You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Jackinthegreen]

The city/temple is perceived as being inherently interesting. Let's face it, they usually are because they can cater to a stupendously wide variety of encounters. The desert/wasteland is not, and is certainly more limited in its possibilities than the city. Thus, it is certainly not a stretch to say that little is interesting in the desert compared to the city. It can even be exaggerated a bit to say that nothing in the desert is interesting compared to a city. It might not be completely true, but it's also not completely false either.

Suddenly making something in the desert tie in to the city, regardless of what the scenario actually is, can be seen as contrived because it looks like the DM is attempting to force the desert into being interesting. Forcing something to look like it's interesting can be argued to look a lot like, and even be, railroading. Which actually was the case with the module.

Keep in mind "desert exploration" seems to be meant along the lines of "doing anything in the desert." Let's face it, saying "we're going exploring!" is a great euphemism for "this is a mind-numbing slog that's being sugar-coated. Polish a turd, it's still a turd."

I would expect that how a player (or DM) words something will definitely change what goes on. The sentences above should illustrate one possibility there. Some of the trouble that's going to happen is someone might think there's only one way to explain something, but run into someone else who thinks that explanation means something completely different, and thus they might never see eye to eye simply because they can't interpret something the same way. Such a scenario has almost certainly happened in this thread several times.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The city/temple is perceived as being inherently interesting. Let's face it, they usually are because they can cater to a stupendously wide variety of encounters. The desert/wasteland is not, and is certainly more limited in its possibilities than the city. Thus, it is certainly not a stretch to say that little is interesting in the desert compared to the city. It can even be exaggerated a bit to say that nothing in the desert is interesting compared to a city. It might not be completely true, but it's also not completely false either.

I've gone over this recently. It makes sense, to me, for the players to say "we don't know what's in the desert, and we're not here to explore. Let's head to the city."

What doesn't make sense to me is a player saying "nothing in the desert can really be that relevant to what I want, and all of it will be very boring, so let's skip all of it." Don't they need to know the context of what they're skipping?

Suddenly making something in the desert tie in to the city, regardless of what the scenario actually is, can be seen as contrived because it looks like the DM is attempting to force the desert into being interesting. Forcing something to look like it's interesting can be argued to look a lot like, and even be, railroading. Which actually was the case with the module.

Yes, it certainly can be contrived. And, I imagine when you have a very focused play style where you want as many things to be relevant to the PCs as possible, this will happen from time to time.

Keep in mind "desert exploration" seems to be meant along the lines of "doing anything in the desert." Let's face it, saying "we're going exploring!" is a great euphemism for "this is a mind-numbing slog that's being sugar-coated. Polish a turd, it's still a turd."

Exploration, to me, does not equal "doing anything in the desert." Exploration has a very different meaning in regards to D&D, as far as I know.

I would expect that how a player (or DM) words something will definitely change what goes on. The sentences above should illustrate one possibility there. Some of the trouble that's going to happen is someone might think there's only one way to explain something, but run into someone else who thinks that explanation means something completely different, and thus they might never see eye to eye simply because they can't interpret something the same way. Such a scenario has almost certainly happened in this thread several times.

Oh, sure. I agree.

I'm just curious how pemerton knows what somebody wants to skip, based on this hypothetical. And not just in this one instance (Hussar summons a centipede to skip the desert), but in general. If he says "we head to the city" does that mean a siege is okay, since he said "city" and not temple? Or, if Hussar says "we head to the temple", does that rule a siege out, now? Is this minor wording difference what's determining what's okay at the time?

And, if Hussar doesn't want those complications along the way, why is a desert encounter that's relevant to his goals not okay, but a siege just fine? Is it geographical proximity to the goal? According to pemerton, the answer is no. Is the answer yes for Hussar? As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

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.

Because, as everyone here agrees, you can 100% skip the desert and it makes ZERO difference. If we teleport across the desert, the city and what goes on in the city does not change one iota. The desert cannot possibly matter more than tangentially, because, if it did, then we couldn't skip it with impunity.

In your latter examples, the city encounters are all changed. A city without those encounters will be very different than one with those encounters. Just as the city with a siege will be different than one without a siege - even if the siege is nothing but a bunch of demons who want to plant flowers (although, that would not be to my personal taste )

Thus, the siege is always relevant. You can try to ignore it as much as possible, but, it's still going to impact what goes on in the city. Because I can skip the desert, nothing in the desert can impact what goes on in the city.

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

How can anything in the desert be relevant to the city when the desert encounters can be skipped with impunity? If I can completely avoid these encounters, and no one has any problem with me doing so, so long as I have the proper in game resources, then how can these encounters matter to what's going on in the city? If they mattered, then I couldn't skip them.

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.

Again, if the only relevance your desert encounters have is to foreshadow an encounter that I'm about to have in the next ten minutes, I'm thinking that you don't need a whole lot of foreshadowing. Plus, that's pretty tenuous at best. The only thing lost by skipping the desert is the roadsign that says, "There is a siege ahead". Well, I'm at the siege now, so, I guess I didn't really need that siege.

Now, if you skipped the siege as well? Ok, fine. It's not established in play beforehand, so, no problem. But, if you put the siege there, that's also no problem. It's linked to the goals. It cannot be skipped with impunity since it will affect (or should affect at any rate) every encounter within the city. If I can skip the city? Then I guess the siege isn't terribly relevant either. But, the example has always been that we need to get to this city. There's something in the city that needs doing. Now, if that something has nothing to do with the city itself? Then sure, skip the city too. Great. Get to the point.

(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?

Wow, number one there? I'd immediately leave your table. That's absolutely not kosher. A DM who pulled this would be looking for a new player. Your players actually accepted you doing this? Wow. I've never, ever seen a player who would accept that.

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.

That time pressure can only be added if the players interact with the nomad/refugee/mercenary encounter. There is no way that time pressure can be added otherwise. The players do not need to interact with the siege at all in order for there to be a time pressure added. IOW, the DM has to force the players into the encounter with the nomads/refugees/mercenaries in order to add the time pressure. But the encounter may be skipped with impunity. Therefore, the time pressure only exists if you force the players to play through encounters they have stated they don't want to play through.

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.

But... you added the temple, not me. Why have you insisted that the city is not our goal when I've repeatedly stated that getting to the city was our goal? Yes, we have something to do in the city, but, the city has always been part of that. This rabbit hole of trying to separate city from goal is entirely of your own manufacture.

In the hypothetical, the city was always part and parcel to the goal. The fact that the city has things that the players can pro-actively leverage in order to achieve that goal was referenced multiple times. If you're going to start dumpster diving and pulling up quotes, at least try to read all of them. Good grief, this separation of city from goal is something you've insisted on. And I have no idea why.

 

[Hussar]

I've gone over this recently. It makes sense, to me, for the players to say "we don't know what's in the desert, and we're not here to explore. Let's head to the city."

What doesn't make sense to me is a player saying "nothing in the desert can really be that relevant to what I want, and all of it will be very boring, so let's skip all of it." Don't they need to know the context of what they're skipping?

So, this whole thing is nothing but semantics? Good grief. It's okay for me to say, "We've got a goal, let's head to it" but, I'm not allowed to voice an opinion about what's likely going to come ahead? The facts that 1. I was right and nothing in the module actually WAS relevant and 2. anything in the desert can be skipped with impunity don't matter?

Yes, it certainly can be contrived. And, I imagine when you have a very focused play style where you want as many things to be relevant to the PCs as possible, this will happen from time to time.

Exploration, to me, does not equal "doing anything in the desert." Exploration has a very different meaning in regards to D&D, as far as I know.

Well, I don't know what exploration in regards to D&D means, so, can you please tell me what you mean by exploration as it refers to the desert? Because, AFAIC, "exploring" looks a heck of a lot more like JackintheGreen's definition.

Oh, sure. I agree.

I'm just curious how pemerton knows what somebody wants to skip, based on this hypothetical. And not just in this one instance (Hussar summons a centipede to skip the desert), but in general. If he says "we head to the city" does that mean a siege is okay, since he said "city" and not temple? Or, if Hussar says "we head to the temple", does that rule a siege out, now? Is this minor wording difference what's determining what's okay at the time?

And, if Hussar doesn't want those complications along the way, why is a desert encounter that's relevant to his goals not okay, but a siege just fine? Is it geographical proximity to the goal? According to pemerton, the answer is no. Is the answer yes for Hussar? As always, play what you like

ARRRRGHHGHGHGHG.

Are you really not reading what I'm writing?

Ok. You explain to me how something I can skip with impunity, that is 100% ok to skip so long as I have the right plot coupon, can possibly be relevant to my goals other than tangentially? How can something that I can skip possibly be necessary or important?

It might be interesting, sure. But, since I can completely skip it and that's fine, how can it possibly be terribly relevant? Encounters cannot impart any necessary information or resources, since that would mean that they can no longer be skipped without causing problems later. They cannot contain any later recurring NPC's, since skipping the encounters would mean that they won't be met in the first place.

So, how can any encounter that is 100% superfluous, which is any encounter which can be skipped with impunity, possibly be relevant?

 

[Jacob Marley]

The city/temple is perceived as being inherently interesting. Let's face it, they usually are because they can cater to a stupendously wide variety of encounters. The desert/wasteland is not, and is certainly more limited in its possibilities than the city. Thus, it is certainly not a stretch to say that little is interesting in the desert compared to the city. It can even be exaggerated a bit to say that nothing in the desert is interesting compared to a city. It might not be completely true, but it's also not completely false either.

Interesting is not a quality of the temple. Interesting is not a quality of the desert. Interesting is the relationship that exists between the player/PC and the subject. That a temple might have a wider variety of encounters only increases the likelihood of a relationship existing.

Suddenly making something in the desert tie in to the city, regardless of what the scenario actually is, can be seen as contrived because it looks like the DM is attempting to force the desert into being interesting. Forcing something to look like it's interesting can be argued to look a lot like, and even be, railroading.

In my case, I am not interested in forcing anything, especially doing so suddenly without any regard for context. I present them with an option that they can engage or not engage - I am indifferent to what they choose to do.

Which actually was the case with the module.

Yeah, this was the module that ended our Shackled City adventure... and solidified my appreciation for player-driven sandboxes.

 

[JamesonCourage]

How can anything in the desert be relevant to the city when the desert encounters can be skipped with impunity? If I can completely avoid these encounters, and no one has any problem with me doing so, so long as I have the proper in game resources, then how can these encounters matter to what's going on in the city? If they mattered, then I couldn't skip them.

So you do mean "impossible", then. Your next bit that you quoted is why I think you're wrong, but I'll respond to your reply.

Again, if the only relevance your desert encounters have is to foreshadow an encounter that I'm about to have in the next ten minutes, I'm thinking that you don't need a whole lot of foreshadowing. Plus, that's pretty tenuous at best. The only thing lost by skipping the desert is the roadsign that says, "There is a siege ahead". Well, I'm at the siege now, so, I guess I didn't really need that siege.

I've talked about the other benefits of the desert encounter that don't include just foreshadowing. Asking questions from the refugees about your goal in the temple, gaining some useful equipment, hiring mercenaries to help you, speaking to the friendly priest that you've encountered before for helpful spells or companionship or healing, having the right spells prepared when you encounter a city under siege, etc. It's not just foreshadowing.

But, no, of course you don't need the siege. Which is why I was surprised that you were okay with pemerton's siege.

Now, if you skipped the siege as well? Ok, fine. It's not established in play beforehand, so, no problem. But, if you put the siege there, that's also no problem. It's linked to the goals. It cannot be skipped with impunity since it will affect (or should affect at any rate) every encounter within the city. If I can skip the city? Then I guess the siege isn't terribly relevant either. But, the example has always been that we need to get to this city. There's something in the city that needs doing. Now, if that something has nothing to do with the city itself? Then sure, skip the city too. Great. Get to the point.

We've been using the "temple" as the goal inside the city I think ever since Celebrim mentioned a cathedral as the actual goal in the AP tens of pages ago. That's why we're using the temple, and why it's now (and has been) part of the hypthetical. If the city isn't necessary, why are you okay with pemerton's siege?

Wow, number one there? I'd immediately leave your table. That's absolutely not kosher. A DM who pulled this would be looking for a new player. Your players actually accepted you doing this? Wow. I've never, ever seen a player who would accept that.

Yeah, brought that one up for a reason. One of those "you heard your father didn't care about you, and abandoned you, as a child, but you just found out that your mother made him leave, even though he wanted to leave his shady past and help raise you" kind of things (that's one example of something I've directly used). And I will inevitably do it again. Though, again, it's rare.

But, yeah, it's not for everyone. If it's not kosher for you, I get that; it obviously is for my group. Not that I'd mind you walking out, but you'd be the first. Guess it might happen eventually.

That time pressure can only be added if the players interact with the nomad/refugee/mercenary encounter. There is no way that time pressure can be added otherwise. The players do not need to interact with the siege at all in order for there to be a time pressure added.

Which you can make them interact with it. Again, we just need to change the scope of the desert encounter to make it relevant at all.

So, instead of refugees, we get nomads and mercenaries, but they're here to take out the PCs. They've been ordered here by the siege commander's advisor (who, with magic / visions, knew of the PCs... say, via Commune leading to other magic). So, these guys come at you; they attack you, bearing the mark of the army attacking the city. Additionally, the leader has papers on his orders, if you kill him and find it.

Here, there's a good reason they're after you, and it's a lot harder to ignore. Mind you, you're still doing this to hook the group. You wouldn't do it for a group that you describe (no complications on the way to the goal), but one for which pemerton seems okay with, I don't see the problem yet. Then again, you seem to give the siege a pass, and I don't fully understand that, yet, either, as it's definitely just a complication on the way to the goal.

IOW, the DM has to force the players into the encounter with the nomads/refugees/mercenaries in order to add the time pressure. But the encounter may be skipped with impunity. Therefore, the time pressure only exists if you force the players to play through encounters they have stated they don't want to play through.

Correct, so, like I said, you probably wouldn't run them for your group. Or maybe you would. Your acceptance of the siege confuses me.

But... you added the temple, not me.

This has been part of the hypothetical for many, many pages as of this point.

Why have you insisted that the city is not our goal when I've repeatedly stated that getting to the city was our goal? Yes, we have something to do in the city, but, the city has always been part of that. This rabbit hole of trying to separate city from goal is entirely of your own manufacture.

Here's the problem with it: the goal is also in the desert. Is your goal literally "get to the city"? Or is it "interact with my goal (and I don't care about the rest of the city, since it's just setting and not plot)"? Either way, the city and the desert are just "setting" bits (as described by you), so stuff you don't want to deal with. Or care about.

In the hypothetical, the city was always part and parcel to the goal.

Again, no it wasn't. Not for many, many pages.

The fact that the city has things that the players can pro-actively leverage in order to achieve that goal was referenced multiple times.

Yes, it was. So does the refugee / nomad / mercenary encounter.

If you're going to start dumpster diving and pulling up quotes, at least try to read all of them. Good grief, this separation of city from goal is something you've insisted on. And I have no idea why.

Because, as I said, the temple was added to the hypothetical ever since Celebrim brought up the cathedral as the actual goal in the AP. It's been around in the thread for a very, very long time.

But, regardless, let's go with the hypothetical I've been using. Say there is a temple you're trying to get to in a city in a desert after you've been planeshifted. Is a siege okay here, to you? My take, based on your past posts, is no, but I'm curious if that's what you'll say.

So, this whole thing is nothing but semantics?

That is indeed what I'm trying to find out.

Good grief. It's okay for me to say, "We've got a goal, let's head to it" but, I'm not allowed to voice an opinion about what's likely going to come ahead? The facts that 1. I was right and nothing in the module actually WAS relevant and 2. anything in the desert can be skipped with impunity don't matter?

(1) You can have an opinion, and voice your play style. That's awesome.
(2) I can guess a lot of things correctly in my games, but I'm surprised often times. And this is as the GM. Just because I can guess things correctly doesn't mean that I will. The same goes for your guesses, I'm sure.
(3) Things can be skipped with impunity, sure. So can the goal, whatever it is. It doesn't matter, then, right?

Well, I don't know what exploration in regards to D&D means, so, can you please tell me what you mean by exploration as it refers to the desert? Because, AFAIC, "exploring" looks a heck of a lot more like JackintheGreen's definition.

What? Exploring. It means exploring. It's the wandering around, searching, mapping (ick), etc. bits.

ARRRRGHHGHGHGHG.

Are you really not reading what I'm writing?

I don't know if this really, really ironic, or somehow sad on both of our sides.

Ok. You explain to me how something I can skip with impunity, that is 100% ok to skip so long as I have the right plot coupon, can possibly be relevant to my goals other than tangentially? How can something that I can skip possibly be necessary or important?

See my "GM Thinks" bit, above. All of that was relevant to the goal.

It might be interesting, sure. But, since I can completely skip it and that's fine, how can it possibly be terribly relevant? Encounters cannot impart any necessary information or resources, since that would mean that they can no longer be skipped without causing problems later. They cannot contain any later recurring NPC's, since skipping the encounters would mean that they won't be met in the first place.

So, how can any encounter that is 100% superfluous, which is any encounter which can be skipped with impunity, possibly be relevant?

It wouldn't be superfluous if you encountered it. If you did, it would have a very real, direct affect on altering the story. We can just get by with skipping it, too. The same goes for the city; let's carve that bit out, and only leave the goal. Or, heck, let's skip this goal, and just redline you to the next goal. We can do that.

Heck, we can leave this goal alone and go interact with something else. We can swap to three new APs in two sessions, and then decide to explore the setting, if the whole group is on board. None of it is mandatory. It can all be skipped. In this way, it's all superfluous. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

Between the teleport and the city are probably a dozen or more unrination breaks, too, but we don't bother with them.

There is a well-known playstyle in which pacing, at the table, is dictaed by the fictional geography. Hussar has made it very clear that that is no his preferred playstyle. If you are trying to understand or make sense of his preferences, it's no help to begin from assumptions about playstyle - like the importance to pacing of citional geography - that Hussar has expressly rejected!

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.

All I can say is that they are perfectly straightforward to me. And seem pretty clear to a number of other posters as well.

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.

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?

What makes me take the city to be relevant to the players? Because the players are expressing their eagerness to get to the city. They are coming up with plans about how they will inflitrate the city. They are speculating about whom they might meet in the city, and what they might do when they meet them. They are saying things like "If we summon a huge arthropod then we can barrel through this desrt right fast and get to the real action in the city!"

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?

Huh? I'm not talking about a police interview or a cross-examination. I'm talking about working out what the players are entuhsed about, and what they want to pass over, by a combination of their words, their facial expressions, their deployment of player resources, etc.

If a player says to the other players "Let's summon a huge centipede so we can get through this desert and on to the city," I don't need to worry about the nuances of the player's choice of words. I know that the players' goal is the city.

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.

Everything in your posts makes sense to me. Particularly the bit that I've quoted.

************************
And having another go at the more detailed questions.

I again come back to "how does Hussar 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.

First, Hussar may know this because he knows his GM.

Second, Hussar may not know this, but he may know his own preferences, and hence know that, whatever is in the desert, it is something that he doesn't care to spend play time on.

NO ONE is asking them to explore the desert.

It's not about exploring the desert.

I am using "explore" in the sense of "interact with as some element of the shared fiction for more than a few minutes of colour narration".

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?

I mentined upthread circumstances in which a good GM might cut straight to the temple. But given that Hussar has made it clear that he wants to get to the city, I might take that as a useful baseline.

I still come back to how you can know that nothing in the desert is of any relevance, but a siege automatically will be.

I and Hussar have pointed out, multiple times, that the siege - as a piece of the fiction narrated by the GM - is in and of itself a resource that players might use to engage the city and realise their goal there. Do you deny this? Do you not understand how this is so?

If the former, then you have a very different approach to RPGing from me. In my game, if I (for instance) mention to the players that their PCs see a rock, a player can then say (in character) "OK, I pick it up and put it in my pocket." And if I mention a siege around the city that they are heading to, the players can say "OK, we scout around to ascertain the general disposition of forces and their leadership", as the first step in coming up with a plan to get what they want from the city.

This is also the answer to the second point - the siege is a player resource. It is a piece of the fiction that the players can leverage. A desert does not have that character. Nomads might, but as I've asked both you and Jameson Courage - if you know your players want to get to the city, why would you both trying to get them excited about some nomads instead? Why not follow their lead? What is to be gained by pushing against them?

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

The GM doesn't have to make the siege relevant to the players' goals. The players can do that. That's (mostly) the point!

Looking at this, the city is just setting.

The siege is situation; and a good city is situation too. That's partially why "city adventures" have always been called out as a special category of adventure since the dawn of the hobby. A city is situation because it contains NPCs with goals opposed to those of the players and the PCs, which the players can engage in a range of different ways, and very proactively.

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".

But this is what the siege is! It's a complication on the way to the temple!

The siege is not "between us and the city". From the point of view of game play the siege is part of the city - perhaps the most interesting part. It's part of what makes the city not just setting but a situation for the players to engage.

And assuming that the temple is a building in the city, the siege is intimately connected to the temple, and from the point of view of play is a complication at the temple. Of course, as I mentioned above and upthread, if the temple is a dungeon beneath the city and the players are revved up for dungeon crawling, then the siege would be an irrelevant distraction much like the desert.

The siege doesn't prevent you entering the city - it simply changes the character of that entry.

Same for the desert encounter, etc

No. The desert encounter doesn't change the character of your entry into the city. It is not part of the city-as-situation. Running into the city under the cover of great rocks hurled by siege engines - that's city-as-situation, leveraging the siege a resource that changes the character of the PCs' entry into the city.

Meeting some nomads in the desert might foreshadow something at the city. On its own, though, it doesn't change the character of the PCs' entry into the city.

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.

I've already stated you might be able to do this. But why would you bother? What, as GM, are you trying to prove? - that you know the players preferences better than they do themselves?

Another way to look at is time in play. How much time does it take, as a GM , to convey to the players that the city they're arriving at is under siege? A minute of narration? Straight away the players can see that things at their destination are complicated, and start making plans to deal with that. Ie they can start playing.

How long does it take, as a GM, to convey to the players that the nomades in the desert are connected to the city? More than a minute, it seems to me. What do the players have to do before they can even get to the point of linking the nomads to their goal in the city? Get more information from the GM, spend more time interacting with this encounter that doesn't carry its relevance on its sleeve. In Hussar's terminology, they have to wait for the GM to drop more breadcrumbs.

What is this adding to the game? All I can see is a type of "being there" verisimilitude - which Hussar has expressly signalled a lack of interest in.

 

[pemerton]

I've gone over this recently. It makes sense, to me, for the players to say "we don't know what's in the desert, and we're not here to explore. Let's head to the city."

What doesn't make sense to me is a player saying "nothing in the desert can really be that relevant to what I want, and all of it will be very boring, so let's skip all of it." Don't they need to know the context of what they're skipping?

<snip>

I'm just curious how pemerton knows what somebody wants to skip, based on this hypothetical. And not just in this one instance (Hussar summons a centipede to skip the desert), but in general. If he says "we head to the city" does that mean a siege is okay, since he said "city" and not temple? Or, if Hussar says "we head to the temple", does that rule a siege out, now? Is this minor wording difference what's determining what's okay at the time?

You're asking me how I can tell what my players, who are real flesh-and-blood people at my table, who have PCs with builds and backstories and a history in the campaign, want? Whether I have to cross-examine them on their choice of language to tell what will or won't engage them?

That's very strange to me. I can tell because a whole range of evidence - known standing dispositions, plus things said, plus things done, plus sparkles in the eye (or lack thereof) - signals it.

As for the temple/city distinction (which as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has pointed out doesn't relate to anything he actually said, but has been introduced by you) I've already indicated upthread what sorts of considerations might be relevant. You tell me more about your temple - eg is it a government building within the city, or a secret dungeon beneath the city, or something else again - and also tell me more about your hypothetical players' goals, and I'll be happy to tell you in more detail how I might handle it.

 

[JamesonCourage]

All I can say is that they are perfectly straightforward to me. And seem pretty clear to a number of other posters as well.

Which is strange, since your stuff seems to not fit with his views, as far as I can tell. Like the "impossible" vs "essential" take on his "can't", for example.

What makes me take the city to be relevant to the players? Because the players are expressing their eagerness to get to the city. They are coming up with plans about how they will inflitrate the city. They are speculating about whom they might meet in the city, and what they might do when they meet them.

When did any of this happen? Hussar expressed interest in his PC's goals, not "let's mess around with the city." He wants progress towards those goals. He did not mention, as far as I know, ways to infiltrate the city, or mention speculating about whom they may meet in the city, or what they'd do if they met them. These were just added by you.

Barring these additions, how do you know? If all they say is they're heading to the city because they want to get to the PCs' goal, how are you getting to "it's okay to use a siege but not a desert encounter"?

They are saying things like "If we summon a huge arthropod then we can barrel through this desrt right fast and get to the real action in the city!"

Well, to his goals. They happen to be inside a city, but they also happen to be in a desert.

Huh? I'm not talking about a police interview or a cross-examination. I'm talking about working out what the players are entuhsed about, and what they want to pass over, by a combination of their words, their facial expressions, their deployment of player resources, etc.

Okay, this makes sense to me. This seems normal. Unfortunately, we don't have this to work on in the example. We just have what Hussar said his goal was. I think this means that I'm only working with this, and you're adding these other tells (that are yet unstated) to the hypothetical.

If a player says to the other players "Let's summon a huge centipede so we can get through this desert and on to the city," I don't need to worry about the nuances of the player's choice of words. I know that the players' goal is the city.

Even if they only say "city", but they implicitly mean "to deal with our goals inside the city"? This is why I asked about wording. The player could have absolutely no interest in the city, but still say that they're heading there, since that's the next logical step in getting closer to their goal. Or, they could say "we travel through the desert to the city." In which case, they've now mentioned the desert. But, Hussar seems to want to get to his goal inside the city; why are we wasting time with a desert encounter or a siege encounter? That's not what he seemed excited about.

Second, Hussar may not know this, but he may know his own preferences, and hence know that, whatever is in the desert, it is something that he doesn't care to spend play time on.

Okay, but can I ask why he wouldn't enjoy it? Is it a mood thing? "I'm not in the mood for a desert encounter, no matter how much I normally like the type of encounter it is?" Is it predictable? This piece of knowledge seems like it should be known to some degree if you're running a game for a player that does this.

I am using "explore" in the sense of "interact with as some element of the shared fiction for more than a few minutes of colour narration".

I'm not. But good to know what you mean, at least. That'll help communication. So, thank you.

I mentined upthread circumstances in which a good GM might cut straight to the temple. But given that Hussar has made it clear that he wants to get to the city, I might take that as a useful baseline.

To deal with his goal. It's not to wander around the city. The city seems like "setting" as described by Hussar; it's just the part of the game where "plot" takes place, and he wants to deal with plot.

I and Hussar have pointed out, multiple times, that the siege - as a piece of the fiction narrated by the GM - is in and of itself a resource that players might use to engage the city and realise their goal there. Do you deny this? Do you not understand how this is so?

I think we object to the universal nature of the statement, but, more importantly, we think that the desert encounter can be a resource that the players might use to engage with their goal, or help realize it.

This is also the answer to the second point - the siege is a player resource. It is a piece of the fiction that the players can leverage. A desert does not have that character. Nomads might, but as I've asked both you and Jameson Courage - if you know your players want to get to the city, why would you both trying to get them excited about some nomads instead? Why not follow their lead? What is to be gained by pushing against them?

I've answered this multiple times. I get only engaging with interesting stuff to players. My game is player-driven. So, no problems so far.

What I am trying to figure out is Hussar's preferences for getting to the city and universally ruling all desert encounters one way, but the siege in another way. I want his reasoning on this part, because that logic will make running a game for this of much easier.

The GM doesn't have to make the siege relevant to the players' goals. The players can do that. That's (mostly) the point!

The same for the desert encounter! I've said you can walk past the desert encounter. Or you can talk to the refugees, or nomads, or mercenaries, or potentially buy gear or supplies, hire mercenaries, prepare spells in advance because of knowledge gained, arrange for the nomads to guide you through a faster route, get blessings from the temple refugees, etc. The players can leverage the encounter if they want to, but they don't have to.

The siege is situation; and a good city is situation too. That's partially why "city adventures" have always been called out as a special category of adventure since the dawn of the hobby. A city is situation because it contains NPCs with goals opposed to those of the players and the PCs, which the players can engage in a range of different ways, and very proactively.

Again, the desert encounter could be framed this way. Why is it different?

The siege is not "between us and the city". From the point of view of game play the siege is part of the city - perhaps the most interesting part. It's part of what makes the city not just setting but a situation for the players to engage.

But, the city isn't the goal itself. Something inside the city is. It is not the siege; it is a roadblock. It is literally in the way of the city, which is setting. Even if it is a "situation", Hussar explicitly wants to work on furthering his goals, not dealing with complications along the way. You have not convinced me that the siege is somehow different from a relevant desert encounter.

And assuming that the temple is a building in the city, the siege is intimately connected to the temple, and from the point of view of play is a complication at the temple. Of course, as I mentioned above and upthread, if the temple is a dungeon beneath the city and the players are revved up for dungeon crawling, then the siege would be an irrelevant distraction much like the desert.

Right, this is the "relevant to the goals" part. The part you told me wasn't about "proximity" in a geographical sense, but in a story sense. The thing is, the desert encounter can be exactly as relevant to the story, but it's somehow different, and I'm now seeing a reasonable explanation for that yet.

Same for the desert encounter, etc

No.

Yes.

The desert encounter doesn't change the character of your entry into the city.

Unless, of course, it does.

It is not part of the city-as-situation.

Since Hussar's statements about setting lead me to believe he's not interesting in this city-as-situation, what does that matter?

Running into the city under the cover of great rocks hurled by siege engines - that's city-as-situation, leveraging the siege a resource that changes the character of the PCs' entry into the city.

Meeting some nomads in the desert might foreshadow something at the city. On its own, though, it doesn't change the character of the PCs' entry into the city.

Enough with the "only foreshadowing" thing. I've gone over that four times or more this conversation, and once within the last page. I think I'm bailing from this part of the conversation; Hussar's "are you reading what I wrote" post is striking much closer to ironic than anything now.

I've already stated you might be able to do this. But why would you bother? What, as GM, are you trying to prove? - that you know the players preferences better than they do themselves?

No, I'm trying to find out why they have these preferences, so that I can handle running the game in a way that keeps them from wanting to skip as few scenes as possible. I don't doubt they have these preferences, but I'm curious what the difference is, and I'm not seeing it. I mean, I see possibilities (geographical proximity to the goal), but you've told me that's not it, and in the interest of honest communication, I'm not going to say that I think you're wrong on your own preferences, here. I'm just not seeing another answer yet.

Another way to look at is time in play. How much time does it take, as a GM , to convey to the players that the city they're arriving at is under siege? A minute of narration? Straight away the players can see that things at their destination are complicated, and start making plans to deal with that. Ie they can start playing.

Depending on the type of siege, yeah. It could be done very fast. Even faster than one minute, potentially; maybe even one sentence, if you wanted to hit them with a bang before expanding quickly.

How long does it take, as a GM, to convey to the players that the nomades in the desert are connected to the city? More than a minute, it seems to me.

It'd take me less than a minute (for sure, no questions) to describe the scene of the nomads / refugees / mercenaries. Of course, if they engaged, then they'd find out more, but they'd be playing. The refugees explicitly look like city folk, though, holding a handful of belongings that aren't well-packed, and have the symbol of the church you're heading towards. It should be evident enough that something is up and it can easily be related to your goals. Any expansion comes from play and not from my simply conveying it to the players.

What do the players have to do before they can even get to the point of linking the nomads to their goal in the city? Get more information from the GM, spend more time interacting with this encounter that doesn't carry its relevance on its sleeve. In Hussar's terminology, they have to wait for the GM to drop more breadcrumbs.

I think it can very much wear its relevance on its sleeve.

What is this adding to the game? All I can see is a type of "being there" verisimilitude - which Hussar has expressly signalled a lack of interest in.

Whereas I don't see this as what it's adding, necessarily. My group would like the "being there" type of verisimilitude, but that's not the angle I'm approaching this conversation from. I've been approaching it trying to understand, from Hussar's expressed play style, how his logic works, and I'm still here, trying to understand its logic.

You're asking me how I can tell what my players, who are real flesh-and-blood people at my table, who have PCs with builds and backstories and a history in the campaign, want? Whether I have to cross-examine them on their choice of language to tell what will or won't engage them?

That's very strange to me.

Isn't it? More on this in a minute.

I can tell because a whole range of evidence - known standing dispositions, plus things said, plus things done, plus sparkles in the eye (or lack thereof) - signals it.

Okay! So, even though you didn't explicitly answer the "is it just wording" question, I think you've answered well enough. If it's not just wording (it's all these things, plus more... character build, stated preferences, etc.), how can you tell, from Hussar's statement that he wants to go to the city, that he'd like a siege? Especially when he's explicitly said he doesn't like complications along the way, and you know by "way" he means his PC's goal in the city. This is what I'm trying to ask you.

As for the temple/city distinction (which as @Hussar has pointed out doesn't relate to anything he actually said, but has been introduced by you)

Hussar just said (post 1,106, page 102): "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."

If we're sticking to the hypothetical of the desert, then the temple has been part of it for many, many pages. You can discard it, but I ask -as Hussar did- why?

I've already indicated upthread what sorts of considerations might be relevant. You tell me more about your temple - eg is it a government building within the city, or a secret dungeon beneath the city, or something else again - and also tell me more about your hypothetical players' goals, and I'll be happy to tell you in more detail how I might handle it.

This whole thing depends on more than that, though! We'd need the personality of all the players, their goals, their character builds, their preferences of how they play their character, what kind of campaigns they enjoy (or say they do), etc. That's the thing. People are filling in blanks with what they want, and then saying "you don't get it?"

Well, I'm good. I don't get it, but things keep getting shifted a little too much for me. I haven't made much headway, but I did enjoy [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] when he popped in from time to time. As far as the rest of this thread, I'll jump back in on other issues, but I'm done with the seemingly nonsensical reasoning that I've acquired after this many pages. Hussar, pemerton, feel free to get the last word or two in. It's the least I can offer after a thread this long. As always, play what you like

 

[N'raac]

Because, as everyone here agrees, you can 100% skip the desert and it makes ZERO difference. If we teleport across the desert, the city and what goes on in the city does not change one iota. The desert cannot possibly matter more than tangentially, because, if it did, then we couldn't skip it with impunity.

I don’t know how you arrive at the belief that “everyone here agrees, you can 100% skip the desert and it makes ZERO difference”. I think everyone has agreed that, IF the PC’s have a resource which enables them to teleport to the city (I do not – I think they lack that resource, and that their lack of familiarity with the city makes that approach dangerous to impossible if they had it), they could get to the city without passing through the desert and would not encounter anything in the desert before arriving at the city.

I don’t think we agree that “what goes on in the city does not change one iota”. If you avoid the encounters in the desert (whether by teleporting to the city, barreling by on a magical Super Speed Centipede, or just sticking your fingers in your ears and walking by chanting LALALALALALAICAN’THEARYOULALALALALALA), then you do not have

questions from the refugees about your goal in the temple, gaining some useful equipment, hiring mercenaries to help you, speaking to the friendly priest that you've encountered before for helpful spells or companionship or healing, having the right spells prepared when you encounter a city under siege, etc.

The ability to circumvent the desert does not render it irrelevant. It renders it “skipped”. I seem to recall saying, more than once, that PC’s with the ability to Teleport directly to the city might still discover that what they seek requires going out into the desert. The fellow you seek, or the object, departed with a caravan of refugees 5 days ago (now the desert encounter would have been relevant to your goal, but the city has lost that relevance), or was lost seeking out the Lost Temple of Ixt in the desert. Or the temple stays relevant – but the fellow who can administer the Test of the Smoking Eye is the one who left with the refuges/was lost seeking the temple – you must find him and persuade him to return if you are to undergo the test. Skipping the desert in these examples doesn’t mean foregoing an advantage, it means you get to go back.

In your latter examples, the city encounters are all changed. A city without those encounters will be very different than one with those encounters. Just as the city with a siege will be different than one without a siege - even if the siege is nothing but a bunch of demons who want to plant flowers (although, that would not be to my personal taste )

Thus, the siege is always relevant. You can try to ignore it as much as possible, but, it's still going to impact what goes on in the city. Because I can skip the desert, nothing in the desert can impact what goes on in the city.

Again, you assume nothing in the desert has relevance, and you assume nothing can prevent the relevance of the siege. How about this? The Slaad are besieging the city. No one knows why. They will allow no one in. They will part ways to let people walk out. They have been there for seven generations of Man. However, the city has a magical Ward which prevents the Slaad entering, hurling rocks, or in any way imposing on the city, so all they do is prevent people coming in or going out. But within the city is a Teleport Gate to another city, which they use for supplies. The city functions perfectly normally, despite the Wall of Slaad outside. The ONLY impact they have on the entire game is your need to get past them to enter the city. Once you do, they have no further impact (unless you choose to fight through them again to come back after leaving). If you can teleport, the fact you bypassed them has no impact at all on the city encounters. They can truly be skipped with absolute impunity.

But... you added the temple, not me. Why have you insisted that the city is not our goal when I've repeatedly stated that getting to the city was our goal? Yes, we have something to do in the city, but, the city has always been part of that. This rabbit hole of trying to separate city from goal is entirely of your own manufacture.

Perhaps if you added the “something” you had to do in the city, it could replace the temple. We have been using the temple as “the goal” for lack of a goal you stated, a fact noted repeatedly in the discussion.

In the hypothetical, the city was always part and parcel to the goal. The fact that the city has things that the players can pro-actively leverage in order to achieve that goal was referenced multiple times. If you're going to start dumpster diving and pulling up quotes, at least try to read all of them. Good grief, this separation of city from goal is something you've insisted on. And I have no idea why.

Going back to the source material, why was the temple important to the goal? Because that is where the Test of the Smoking Eye could be undertaken, I believe. If we move the test to a Wizard’s Academy, the bottom of a ruined tower, or the common room at your local inn, the Temple’s relevance goes away. Move the goal, and all that surrounds it loses its relevance. But, if the Test can be taken only in the Temple in the City in the Desert, then getting to the Test within the Temple is essential to the goal. That means getting to the Temple in the City is essential to the goal. For that reason, getting to the City in the Desert is essential to the goal. As well, getting to the Plane where the Desert is located is essential to the goal. None of them can be separated from the goal, but if we move the goal, we separate them all from the goal. So none of them are essential to the goal, except to the extent the GM makes them essential to the goal by the placement of the goal.

So, this whole thing is nothing but semantics? Good grief. It's okay for me to say, "We've got a goal, let's head to it" but, I'm not allowed to voice an opinion about what's likely going to come ahead? The facts that 1. I was right and nothing in the module actually WAS relevant and 2. anything in the desert can be skipped with impunity don't matter?

1. You have spent much of this post, and other recent ones, disclaiming the original module. We have, I believe, moved on from “the desert was a waste of time in the original module” to your contention that “in no case could the desert between us and the city have any merit or relevance”. The GM in your original module allowed the centipede to work, did he not? The original module is resolved. I remain of the belief that your blanket statement that you can “know”, from the mere mention there is a desert between you and the city your goals demand you reach, that the desert will be a series of time-wasting irrelevant encounters that can serve only to bore you to tears is a fallacy. I believe that is the topic of discussion for many pages.

1. Back to the original scenario, though. I’m unsure how important that NPC met in the wasteland was to longer term goals, but if he is important, then skipping the desert and that NPC means that you could not skip the desert with impunity. Assuming the desert is wholly irrelevant, and the table (not just [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] – there our views differ markedly – but the table) is not actively enjoying this aspect of the scenario, then I would be quite all right skipping it. Maybe the centipede excuse gets used in that regard, but I see even that as inessential. I can simply narrate that, “After many hot, dusty days spent wandering the wasteland, battling a host of fiendish creatures, the PC’s finally see a structure off in the distance. Approaching closer, it seems to be a cathedral.” Your centipede is superfluous. Riding it through the desert is no more than colour – mere PC Ability Wank.

It might be interesting, sure. But, since I can completely skip it and that's fine, how can it possibly be terribly relevant? Encounters cannot impart any necessary information or resources, since that would mean that they can no longer be skipped without causing problems later. They cannot contain any later recurring NPC's, since skipping the encounters would mean that they won't be met in the first place.

Emphasis added. To be clear, I agree that, if you possess a resource which allows you to immediately transport to your desired destination, you can skip the desert. That does not mean this will not cause problems later. It does not mean the resources, information, NPC contacts or what have you would not have been helpful later, or even that you can accomplish your goals without those, or similar, resources being acquired. It does not mean that recurring NPC will not have a later “first appearance”, where you will interact without the benefit (or detriment) that history in the desert could have provided. In fact, you may no longer “first meet” him in the desert, earning his trust and gratitude by sharing provisions and battling side by side to escape the desert and the abyss. Instead, you may encounter him in a situation where a means of earning his trust and friendship is much more difficult. The players may never know they had an opportunity in the desert, of course. But skipping the desert certainly has consequences, positive (eg. we still have all our resources other than that Teleport) and negative (eg. We no longer have that Teleport; we did not meet the NPC)

Your Teleportation allowed you to skip the desert. But it is not “Teleport with Impunity and Plot Invulnerability”. It is merely “Teleport”.

Yeah, brought that one up for a reason. One of those "you heard your father didn't care about you, and abandoned you, as a child, but you just found out that your mother made him leave, even though he wanted to leave his shady past and help raise you" kind of things (that's one example of something I've directly used). And I will inevitably do it again. Though, again, it's rare.

That seems like it’s not truly messing with the player’s backstory. It is leveraging it. The PC knew Dad wasn’t there when he was growing up, and he knew what his character had been told in that regard. He did not know, nor could he know, the veracity of the stories he was told. Just like SPOILER FOR ANYONE NOT REMOTELY FAMILIAR WITH STAR WARS AHEAD: Luke Skywalker was told his father was a Jedi, then later told his father was killed by Darth Vader, only to later learn that his father BECAME Darth Vader. So was that leveraging the player’s backstory, or making an “absolutely not kosher” change?

If the backstory simply said he grew up with no father, as he abandoned them when he was very young”, I’d say the player left Dad’s story an open canvas. But I can see several possibilities the player is saying:

• I do not want Dad to figure in the game at all;
• I want my search for Dad to be a central character theme;
  • Dad was a bad guy and abandoned us;
  • Dad was a good guy caught in bad circumstances;
  • Dad was a hero and forced to abandon us;
  • Dad was/was not powerful and influential
  • I want the GM to define Dad in a manner which will fit with, and add to, the game

I don’t know which permutations or combinations the player has in mind. In my games, I think many, if not all, of the above would be fair game. The character’s assumptions were wrong. That happens, in both fiction and reality. The question is how good a game it ultimately makes.