant rat might well be relevant in the city, too - many D&D scenarios involve sewer-crawling in my experience. But not so much in the desert.

Seems to me that the players state that the PC’s enter the desert, seeking to get to the other side. The GM provides the consequences of that action, be it “after a hot and sweaty two weeks on centipedeback, you see a city in the distance” or “after an hour’s travel, you see a group of people ahead” or “a gigantic bug-like creature burrows from the ground ahead and chitters menacingly”.

The latter two are not that engaging to me, assuming that I (like Hussar) am invested in my PC's goal in the city. Because the latter two do not, as you present them, speak to my goal. They are purely obstacles that, in terms of my interest in the fiction, will soak up time at the table but add nothing more.

Here is the same idea from the author of Burning THACO:

Pushing Conflict Early
t seems that every module I pick up has the structural integrity of mushy peas. You'll have to take it into your own hands. Front load conflict. The first module I ran . . . had the players join up with a caravan in a town and described days of journey before it got to the point that something happened (other than random encounters, natch). We're talking potentially hours of play before something significant happens. . .

A lot of obstacles and opposition in modules is filler. It's there to take up time, to provide a reason for the niche skills of one type of character, or to make the experience seem "real." . . . unless it's something your players will really get a kick out of, just go ahead and invoke the Say Yes or Roll Dice rule. Give maybe a sentence describing how the characters overcame the obstacle and move on.​

You may not wish to play this way - if so, more strength to your arm! But it's a completely viable way of running an RPG. It may look like the players get 'something for nothing", but the key to this sort of play is there is always more conflict to be had. By skipping to the situations in which the players are invested you don't reduce the challenges the PCs must overcome - you just ensure that they all have the sort of thematic/story heft and relevance that the players are hoping for. (This is an important element of "all awesome, all the time.")

Hussar has also told us he will get “shirty” with any GM not acquiescing to his wishes. That, to me, is an effort to impose his will on a different person in the game.

Well, a GM who insists on resolving things mechanically which could be handwaved, or who won't permit the desert to be quicky free narrated, is imposing his/her will on a different person in the game. In your example of the time travel machine, the player who conspires with the GM to ensure that the PCs end up on his desired quest is imposing his will on a different person in the game. Whenever two participants want a different outcome within the fiction, one at least will have to accomodate his/her desires to another's will. That's a general feature of RPGing, and not in general objectionable.

The different play approaches beig discussed in this thread are about allocating that power to impose one's will in different ways.

Actually, it has been established, I believe, that the centipede lacked the necessary carrying capacity

STR 17 (huge centipede) > 260 lb heavy load x4 for Huge size. So it depends how big the party is, and how laden wth gear.

As to the Ride checks, with a specific rule that each of ill suitability as a mount and riding bareback imposing a -5 penalty, it seems quite possible the usual 5 DC check to stay in the saddle when the beast moves unexpectedly may not succeed with a “take 10”. Add vertical inclines and I’m more incredulous. It should not be inordinately difficult to make a simple horizontal ride fairly mundane, but vertical inclines or attacks by predators are another matter entirely.

Do both those penalties apply, though? The creature fills 3x3 squares - it's not entirely clear how wide it is, but presumably 5' or more. With hairs etc. Is it ill-suited? The GM can call this either way, in my view.

Furthermore, the "stay in the saddle" check ony applies in limited circumstances. Suppose the PCs fall out of the saddle once or twice in such circumstances - they take neglibile damage which the cleric heals. No doubt some groups enjoy playing this stuff out, but I can't agree that it is beyond the pale of free narration.

I see – something that is fun, even if not related to someone’s goal or really critical to anything, IS a legitimate encounter after all. It seems to me that is what many of us have been saying all along, and you and Hussar had disagreed.

I haven't described an encounter. I referred to story elements - Kas and the niece. I can introduce them into my game if I think that will be fun without requiring the players to start exploring something they're not interested in (like a a desert).

Well, the desert encounter might be the consequences of the players' decision to use Plane Shift and then crossing the desert.

As I described it, the niece's escape "consists in the players reacting to a GM-authored consequence of their own decision to have the niece detained, which also forces the players to sharpen their attitude towards the niece. How much do they (and their PCs) care about her necromancy? Answer: enough to kill her, even though this jeopardises their PCs' relationship with the Baron." I don't see how the desert crossing does that. For instance, how does it force Hussar to sharpen his attitude towards the goal in the city? Which of his values (in the niece case, hostiilty to necromancers vs loyalty to the Baron) does it put under pressure? It's a purely procedural consequence.

That's what I take Hussar to be getting at with his repeated references to the possibioity of teleporting across the desert. It's a procedural challenge that gives rise to no more than operational considerations ("How do we cross it?"). The siege isn't the most profund dramatic element of all time (nor is the nieces' escape, for that matter, though moreso than the siege) but at least it does have some non-procedural heft - it adds new dimensions to the risks and stakes of engaging with the city. In that respect it's something like discovering that the niece is a necromancer - on its own that doesn't push the players very hard, but they can have an emotional rsponse to it which can be built on subsequently in play; and they can be proactive in respect of it (as when my players chose to have their PCs force the Baron to deal with his nieces' necromancy).

 

[pemerton]

I don't think there's anything wrong with Hussar's play preferences but I still think it's rude and unfair to get shirty with a DM and accuse them of passive-aggressive roadblocking for doing what their game and the play culture surrounding it strongly encourages them to do.

I've been taking a different approach on this - I wasn't at the table and know nothing of the interpersonal dynamics.

I've certainly had one GM from whom I barely contained my dissatisfaction with the way he ran his game - the one I mentioned upthread against whom I staged a coup - because it was frankly just terrible. Yet despite butting heads with all his players - not just me - multiple times over a handful of sessions, he seemed genuinely surprised that we all wanted out of his game, and made various promises to change his style. After our experiences with him we weren't interested, however.

If Hussar has mentioned upthread exaclty how his "shirtiness" manifested I've forgotten or missed it, but I don't think it's always obligatory to sit there politely, sending no signals at all, until you suddenly leave the game.

Anyway, that's already more than I really mean to say on the "social interaction" side of the discussion. I've mostly been interested in the slightly more abstract question of whether Hussar has framed a criticism of a GMing approach that is reasonable relative to a tenable (and not terribly radical) playstyle preference; and (obviously) I think that he has!

I don't think that the text & play culture of 3e (or any edition of D&D?) is aware and supportive enough of this playstyle to make it acceptable to pull this with a DM without pregame coordination.

<snip>

a DM <snippage> doing what their game and the play culture surrounding it strongly encourages them to do.

I think this is an interesting point that hasn't been discussed as much in the thread as it could be (although [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] I think has raised it more than once upthread).

I think the clearest D&D texts on this sort of issue are the Gygaxian ones - plus related ones like B/X - which make clear the exploratory focus of the game; and the 4e ones, which gesture with tolerable clarity at scene-framed play (the DMG stuff on skipping gate guards, plus quite a long discussion in DMG2) and a contrast betwee action and transition scenes (in the PHB this is the contrast between what it calls Exploration - "Between encounters, your characters explore the world. . . Exploration is the give-and-take of you telling the DM what you want your character to do, and the DM telling you what happens when your character does it." - and Encounters, which are "challenges of some sort that your characters face." (p 9)).

I think 2nd ed AD&D and 3E are much less clear. 2nd ed AD&D has a lot of rhetoric, at least, about suspending the rules in the interests of the story, but in my personal view the PHB at lest is also written in a tone that emphasises a type of antagonistic use of GM force, which might include having players make riding checks so we can all enjoy the spectacle of them falling off. 3E I don't really have a handle on - but judging from these forums alone I don't have any evidence to contest your characterisation of its play culture!

 

[JamesonCourage]

This is not true.

Disagree.

In conventional BW, for instance, it is the GM who frames scenes, but from the very start of the game the players can still declare actions for their PCs which oblige the GM to frame those scenes - because their PCs have the requisite fictional positioning to ground such delcarations of action. The siege is relevantly simiar in this respect - before the GM frames any scene involving the siege, while the siege is still just part of the colour narration of the desert crossing and arrival at the city, the PCs are fictionally positioned with respect to it and hence in a position to leverage it.

This is the players having the ability to frame scenes. At least, from the example you used earlier in the thread, where the PC rolled his secret caverns skill, or whatever, to make there be a chance of secret caverns. The player has the ability to say "and this scene has This in it," and then there's This in it.

If, however, the players only act on what the GM gives them (traditional D&D), then while you can have a very PC-driven game, you still have players who are "waiting for the GM to frame the scenes that signal the connection of what is happening to the players' goals."

As I described it, the niece's escape "consists in the players reacting to a GM-authored consequence of their own decision to have the niece detained, which also forces the players to sharpen their attitude towards the niece. How much do they (and their PCs) care about her necromancy? Answer: enough to kill her, even though this jeopardises their PCs' relationship with the Baron."

I know. I quoted that bit.

I don't see how the desert crossing does that.

This depends entirely on what the PCs encounter in the desert.

For instance, how does it force Hussar to sharpen his attitude towards the goal in the city? Which of his values (in the niece case, hostiilty to necromancers vs loyalty to the Baron) does it put under pressure? It's a purely procedural consequence.

No, the consequence would be the encounter while crossing it. If there are no complications, then it's skipped, and it's not really a consequence. The encounter (whatever it is) can be set up in such a way that it directly relates to PC and player goals, and puts pressure on them. Hussar has denied that the desert can really be relevant. I disagree.

That's what I take Hussar to be getting at with his repeated references to the possibioity of teleporting across the desert. It's a procedural challenge that gives rise to no more than operational considerations ("How do we cross it?").

I understand this bit from Hussar. He's not concerned with that stuff. It's small, not dramatic for him, not exciting for him. I get that. I don't get how he can say that nothing in the desert can be "too terribly relevant", though.

The siege isn't the most profund dramatic element of all time (nor is the nieces' escape, for that matter, though moreso than the siege) but at least it does have some non-procedural heft - it adds new dimensions to the risks and stakes of engaging with the city. In that respect it's something like discovering that the niece is a necromancer - on its own that doesn't push the players very hard, but they can have an emotional rsponse to it which can be built on subsequently in play; and they can be proactive in respect of it (as when my players chose to have their PCs force the Baron to deal with his nieces' necromancy).

The entire time I've participated in this thread, you realize that I have not once argued that he play out the desert as environmental hazard in a purely procedural way, right? I've never advocated for exploratory play of the desert, wandering around in it until something happens, or even five minutes of table time spent on narration of it. I've brought up the sandstorm (to have an effect inside the city), some nomads / refugees / mercenaries, etc., but never "hot sun and no water; oh, and figure out your weight and Ride checks."

I'm debating a subset of this conversation. I'm not saying that Hussar is wrong to skip that stuff. That's play style. That differs, and that's fine. I accept his play style on the siege vs. desert is different when it comes to relevancy, too, but I can't understand it, because the reasons I've been given do not make sense. And that's what I'm trying to figure out.

STR 17 (huge centipede) > 260 lb heavy load x4 for Huge size. So it depends how big the party is, and how laden wth gear.

Just a side not, but the centipede should probably be able to carry them. It's X6 since it has at least 4 legs, so up to about 1,560 lb. in a heavy load. Of course, the summoning duration, Ride checks, etc. are still potentially obstacles by the rules, still. If you're handwaving those, I'm guessing you're handwaving carrying capacity. As always, play what you like

 

[Nagol]

<snip lots>

I don't see how the desert crossing does that. For instance, how does it force Hussar to sharpen his attitude towards the goal in the city? Which of his values (in the niece case, hostiilty to necromancers vs loyalty to the Baron) does it put under pressure? It's a purely procedural consequence.

That's what I take Hussar to be getting at with his repeated references to the possibioity of teleporting across the desert. It's a procedural challenge that gives rise to no more than operational considerations ("How do we cross it?"). The siege isn't the most profund dramatic element of all time (nor is the nieces' escape, for that matter, though moreso than the siege) but at least it does have some non-procedural heft - it adds new dimensions to the risks and stakes of engaging with the city. In that respect it's something like discovering that the niece is a necromancer - on its own that doesn't push the players very hard, but they can have an emotional rsponse to it which can be built on subsequently in play; and they can be proactive in respect of it (as when my players chose to have their PCs force the Baron to deal with his nieces' necromancy).

As an example taken fro an Ars Magica campaign of mine. One group traveled deep into Africa and found a wondrous city of high magic ruled benevolently, but strictly. There were a lot of guest workers from "less enlightened" nations surrounding, but everyone seemed well-cared for. There were massive displays of non-Hermetic magic throughout the city. The PCs marveled at the sights, negotiated with the diplomatic leaders, traded, and had a good time.

A second larger trip was planned. The group was larger and had more trade goods. It had to travel across the land. On that trip, the group began to see the cost of the city on the surrounding population. The magic was fuelled by the souls of the citizenry and the guest workers. By the time the group reached the city of wonders, they weren't there for trade. They were there to try to put an end to the diabolism perverting the region.

I submit the travel across the desert could easily sharpen attitudes towards the city by presenting evidence of the effect the city has on the desert and its inhabitants either for good or ill. Note that such sharpening requires engagement with encounters in the desert -- a position rejected by Hussar. So in Hussar's case it may be the desert crossing can't offer a change, but that's not because evidence isn't offered; it would be refused as not possibly being relevant.