You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[N'raac]

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).

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 @Hussar's group template.) So the players know that, in the first instance at least, they are heading into a fight with goblins.

This incorporates you imposing a goal on my character, being battle with goblins. I thought we were investing the players with power, not constraining their choices.

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).

Here again, if other players can impose backstory elements on me that I did not want, what has happened to my power as a player?

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.

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.

And yet the middle one is intended to be that group of refugees from the city which were fine above. However, if the desert encounters are viewed as timewasting roadblocks to be avoided, we hide when we see the dustcloud or otherwise refuse to engage the refugees.

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 GM simply assumes the players start walking, rather than asking what they choose to do, Hussar is denied the option of summoning that Centipede mount. Again, where did that player choice go?

I have yet to see anyone suggest we play out the PC’s “wandering about aimlessly”, as opposed to travelling to the city, nor have I seen it suggested we make the players address “needless minutia”. What I am seeing is the player assumption that anything in the desert is a needless timewaster that cannot be “terribly relevant”. While I don’t deny that is possible, I believe it is fact, not opinion, that it is also possible for relevant encounters to occur during the journey through the desert, even if we discard the possibility of an encounter not of obvious and immediate relevance to whatever the goal was in the city having any possible merit, such as fun.

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.")

I think players spending character resources on a “niche skill” is signaling an investment in situations where that skill will be useful. If one character has been designed as a specialist in NPC interaction, I think that player is treated unfairly if NPC interaction is consistently handwaved to make someone else happy.

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.

If, at any time, we have a disagreement over whether a given scene should be played out or handwaved, then someone will not be happy. I don’t believe the whiniest player at the table should consistently be given his/her way. If anything, I lean the other way to avoid rewarding such behaviour. Leaving that bias aside, the quiet player who doesn’t want any player conflict should not always give up what they want from the game to keep the whining down.

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.

Then why is it objectionable to suggest that it should not require acquiescing to a single player’s wishes in respect to how the desert crossing is handled?

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.

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.

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

You try sitting on something fairly slick, 5’ wide and lightly curved as it motors through the desert. I think it is not unreasonable to conclude it is not suitable as a mount. Pemerton, you seem to agree. So if the GM can indeed call this either way, and does not call it in my favour, I submit that does not make him a bad GM for refusing to acquiesce to my wishes.

As to carrying capacity, let’s remember that part of [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s argument was that this thing barrels through the desert at top speed. If it is carrying more than its light load limit, it moves slower. A heavy load reduces that Run speed he centipede was to maintain. That takes us down to 520 pounds as a light load, 1,040 medium and 1,560 heavy. An average half orc weighs 150 lb + [2d6 x 2d12] so 241 lb, with no gear. A Dwarf averages 165 lb and an elf about 110. Half elf 145, human 175. Smaller creatures find a horse unsuitable as a mount and need a pony – a 5’ wide centipede seems problematic. So that’s 165 – 170 lb on average x 5 characters (4 PC’s plus that plane shifting NPC) is well over 800 lb without any gear. Maybe it can carry the group, but it’s not moving at top speed.

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.

Those limited circumstances include the animal rearing, but you would not extrapolate that to climbing a near-vertical slope (one of Hussar’s examples of how it can speed travel)? Even if we ignore the potential for combat, I suspect damage from leaving the saddle 50’ up a cliff face may not be trivial.

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).

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has been just as vocal that he does not wish to interact with NPC’s not of immediate relevance to his goals.

Again, no one is suggesting we must play out travel procedures. We are, or at least I am, suggesting [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s outright dismissal that there could be any possible encounter in the desert which could possibly have any relevance or value to the game is premature and inappropriate. My opinion in that regard remains unchanged.

If a player said “**yawn**, looks like a boring travelogue – anyone mind if I go home and you call me when we get somewhere interesting”, then my desire to have that player return would certainly be diminished. Would it mean “sure and don’t come back” is the only answer? Not necessarily, but I’d better have seen some merits in the player, or he’s likely to get the message we’re “still crossing the desert” for quite a while.

 

[N'raac]

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.")

Like most things, it depends on context. Especially with new characters, a couple of combats that aren't all that meaningful in the grab scheme of things can be useful to let the players get a sense of their (new) abilities, and how they will mesh with their teammates' abilities and styles. This can help them better mesh as a team before combats where they need to synergise arise.

 

[Celebrim]

Like most things, it depends on context. Especially with new characters, a couple of combats that aren't all that meaningful in the grab scheme of things can be useful to let the players get a sense of their (new) abilities, and how they will mesh with their teammates' abilities and styles. This can help them better mesh as a team before combats where they need to synergise arise.

While I agree with you, in the context of a campaign (as opposed to a single demarkable 'adventure' within the campaign), I believe it is critical to begin the campaign as a whole with a massive BANG that front loads the conflict as much as possible. After that you can have a breather to allow a slower pace of exploration like you describe, but I've learned over the last 15 years or so that some of my earlier fails in campaigns were precisely due to not putting my big hook earlier enough and spending to much time in exploration/exposition mode during the earliest sessions. My players often felt that my games were very evocative, but didn't immediately realize that something interesting in terms of narrative was going on that they, from thier lower vantage point, couldn't yet see. Since that time I've basically adopted what I call, 'The Sky is Falling' approach to session one where whatever happens in session one needs to be as big and immediately itneresting as the sky literally falling. Have a great worm dragon show up. Have an army invade. Have a massive natural disaster. Have the world blow up. Have the sky fall. Whatever, make it big (at least, big for the scale of the campaign). That way, you show your players right away that the campaign is meant to be big and epic and engage big and epic things, so that when they are doing some more generic exploration for whatever reason they'll be more likely to engage with you even if that isn't their big thing. Not every player needs that, but many do. They'll realize that this small peice isn't just an isolated bit of fluff, but fits somewhere into the grand mosiac of the campaign and that part of what is going on at any time is that the players need to be figuring out how this seemingly unimportant affair fits into the Sky Falling in scene 1. Of course, it's your job for those affairs to actually fit into the or at least a big picture in some interesting way, but basically I've learned that presenting a BANG early is an important way to earn player trust.

 

[Libramarian]

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 bring this up because I'm searching for an explanation of why the other side of the convo has been so slow on the uptake of your explanation of how the city is more important to the narrative of the game than the desert...

Feels to me like they're being nitpicky and contrarian about that because they're trying to defend this 3e DM from the implication that he's a bad DM, rather than engage with you on the more abstract question of whether or not a group could have an agreed upon style of play where it's reasonable to expect the DM to skip over the desert.

I don't think they're a bad DM because when you're in gam/sim sandbox mode (which I feel is the default 3e mode), skipping over the desert feels like cheating, so it puts the DM in a bad position to ask them to do that. Unless you explain the goal of scene-framing really well, which I don't think Hussar was able to do at the time. I think that's more important than whether or not he was polite or impolite.

But regarding the more abstract question about the coherence and validity of the corresponding agenda/playstyle I'm with you and I think you have made some very clear posts on that subject.

 

[pemerton]

This incorporates you imposing a goal on my character, being battle with goblins. I thought we were investing the players with power, not constraining their choices.

What I described is preplay. It's part of setting up the game. Obviously if the players didn't like it, we'd work up some other idea. In fact the players were generally enthusiastic, especially the one who was familiar with the module (Night's Dark Terror) that I was taking the goblin fight from.

Here again, if other players can impose backstory elements on me that I did not want, what has happened to my power as a player?

Again, we're talking here about pre-play establishment of setting, backstory etc. Players work this out together. For instance, in one game I ran two player played samurai, cousins within the same clan. Each player, in working out backstory, also established backstory for the other. It's part of the collaborative task of setting up the game.

I think players spending character resources on a “niche skill” is signaling an investment in situations where that skill will be useful.

For my part, I want the fiction to come first, rather than designing the fiction to spotlight niche choices.

So, for instance, I prefer the following approach: "We're going to play a game about fighting Orcus's undead hordes" "OK, cool, guess I'm playing a cleric!" rather than "I'm playing a cleric" "OK, then I guess I'd better stick in some undead encounters."

In practice (at least my practice) the causal chains are more complex, with iterations back and forth in both directions, but the first approach is still the overall direction I'm aiming at. System matters to this, too - [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] on these boards has frequently made the point that the broad 4e skills tend to do a clearer job of framing a PC with a thematic and story orientation, which tends to mean there's less need for tailored "spotlight" encounters to permit the use of a niche skill. (4e rituals are more niche in this way, but the system makes them very cheap as a resource, so it's not that purging for a player to be able to pop out a given ritual only occasionally when the fiction calls for it.)

 

[pemerton]

I bring this up because I'm searching for an explanation of why the other side of the convo has been so slow on the uptake of your explanation of how the city is more important to the narrative of the game than the desert...

Feels to me like they're being nitpicky and contrarian about that because they're trying to defend this 3e DM from the implication that he's a bad DM

That seems right to me.

The thing I still find a bit weird is that in running this defence of someone whom (as far as I can tell) they've never met or RPGed with, they're quite happy to tell [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], with whom they're actually interacting, that he's a bad/whiny player who was wrecking the game for others.

If I posted the story I mentioned in the post you quoted (and that I said a bit more about upthread - the GM who roadblocked our attempt to take initiative by interrogating a kobold), and some other poster replied saying I'd got the GM wrong and I was the bad player - I'd be a bit irritated. I mean, that GM was just terrible, and he himself conceded it, in effect, by offering to change styles when his players dropped his game.

Now I agree my experience isn't evidence of what happened in Hussar's game; but for me it shows that Hussar's experience is one that I can easily imagine happening, and I can easiy imagine a situation in which the group is giving clear signals and the GM is not picking up on them.

With the desert example, knowing nothing more of what actually took place than what Hussar has described, I do feel a bit sorry for the GM to at least this extent (and I think it relates to your point about the default mode of 3E D&D play): the game doesn't really give very clear advice on how much latitude to permit once you decide to relax strict application of the action resolution rules in pursuit of other pacing/story-related objectives.

So of the two examples Hussar has given, I actually think the mercenary hire one is really a clearer example: because it's very obvious even going way back in D&D practice that its OK to reduce social interaction and hiring to a couple of dice rolls without breaking the game. Making the players actually play through those job interviews strikes me as a bit of 2nd ed era GMing, "roleplaying not rollplaying" dogma being imposed on the players by a high-minded GM. (And I have seen and suffered under such GMs.)

Anyway, this has turned into a bit of an incoherent rant which also betrays my personal dislike for orthodox 2nd ed style. In the end I think you're right - and I also thank you for your generous comments about my posts. But I also feel Hussar has been a bit unfairly dogpiled - I see people talk about bad/whiny players all the time, but as soon as someone posts about bad GMing they're the bad player. Are GMs really all perfect and immune from criticism?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I hope you don't mind me jumping in, for clarification's sake.

I bring this up because I'm searching for an explanation of why the other side of the convo has been so slow on the uptake of your explanation of how the city is more important to the narrative of the game than the desert...

I'm curious why the communication has been so bad, yes. I have a question about this at the end of this post.

Feels to me like they're being nitpicky and contrarian about that because they're trying to defend this 3e DM from the implication that he's a bad DM,

I'm not trying to defend Hussar's GM in any real depth, honestly. He might be a bad GM. The GM that pemerton replaced might've been a bad GM. I don't know. And, I don't play 3.X. It has a lot of flaws (for my style, in my opinion), and I have no investment in making 3.X look good.

I might, however, be defending a rather abstract GM, since I don't think it's clear what the difference is between the nomads / refugees / mercenaries and the siege, other than backdrop. Calls to "relevance" and "interest" and "leverage" all seem like they apply to both, potentially. And that makes it hard for a GM to frame interesting scenes, since the differences expressed haven't been clear to me, yet. More on this below.

rather than engage with you on the more abstract question of whether or not a group could have an agreed upon style of play where it's reasonable to expect the DM to skip over the desert.

You're right that I'm not engaging this. This isn't a question of whether or not groups can play this way. Of course they can. And it's not bad to do so. I'm just wondering how the GM knows which scenes are viewed as "interesting" or "relevant" when the reasoning doesn't seem consistent to me.

I don't think they're a bad DM because when you're in gam/sim sandbox mode (which I feel is the default 3e mode), skipping over the desert feels like cheating, so it puts the DM in a bad position to ask them to do that. Unless you explain the goal of scene-framing really well, which I don't think Hussar was able to do at the time. I think that's more important than whether or not he was polite or impolite.

Yeah. Again, I have no problem with groups having an agreement to skip scenes. Hussar wanting to skip the weight restrictions and food or water tracking and random encounters that aren't tied to anything doesn't bug me. I get that part. I just don't understand his statement that "nothing in the desert can be too terribly relevant", since it can potentially be skipped with a Teleport. Perhaps you can express it in a way that helps clarify it in a way that hasn't clicked with me yet?

But regarding the more abstract question about the coherence and validity of the corresponding agenda/playstyle I'm with you and I think you have made some very clear posts on that subject.

I understand that groups have different agendas or play styles. That doesn't bug me (see my signature). But, I think that pemeton agreeing with Hussar confuses me, since Hussar seems to disagree with pemerton on a lot of issues. I don't understand how Hussar can say that "nothing in the desert can be too terribly relevant" without gaining context of what they encounter in the desert. In this conversation, pemerton seems to say it has something to do with the players' ability to "leverage" things, but the players can't explore the siege to leverage it before the GM introduces it. To me, it looks something like this:

Siege
(1) Players Planeshift and are 110 miles from the city they want to go, with a desert between them.
(2) Players decide to cross the desert (centipede optional) to get to the city. There is nothing they'd rather explore (if they even know of it), so they don't mind getting to the city as quickly as possible.
(3) Players encounter a complication -a siege is at the city, which was not known about prior to the GM introducing it (thus the players could not try to interact with it up to this point). The siege is framed by the GM in such a way that the players can engage with it, "leverage" it towards their goals, and that it relates to player/PC goals inside the city (time pressure, etc.).
(4) Players enjoy the complication as relevant to their goals, even if the PCs see it as bad (this makes sense to me).

Desert
(1) Players Planeshift and are 110 miles from the city they want to go, with a desert between them.
(2) Players decide to cross the desert (centipede optional) to get to the city. There is nothing they'd rather explore (if they even know of it), so they don't mind getting to the city as quickly as possible.
(3) Players encounter a complication -there are nomads guiding city refugees through the desert who are being escorted by mercenaries, which was not known about prior to the GM introducing it (thus the players could not try to interact with it up to this point). The desert encounter is framed by the GM in such a way that the players can engage with it, "leverage" it towards their goals, and that it relates to player/PC goals inside the city (warning that their goal inside the city is under siege allowing spell preparation, advice, equipment, mercenaries to hire, etc.).
(4) Players enjoy the complication as relevant to their goals, even if the PCs see it as bad (this makes sense to me).

However, while sometimes it seems like pemerton accepts that the nomads / refugees / mercenaries might be relevant (bringing the city to the desert), Hussar seems to outright reject the "Desert" encounter, while accepting the "Siege" encounter. I cannot understand the difference in "relevance" yet. Both have things that the players can proactively interact with, both tie into player and PC goals (fun for players, ties directly to PC goals inside the city).

While I can accept people telling me there is a difference, I can't spot it yet. You said "the city is more important to the narrative of the game than the desert..." but, doesn't this depend entirely on the context of the city / desert encounters? That's what I've been trying to say, and so far, I don't feel like there's been agreement from pemerton or Hussar yet. Disagreement is fine on a message board, but I cannot understand the difference yet. Why is the city always more important to the narrative of the game? Why isn't this decided by the context of the city / desert? Maybe that'll help me understand. As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

I bring this up because I'm searching for an explanation of why the other side of the convo has been so slow on the uptake of your explanation of how the city is more important to the narrative of the game than the desert...

Feels to me like they're being nitpicky and contrarian about that because they're trying to defend this 3e DM from the implication that he's a bad DM

That seems right to me.

The thing I still find a bit weird is that in running this defence of someone whom (as far as I can tell) they've never met or RPGed with, they're quite happy to tell Hussar, with whom they're actually interacting, that he's a bad/whiny player who was wrecking the game for others.

[SNIP]

But I also feel Hussar has been a bit unfairly dogpiled - I see people talk about bad/whiny players all the time, but as soon as someone posts about bad GMing they're the bad player. Are GMs really all perfect and immune from criticism?

Just a note here, but I've never called Hussar whiny player, nor have I called him a bad player. I have questioned his posts, though, along with a few other posters. So, I see the "dogpiled" description as grounded, at least.

Also, I don't play 3.X, and see it as having too many flaws to want to return to, so I have no real investment in defending it (Celebrim's game is also greatly house ruled, as far as I know; I'm not sure about Nagol or N'raac's games).

And, lastly, I'm not defending the GM because GMs are perfect. I'm questioning a poster that I am talking to, because, to me, his reasoning is unclear or seemingly contradictory. To me, it's not about defending the GM, so much as it is questioning the poster that I can interact with when his posts don't make sense to me.

But, no, my goal is not to defend 3.X, defend GMs at large, call your play style invalid, called Hussar a bad or whiny player, or anything of the like, and I've never expressed those views in this thread. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

I'm just wondering how the GM knows which scenes are viewed as "interesting" or "relevant" when the reasoning doesn't seem consistent to me.

As a general rule, by following the players. If they're all yabbering on about what they're going to do when they get to the city, don't frame them into the desert. Narrate through it - especially if they throw you the bone of summoning a suitably gonzo fantasy mount!

I think that pemeton agreeing with Hussar confuses me, since Hussar seems to disagree with pemerton on a lot of issues. I don't understand how Hussar can say that "nothing in the desert can be too terribly relevant" without gaining context of what they encounter in the desert.

I take [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] to be running together two ideas here. (Of course he's welcome to correct me if I'm wrong!)

First, that from the point of view of backstory, general plot momentum, etc, the desert can't be very important, because the whole game is built around the possibility that the PCs might have teleported straight across the desert.

Second, that in light of (i), plus in light of the fact that the players are keen on the city, whatever interesting stuff the GM might have been keen to put in the desert can be relocated to the city instead.

 

[JamesonCourage]

As a general rule, by following the players. If they're all yabbering on about what they're going to do when they get to the city, don't frame them into the desert. Narrate through it - especially if they throw you the bone of summoning a suitably gonzo fantasy mount!

I understand this style of play. This makes sense. The players can usually only name places they're aware of, which is usually introduced by the DM in D&D, as far as I know. But, you can definitely give players authority here (this is more common in backstory for characters, from what I understand of D&D traditions). Okay, this makes sense to me. It's not about "relevance" to their goals, it's about what they want right now (there's nothing wrong with that). Okay.

I take Hussar to be running together two ideas here. (Of course he's welcome to correct me if I'm wrong!)

First, that from the point of view of backstory, general plot momentum, etc, the desert can't be very important, because the whole game is built around the possibility that the PCs might have teleported straight across the desert.

This is part of what trips me up, though. Can't the GM introduce relevant stuff if they cross it? And, can't play proceed as normal if they don't cross it? That is, if they cross it, the GM might introduce nomads / refugees / mercenaries on the way across, and a siege when they get there. If they Teleport across, can't the GM just skip implementing the siege, and just add a complication to the PCs' goal inside the city?

Second, that in light of (i), plus in light of the fact that the players are keen on the city, whatever interesting stuff the GM might have been keen to put in the desert can be relocated to the city instead.

I can see that you can do this, yes. But, isn't the encounter still relevant in the desert? I don't understand the claim that it isn't. Is it just not preferable since the players have been talking about the city? And, if so, like I asked Hussar (but didn't get a reply), is this a matter of wording? If the players are talking about the temple and not the city, is a siege out of place (the players are excited about the temple, not the city)? Thanks for the reply. As always, play what you like