You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[N'raac]

This has been answered - the place to introduce complications is in the city, at the point at which they interact directly with the players' immediate goal, and provide both threat and oppportunity.

If "the goal" is in the temple, then both the desert and the city - and the siege for that matter - are between us and the goal. As has been said several times, JC and I do not perceive this magical difference between "siege between us and the city" and "desert encounter between us and the city".

Well, yes, we could just declare the campaign resolved and all go home, or go out to the movies. But presumably the players want to play an RPG - just not one that involves exploring a desert.

NO ONE is asking them to explore the desert. Might this please be the last reference to "exploring the desert". I am positively evincing my preference that we NO LONGER DISCUSS exploring the desert. We are discussing the fact that the desert lies between the PC's and the city, that it is possible that, as those PC's make as straight a path as they can between where they are and where they wish to be, they will pass through that desert, and that it is possible they will encounter something between them and the city. This "something" may be relevant, or may be something they simply need to circumvent (just as a siege could be very relevant to their goal, or just another obstacle between them and whatever their goal in the city may be - which, after over 1,000 posts, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has yet to provide any information on, so we still do not know what it is.

The answer lies in the players' evinced preferences. If the players have made it clear they want to get to the city, and if there is nothing about the city that makes it hard to make things interesting there, and if there is nothing about the desert that is essential to framing the city, then why would the GM nevertheless insist on trying to run encounters in the desert?

Was it not you who mentioned "fun" earlier? And, again, it is not "the city" which is the goal. It is something, the nature of which remains completely unknown, within the city. And I would say that being in the middle of a desert would have an impact on the city - it will not be the same as a city in the middle of lush, fertile farmland, nor one located on a river filled with boat travellers, nor one which is a major seaport. I suspect many of us could come up with better examples of encounters in the desert which are relevant to the goal in the city if we had some info on that goal, and on the city itself. We do not.

You say this as if it is nothing. The city is the setting wherein the goal is located. The players are committed to doing something in the city, presumably (given Hussar's evident enthusiasm for the siege) something that involves interacting with the city, treating the city as both chalenge and resource.

Emphasis added. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] wants to cut to that still-unknown goal. The desert is setting. The city is setting. Both are between him and the goal.

How do you know? This is like your characterisation upthread of the goal as a McGuffin? How do you know?

In exactly the same way that you know the city is

an urban location that is, by definition, replete with NPCs, and all the opportunities for good and bad things that NPCs bring with them. It's very different from a deset. Apart from anything else, it creates much richer fictional positioning for the PCs, and hence much richer opportunities for the players.

It's on another plane of existence. Perhaps, for all we know, it is a City of Undead, where zombies, skeletons and shades wander, shallowly parodying the actions they unertook in life, never changing, and never varying their routine. We assume because we do not know. We know only that, somehow, the city between [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and his goal (whatever that may be) is deemed to be of interest and the desert is deemed not to be, despite the fact that all we actually know is that there is a goal to be achieved within a city (about which we know nothing more) in the middle of a desert (about which we also know nothing more).

There are a range of different approaches to prep. For my own part, I can't remember the last time I had trouble knowing what would engage my players. If they're not interested in deserts, they tend to make that pretty clear.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has said, several times, that he might well be very interested in a desert exploration at some other time, just not this time. As near as I can tell, his GM's role is to determine what will pique his interest at this particular moment, present that immediately and then figure out what random element may catch his fancy next.

The siege doesn't prevent you entering the city - it simply changes the character of that entry. Nor need it, in real play time at the table, delay you doing what you came to do in the city: it may even expedite that, if the players use it cleverly. And even if it does make it take longer, in real play time, to achieve the goal, all that play time will have been spent aiming directly at the goal (including perhaps by taking advantage of the siege). Which is, more-or-less, what RPGing is about - spending real time at the table engaging in realising one's PC's goals.

Getting across the desert to the city is every bit as much "aimed directly at the goal", about which the only thing we actually know is that its achievement requires entering the city.

For myself, one of the requirements to facilitate proactive players is to allow them (the opportunity) to have sufficient information to make informed choices most of the time.

Given no foreshadowing, no information to the players at all about the desert, it seems reasonable to me that one or more players ask to skip it. Either the encounters in the desert are all random filler for versimilitude, or there's one or more set encounters with plot relevance that the players and PCs have every reason to try and avoid based on the information they have at the time. Forcing an encounter on unwilling players who want to avoid it is probably railroading, making this encounter integral to the plot threatens to send the message "stop being proactive and follow the linear plot".[/

A desert is an excellent place for players to test how linear a game actually is despite the protestations of the referee. A desert or wasteland is an empty place generally with lots of routes through, and limited ambush sites. The players should be able to avoid at least some encounters if they are focussed on the destination, not the journey. If they can't, maybe the game is more linear than proactive. Proactive players hate bait and switches such as this. If the game is about the desert, tell the players beforehand that the game is about the desert, don't try and trick them.

Whereas the city holds the goal, and the players likely expect to interact with the city to achieve the goal, there's lots of room for meaningful decision making in the average city.

 

[N'raac]

This has been answered - the place to introduce complications is in the city, at the point at which they interact directly with the players' immediate goal, and provide both threat and oppportunity.

If "the goal" is in the temple, then both the desert and the city - and the siege for that matter - are between us and the goal. As has been said several times, JC and I do not perceive this magical difference between "siege between us and the city" and "desert encounter between us and the city".

Well, yes, we could just declare the campaign resolved and all go home, or go out to the movies. But presumably the players want to play an RPG - just not one that involves exploring a desert.

NO ONE is asking them to explore the desert. Might this please be the last reference to "exploring the desert". I am positively evincing my preference that we NO LONGER DISCUSS exploring the desert. We are discussing the fact that the desert lies between the PC's and the city, that it is possible that, as those PC's make as straight a path as they can between where they are and where they wish to be, they will pass through that desert, and that it is possible they will encounter something between them and the city. This "something" may be relevant, or may be something they simply need to circumvent (just as a siege could be very relevant to their goal, or just another obstacle between them and whatever their goal in the city may be - which, after over 1,000 posts, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has yet to provide any information on, so we still do not know what it is.

The answer lies in the players' evinced preferences. If the players have made it clear they want to get to the city, and if there is nothing about the city that makes it hard to make things interesting there, and if there is nothing about the desert that is essential to framing the city, then why would the GM nevertheless insist on trying to run encounters in the desert?

Was it not you who mentioned "fun" earlier? And, again, it is not "the city" which is the goal. It is something, the nature of which remains completely unknown, within the city. And I would say that being in the middle of a desert would have an impact on the city - it will not be the same as a city in the middle of lush, fertile farmland, nor one located on a river filled with boat travellers, nor one which is a major seaport. I suspect many of us could come up with better examples of encounters in the desert which are relevant to the goal in the city if we had some info on that goal, and on the city itself. We do not.

You say this as if it is nothing. The city is the setting wherein the goal is located. The players are committed to doing something in the city, presumably (given Hussar's evident enthusiasm for the siege) something that involves interacting with the city, treating the city as both chalenge and resource.

Emphasis added. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] wants to cut to that still-unknown goal. The desert is setting. The city is setting. Both are between him and the goal.

How do you know? This is like your characterisation upthread of the goal as a McGuffin? How do you know?

In exactly the same way that you know the city is

an urban location that is, by definition, replete with NPCs, and all the opportunities for good and bad things that NPCs bring with them. It's very different from a deset. Apart from anything else, it creates much richer fictional positioning for the PCs, and hence much richer opportunities for the players.

It's on another plane of existence. Perhaps, for all we know, it is a City of Undead, where zombies, skeletons and shades wander, shallowly parodying the actions they unertook in life, never changing, and never varying their routine. We assume because we do not know. We know only that, somehow, the city between [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and his goal (whatever that may be) is deemed to be of interest and the desert is deemed not to be, despite the fact that all we actually know is that there is a goal to be achieved within a city (about which we know nothing more) in the middle of a desert (about which we also know nothing more).

There are a range of different approaches to prep. For my own part, I can't remember the last time I had trouble knowing what would engage my players. If they're not interested in deserts, they tend to make that pretty clear.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has said, several times, that he might well be very interested in a desert exploration at some other time, just not this time. As near as I can tell, his GM's role is to determine what will pique his interest at this particular moment, present that immediately and then figure out what random element may catch his fancy next.

The siege doesn't prevent you entering the city - it simply changes the character of that entry. Nor need it, in real play time at the table, delay you doing what you came to do in the city: it may even expedite that, if the players use it cleverly. And even if it does make it take longer, in real play time, to achieve the goal, all that play time will have been spent aiming directly at the goal (including perhaps by taking advantage of the siege). Which is, more-or-less, what RPGing is about - spending real time at the table engaging in realising one's PC's goals.

Getting across the desert to the city is every bit as much "aimed directly at the goal", about which the only thing we actually know is that its achievement requires entering the city.

For myself, one of the requirements to facilitate proactive players is to allow them (the opportunity) to have sufficient information to make informed choices most of the time.

Given no foreshadowing, no information to the players at all about the desert, it seems reasonable to me that one or more players ask to skip it. Either the encounters in the desert are all random filler for versimilitude, or there's one or more set encounters with plot relevance that the players and PCs have every reason to try and avoid based on the information they have at the time. Forcing an encounter on unwilling players who want to avoid it is probably railroading, making this encounter integral to the plot threatens to send the message "stop being proactive and follow the linear plot".

With the parameters presented, the PC's should be taking the most effective and efficient means in their power to get acrosss the desert to the city. Agreed. If they have the ability to Teleport there, they should use it. From all indications, they lack that ability, and it is expected the PC's will lack that ability. So they will have to cross the intervening desert physicially, and encounter what it holds. I would hope it does not hold random wandering monsters. I would suspect, if the PC's see a line of people moving away from the city, they may wonder what is up and seek to leverage that to obtain information about the city. They may choose not to. That is their decision. They may choose to interact to gain information. Since I do not know what their goal in the city is, I have no idea of knowing whether proactive engagement with those recently departing the city can reasonably be expected to assist them, so I am assuming it does. If it does not, the encounter is irrelevant.

A desert is an excellent place for players to test how linear a game actually is despite the protestations of the referee. A desert or wasteland is an empty place generally with lots of routes through, and limited ambush sites. The players should be able to avoid at least some encounters if they are focussed on the destination, not the journey. If they can't, maybe the game is more linear than proactive. Proactive players hate bait and switches such as this. If the game is about the desert, tell the players beforehand that the game is about the desert, don't try and trick them.

If the players can choose some other means than travelling to the city at all to achieve their goals, that seems less linear. The fact that their goal can only be accomplished by traveling to this city seems to indicate a linear structure. The city is in the desert. If you choose to go to the city, that mandates passing through the desert. In a linear game, you will need to go to the city, so you will need to travel through the desert - there is a person, place or thing there which is integral to accomplishing the goal that the GM has somehowe set.

In a sandbox game, you may set a goal which requires travel to the city - there is a person, place or thing there which is integral to accomplishing the goal that you, the players, have set. Perhaps you decide to forego the city, and set a different goal for yourselves. In a linear game, I suspect such a change is impossible. In a sandbox game, you could choose to abandon whatever goal lead you to the city in the first place, so no need to cross the desert. Or you could delay it until you have the means to more easily reach the city and bypass the desert. But travel to a city within a desert means somehow crossing the desert.

 

[Jacob Marley]

... and whatever their goal in the city may be - which, after over 1,000 posts, @Hussar has yet to provide any information on, so we still do not know what it is.

It was Shackled City Adventure Path. Can't remember which module. It has been some years.

[Spoiler Alert!]

@Hussar 's example was from the Shackled City Adventure Path module Test of the Smoking Eye. After hearing the dying words of an NPC to seek "the sign of the smoking eye", the PCs are planeshifted to the Abyssal layer of Occipitus by a mysterious figure who had been observing the PCs - this mysterious figure knows that whoever passes the test will become the next ruler of this abyssal plane. The party arrives ~100 miles from the first part of the test: the Cathedral of Feathers. (Note: there is no city surrounding the temple.)

Between the PCs arrival point and the Cathedral is a barren, Abyssal wasteland. According to the module, the only encounters between the arrival point and the destination are random encounters with various demons, slaads, and fiendish animals. These encounters, as written, are not at all relevant to the test of the smoking eye.

Hussar wants to play out the test of the smoking eye. Hussar does not want to fight encounters not related to the test of the smoking eye.

There is no city, siege, or nomads.

...

As an aside, as a DM who generally considers himself a "sandboxing DM", and makes use of random tables and charts to facilitate my DMing, seeing random encounter tables like the ones listed in this module frustrate the hell out of me. They are bland, boring and do nothing to pique a player's interest.

 

[N'raac]

[Spoiler Alert!]

@Hussar 's example was from the Shackled City Adventure Path module Test of the Smoking Eye. After hearing the dying words of an NPC to seek "the sign of the smoking eye", the PCs are planeshifted to the Abyssal layer of Occipitus by a mysterious figure who had been observing the PCs - this mysterious figure knows that whoever passes the test will become the next ruler of this abyssal plane. The party arrives ~100 miles from the first part of the test: the Cathedral of Feathers. (Note: there is no city surrounding the temple.)

Between the PCs arrival point and the Cathedral is a barren, Abyssal wasteland. According to the module, the only encounters between the arrival point and the destination are random encounters with various demons, slaads, and fiendish animals. These encounters, as written, are not at all relevant to the test of the smoking eye.

Hussar wants to play out the test of the smoking eye. Hussar does not want to fight encounters not related to the test of the smoking eye.

Not that we have, in any way, changed the scenario, a few comments adressing this original:

- Teleport would not appear helpful even if it were available, unless they "have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination", which seems unlikely.

- It seems like the scenario itself is a poor fit for Hussar, in that he does not appear to have had any input into the goals. That is likely true of most AP's.

- How does he know where to direct the centipede? Do they have some way of establishing where the Cathedral is?

- It seems like the siege, in this instance, would have to either be waiting for someone to come out, or trying to keep 'visitors' out. It might be a relief to the players in that they can finally SEE the temple, but the siege seems like one more obstacle to get past, not an engaging, relevant, interesting situation just waiting to be leveraged.

- And I again come back to "how does [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] know, at the outset, that this wasteland holds nothing but random encounters?" The question is not why he would want to avoid a series of random encounters, but why he would assume that is all the scenario would hold. Perhaps the answer is "prior experience with this GM" or "prior experience with this AP", but then the issue goes beyond "just this desert, one scene in the entire campaign", doesn't it?

Perhaps the bigger issue is a clash in that the players did not get to set any of the scenes - "ZAP you are planeshifted" - but this just seems like a power struggle between the GM who wants to run this particular scenario and a player who doesn't like the manner in which this particular scenario is written.

And how is the Test of the Smoking Eye a goal that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is so engaged with? It seems more like a case of "let's get every stage of this storyline done and gone so we can play something else" than "this one scene is an endless slog".

Ultimately, it seems like @ussar is suspicious of anything this scenario, or even this GM, presents. That comes back to my (much) earlier question of why a bad experience with one GM colours the player's assumption of every game, bringing this baggage that the desert can never hold anything interesting, engaging or relevant.

 

[tuxgeo]

[Spoiler Alert!]

@Hussar 's example was from the Shackled City Adventure Path module
< snip for sense >
Between the PCs arrival point and the Cathedral is a barren, Abyssal wasteland. According to the module, the only encounters between the arrival point and the destination are random encounters with various demons, slaads, and fiendish animals. These encounters, as written, are not at all relevant to the test of the smoking eye.

Hussar wants to play out the test of the smoking eye. Hussar does not want to fight encounters not related to the test of the smoking eye.

There is no city, siege, or nomads.

Two things:
(1) This is superb information. If we had had this information 100 pages ago, a lot of the intervening misunderstandings might have been avoided.
(2) . . . Except my own misunderstanding, perhaps: If there's no city, why did Hussar (reportedly) want to go to the city?

Wake me back up when we reach 1003 pages. (Ref.: Don Juan Tenorio.)

 

[Hussar]

Sorry about the city thing. As I said, it's been some years since I played this, did not enjoy the experience and quite honestly forgot the exact details. I knew we popped into the desert and then had to go somewhere. But, as I said, WAYYYY back, the exact details are very fuzzy. Of course, the thing is, we've pretty much moved past the exact situation and into another one. I'm not sure why N'raac wants to focus on the specific example, and not the presented hypothetical of starting in a desert and having a known goal.

To me, the details are largely irrelevant. Me, the player made his goals specifically known, and the DM's in this thread would call me whiney and whatnot.

My point is, when the player makes his or her preferences pretty strongly known, and provides a means in games for achieving those preferences, even if it's not entirely kosher by the rules, I would prefer to go with it. The player does not want to screw around wandering the desert (which apparently, I was 100% right about) and wants to skip that stuff. The player provides a means by which you can plausibly do so. But, apparently, some DM's will refuse this, mostly on the grounds that it might skip other player's fun, despite knowing that at least one player has zero interest in what's going on.

Like I said a bunch of times, I refuse to throw one player under the bus just so another player can have a good time. I won't do it. I don't run a democracy. There is no vote and the majority most certainly does not rule. One player is completely tuned out of what's going on? Skip it and move on.

If that player consistently tunes out to many things (N'raac's contention that any player that wants to skip the desert will want to skip EVERYTHING), then you step aside and talk to the player and possibly part ways. But, if it's just this one time? Not a problem. Transition the scene as fast as possible and move on.

At least, that's my advice.

 

[Hussar]

For myself, one of the requirements to facilitate proactive players is to allow them (the opportunity) to have sufficient information to make informed choices most of the time.

Given no foreshadowing, no information to the players at all about the desert, it seems reasonable to me that one or more players ask to skip it. Either the encounters in the desert are all random filler for versimilitude, or there's one or more set encounters with plot relevance that the players and PCs have every reason to try and avoid based on the information they have at the time. Forcing an encounter on unwilling players who want to avoid it is probably railroading, making this encounter integral to the plot threatens to send the message "stop being proactive and follow the linear plot".

A desert is an excellent place for players to test how linear a game actually is despite the protestations of the referee. A desert or wasteland is an empty place generally with lots of routes through, and limited ambush sites. The players should be able to avoid at least some encounters if they are focussed on the destination, not the journey. If they can't, maybe the game is more linear than proactive. Proactive players hate bait and switches such as this. If the game is about the desert, tell the players beforehand that the game is about the desert, don't try and trick them.

Whereas the city holds the goal, and the players likely expect to interact with the city to achieve the goal, there's lots of room for meaningful decision making in the average city.

I can't posrep this one, but, this nails it perfectly on the head. Nice to know that some people can get it in one.

 

[N'raac]

Of course, the thing is, we've pretty much moved past the exact situation and into another one.

With a few other interludes along the way!

I'm not sure why N'raac wants to focus on the specific example, and not the presented hypothetical of starting in a desert and having a known goal.

I think we've discussed the presented hypothetical quite a bit. I still come back to how you can know that nothing in the desert is of any relevance, but a siege automatically will be. What if, instead of the siege, you get to the city gates and there are a bunch of nomads there blocking the gates so you can't get in (there's only one guard checking papers, so it takes forever)? Is that bad because it's irrelevant to the goal or good because it's just outside the city gates? What if it's a religious pilgramage tying up all the space around the city and not letting anyone pass unless they convert and get baptized right here and now (presumably in sand...) and join them in a hymn sing? What if the city gates are all locked because of a plague, and they refuse to let anyone in? What if they're locked up tight because all those wandering monsters you avoided in the desert are milling about out there?

As near as I can tell, these are all close to the city, so they are as valid as that siege blockading the entrance.

To me, the details are largely irrelevant. Me, the player made his goals specifically known, and the DM's in this thread would call me whiney and whatnot.

To clarify, I think we simply disagree as to whether making goals known means, or should mean, that the world opens up a clear and immediate path to them. I think any allusions about you being whiny arose because of your very early comment that anything less than full and immediate acceptance of your spurious "ride the centipede" plan would mean you would get "shirty" with the GM. I think many of us, myself included, equate "getting shirty when I do not immediately get my way" with "whiny player". I leave it to you to assess how close the two may be.

My point is, when the player makes his or her preferences pretty strongly known, and provides a means in games for achieving those preferences, even if it's not entirely kosher by the rules, I would prefer to go with it. The player does not want to screw around wandering the desert (which apparently, I was 100% right about) and wants to skip that stuff. The player provides a means by which you can plausibly do so. But, apparently, some DM's will refuse this, mostly on the grounds that it might skip other player's fun, despite knowing that at least one player has zero interest in what's going on.

I'm still back to the dilemma of "absolutely zero interest" being proclaimed before there is much, if any, indication of what's going on, and the assumption that someone's fun can be ruined if we INCLUDE something, but cannot be ruined by EXCLUDING something. As a counterpoint, if we spend a bit of time wandering the desert, and all we seem to get are Ride checks to see if we fall in the dust and seemingly random encounters, it starts to seem a lot more reasonable to question whether this is actually going anywhere and, if it is not, could we perhaps cut it short with a random roll deciding how long it takes us to wind our way to our destination, with any random encounters just taken as given - they attack every so often and we drive them off? As a player, I would still want to ensure that the rest of the group are similarly uninterested, and that the GM is OK with this (ie it's not going somewhere I just can't see yet) - I don't want to throw the OTHER PEOPLE at the table under the bus for MY preferences.

If that player consistently tunes out to many things (N'raac's contention that any player that wants to skip the desert will want to skip EVERYTHING), then you step aside and talk to the player and possibly part ways. But, if it's just this one time? Not a problem. Transition the scene as fast as possible and move on.

I think a few people have suggested "moving the scene along" rather than skipping it entirely, and I thought you had rejected that approach. Am I wrong in my sense that you simply could not bear even a few minutes of desert travel, regardless of what occured during that scene, because that was certainly the message I was picking up.

 

[JamesonCourage]

To the best of my recollection it was the desert, not the city, that Hussar described as "just setting".

He said the following his feeling about "setting" (back on page 37):
(1) "I don't care about setting. Setting, for me, is the least important consideration."
(2) "But, as far as caring about setting? Yup, don't care."

He said the following about what "setting" is (back on page 37):
(1) "No, the Duke is not setting. The Duke is plot. Setting is where the plot happens and nothing more."
(2) "Yes, I realize you need some setting. Of course. You cannot have a story without ANY setting. But, again, setting and setting consistency is the lowest priority AFAIC. If it has not been established in play, it is not a fact, only an opinion and subject to change at any time. Again, this is totally my opinion."

Looking at this, the city is just setting. It's just the place where the plot happens. Could you draw the plot into the city, like adding a siege, or something? As far as I can tell, sure. But, I'd assume that about the refugees in the desert, too, but it doesn't look like that's the case.

So, when Hussar says that nothing too terribly relevant can happen in the desert, and I take this as "impossible" (something he hasn't cleared up yet), his last statement above doesn't make sense to me. So, I think something like this:

GM Thinks: "Okay, nothing has been established in play about a siege of the city, so this is subject to change at any time. So, when they cross the desert, I'll have them run into some temple refugees / nomads / mercenaries, and see that friendly priest from a month ago, and give them the chance to interact with them before a siege.
Player Says: I use Teleport to get us to the city.
GM Thinks: I think the siege would've been better with the desert foreshadowing and refugees, especially since they would've met that friendly priest from a month back. I don't want them just teleporting into the middle of a siege and not knowing what's up, and I would've liked the siege situation more if the refugees and priest had imparted the information about the temple. So, I'll skip the siege.
GM Says: You guys have arrived in the city. What do you do?

To Hussar, this means that the desert encounters can't be that relevant. To me, it means that, by how he's worded his play style, I can make things relevant or not as I go, as long as it doesn't contradict things. And yet, that's not what I'm getting. I'm getting "the siege complication is fine, but the desert encounter isn't." And that's where I'm lost.

Because Hussar wants his PC to do stuff in the city, but not to do stuff in the desert. Why does there have to be anything more to it than that?

To justify his preference? No, that's good enough. To give me an idea of what he's looking for in a game? I'd need more, yes.

Also, I haven't seen Hussar want to interact with the city, yet. He said:

Well, I've been playing a few years now. It's generally not too difficult to tell when something is going to matter and when it's not. We're at point A. We need to be at point B. In between these two points are nothing that has anything to do with what we need to do at B. It's not really a big thing to realize that there really isn't a whole lot there.

-----------------


Look, let me jump over the GM screen for a second and show what I would do as the DM in both situations. For me, the primary, single most important criteria is:


What is the goal?


What are the players and their characters doing right now and why are they doing it? That is the primary concern. If the goal was "hunting bandits in the desert" then fine, wander the sands. If the goal was, "Find the lost temple of Ix", then fine, let's go wandering. But the goal here is, "Let's get to Point B where we have to be in order to move the game forward."

If the goal is "deal with our goal in the temple", then why are you putting a siege in his way? Why are you interpreting his preference as "deal with the city"?

And why is the siege OK, given this? Because the siege is a tool that Hussar can leverage to do stuff in the city. The desert not so much, unless he's going to have his PC conjure a sand golem.

(1) The city isn't his goal.
(2) The desert encounter (not the sand) has stuff for him to leverage.

Now you might think the nomads are something he can leverage - but given how things went when you made Hussar muck around for 90 minutes hiring some mercenaries, do you really think Hussar is into turning a group of nomads into a barbarian horde with which he sacks the city? (Keeeping in mind that, in anything like typical D&D, this is probably an hour or more of play in itself - even in 4e this would almost certainly be a lengthy skill challenge.)

(1) I think dealing with the roadblock siege is going to also be a large challenge (potentially a lengthy skill challenge).
(2) Also, if hiring six guys took 90 minutes, why would Hussar want to talk to the siege leaders? That'll take days.

Of course, we could assume that things fit his style. I'm trying to find out what that is. But, so far, still lost.

Now if you, as GM, think that Hussar doesn't fully know his own preferences (always a possibility with any human being), and therefore think you can nevertheless catch his attention with nomads in the desert, then go for it, I guess. But if Hussar has his PC ignore them and press on to the city, you can hardly complain that you weren't warned!

(1) I've gone so far as change PC backstory, on the rare occasion, without permission, because I thought it'd be a huge hook for that player. It has been every time. I don't mind assuming that I know what hooks them.
(2) I don't care if Hussar ignores them, or even never travels to the city, as long as it makes sense in-character. Why would I complain?

The difference is that the nomads can be skipped with impunity and it does not affect the outcome in the city whatsoever. If we have teleport, we never meet the nomads, never know about the nomads and never spend a single second on the nomads.

See my "GM Thinks" at the top of this post. How is that irrelevant? The things would've been very relevant to your PC goals.

OTOH, the siege cannot be so easily skipped. Even if I teleport into the town square, the siege is still right there. If nothing else, it provides a time pressure on our goals. It affects, or should affect, every single NPC interaction. And it's a giant resource for the players.

Is that clear enough?

Not at all. A time pressure can also be added by the nomad / refugee / mercenary encounter, but it's not relevant, and it "can't be too terribly relevant." I'm still seeing this as a contradiction.

Hang on. I've specifically stated that "dealing with complications on the way" is not fun for me. So, you're projecting your play preferences on to me here.

"complications on the way" is specifically the thing I want to avoid.

But this is what the siege is! It's a complication on the way to the temple! This is what's throwing me off. That's why, tens of pages ago, I asked if this was just a "backdrop" thing, and asked the "is it just wording" question. You accept the siege, but it's a complication on the way to your goal, which is not the city (that's just "setting" -the place where the plot takes place). This is why I'm confused.

As for the "have fun dealing with complications along the way" was something pemerton originally thrust into this conversation, when he claimed I wasn't separating your PC goals (deal with the thing in the temple) with your player goals (according to him, have fun with those complications along the way... paraphrased, here, hopefully he forgives me). I told him that your player goals aligned with your PC goals, so I didn't think I was doing anything wrong: your player goal seemed to be explicitly dealing with your PC goal, so that games could move forward quickly and stories could be wrapped up. Your player goal didn't seem to be "deal with complications along the way" so much as "keep the story moving quickly, which means dealing with PC goals quickly."

So, sorry if the "deal with complications along the way" came up, but that's why I'm dealing with it when posting to pemerton. And, it seems to a degree, you're okay with it (you accept the siege as relevant, even though it could be skipped without any problem), making your own preference a little more hazy to me. As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

This has been answered - the place to introduce complications is in the city, at the point at which they interact directly with the players' immediate goal, and provide both threat and oppportunity.

Why at the city? Why not at the temple gates? Why not outside the high priest's room? Why not in his presence? For that matter, why not in the desert?

This is something that's been evading me. And it's why I expanded on the "is it just wording" question.

Well, yes, we could just declare the campaign resolved and all go home, or go out to the movies. But presumably the players want to play an RPG - just not one that involves exploring a desert.

It's not about exploring the desert.

The answer lies in the players' evinced preferences. If the players have made it clear they want to get to the city, and if there is nothing about the city that makes it hard to make things interesting there, and if there is nothing about the desert that is essential to framing the city, then why would the GM nevertheless insist on trying to run encounters in the desert? What is the GM trying to achieve, or to prove, by doing that? That s/he can entertain Hussar in spite of himself? Fine, go for it, but don't complain if it backfires!

Why do you think Hussar wants to deal with the city? From his statements, it looks like he wants to deal with his goal in the temple.

You say this as if it is nothing. The city is the setting wherein the goal is located.

Which Hussar explicitly doesn't care about. See my last post for Hussar's thought on that.

The players are committed to doing something in the city

No, at the temple. They're as much committed to doing something "in the city" as they are "in the desert." In Hussar's case, both seem to be "setting", and something he has no interest in.

presumably (given Hussar's evident enthusiasm for the siege) something that involves interacting with the city, treating the city as both chalenge and resource.

Okay, so, when did Hussar express his want to interact with the city? When asked where you draw the line on where to put stuff, you said "The answer lies in the players' evinced preferences." But, you continued with "If the players have made it clear they want to get to the city", and I have to interrupt; when did Hussar make it evident he wants to interact with the city? Sure, he wants to go there, but he knows he has to cross the desert, too. He wants to get to the city to interact with whatever is inside the temple. What makes you think he sees the city as relevant when he voices that he wants to go there?

This makes me curious about what your thoughts are on my expansion of the "wording" question. Does how a player word things determine what you throw in their way?

But even if the city is just a plot device, it is still a city - an urban location that is, by definition, replete with NPCs, and all the opportunities for good and bad things that NPCs bring with them. It's very different from a deset. Apart from anything else, it creates much richer fictional positioning for the PCs, and hence much richer opportunities for the players.

This is true. But, to Hussar, it's "setting wank." It'll be relevant when he gets to it, or when it's "plot". Which, of course, the siege seems to be fine, but the refugees aren't. But I'm still not sure why.

There are a range of different approaches to prep. For my own part, I can't remember the last time I had trouble knowing what would engage my players. If they're not interested in deserts, they tend to make that pretty clear.

It's not prep so much as play style. Hussar's views seem contradictory to me. And that'd make it harder to run a game (regardless of style of prep) for a player like him.

The siege doesn't prevent you entering the city - it simply changes the character of that entry. Nor need it, in real play time at the table, delay you doing what you came to do in the city: it may even expedite that, if the players use it cleverly.

Same for the desert encounter, etc.

And even if it does make it take longer, in real play time, to achieve the goal, all that play time will have been spent aiming directly at the goal (including perhaps by taking advantage of the siege). Which is, more-or-less, what RPGing is about - spending real time at the table engaging in realising one's PC's goals.

This is only true if you tie the siege directly to the PC's goals, which you could do for the desert encounter. As always, play what you like