You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[N'raac]

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

Thought that straw man was about due for another appearance. That’s not about playing out achievement of player goals, but playing out minutia. The character presumably maintains his sword and armor, and we presumably do not play that out. But the character must acquire that sword and armor within the parameters of the game. He does not get to look down on his character sheet, say “Hey – I’ve got enough gold to buy that Plate Mail, so my Chain Mail morphs into Plate Mail right here and now, and some of my gold vanishes”. Instead, he makes a purchase when he returns to a location with a suitable marketplace.

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

I do not think the number who find this perfectly clear outnumbers those who are confused. As well, it seems like that clarity is backed up by assumptions, at least as much as any lack of clarity is.

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!"

Emphasis added. You are assuming these. Hussar has never stated them. He has said he has a specific goal in the city and wants to get there and play out his efforts to achieve that goal.

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".

Most of us are using it in the sense of “explore”, as in “to traverse or range over (a region, area, etc.) for the purpose of discovery: to explore the island.” [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/explore?s=t]

[I [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has noted that, in another context, an exploration campaign could be great fun. Given my assumption he expects to "interact with as some element of the shared fiction for more than a few minutes of colour narration” in this campaign, just not the desert element, I feel my interpetation of “explore” is the more appropriate one in context.[/I]

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.

Show me where [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has previously expressed any interest in playing out difficulties in entering the city. Other than your repeated references to “Running into the city under the cover of great rocks hurled by siege engines” no one has indicated any expectation it will be hard to get into the city. And [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s repeated allusions to Teleport would presumably mean the characters are in the city. “Infiltration of the city”, as opposed to “getting to the city”, has never been noted as a goal, or a challenge, of any kind by anyone besides yourself.

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, the nomads can only attack the PC's if you FORCE the PC's to trudge through the desert. Since I can skip the desert and you don't mind, then I will never, ever have this encounter unless you force it on me.

Which in your playstyle is perfectly fine. I want more proactivity from the players. I don't want to bomb homing ninjas on the PC's with unavoidable encounters.

 

[Hussar]

Thought that straw man was about due for another appearance. That’s not about playing out achievement of player goals, but playing out minutia. The character presumably maintains his sword and armor, and we presumably do not play that out. But the character must acquire that sword and armor within the parameters of the game. He does not get to look down on his character sheet, say “Hey – I’ve got enough gold to buy that Plate Mail, so my Chain Mail morphs into Plate Mail right here and now, and some of my gold vanishes”. Instead, he makes a purchase when he returns to a location with a suitable marketplace.

Now, by "suitable marketplace" do I have to play out buying the armor? Do I have to search it out? Or, is being in a town good enough to simply write down the changed armor and scratch off the gold?

I do not think the number who find this perfectly clear outnumbers those who are confused. As well, it seems like that clarity is backed up by assumptions, at least as much as any lack of clarity is.



Emphasis added. You are assuming these. Hussar has never stated them. He has said he has a specific goal in the city and wants to get there and play out his efforts to achieve that goal.



Most of us are using it in the sense of “explore”, as in “to traverse or range over (a region, area, etc.) for the purpose of discovery: to explore the island.” [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/explore?s=t]

[I [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has noted that, in another context, an exploration campaign could be great fun. Given my assumption he expects to "interact with as some element of the shared fiction for more than a few minutes of colour narration” in this campaign, just not the desert element, I feel my interpetation of “explore” is the more appropriate one in context.[/I]

For me, explore has very, very little to do with traversing a geographical region. Given another campaign, with that at the outset, maybe. I have enjoyed hex mapping on occasion. But, by and large, exploration has virtually nothing to do with the whole process sim thing.

Show me where [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has previously expressed any interest in playing out difficulties in entering the city. Other than your repeated references to “Running into the city under the cover of great rocks hurled by siege engines” no one has indicated any expectation it will be hard to get into the city. And [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s repeated allusions to Teleport would presumably mean the characters are in the city. “Infiltration of the city”, as opposed to “getting to the city”, has never been noted as a goal, or a challenge, of any kind by anyone besides yourself.

Well, considering that the siege was never part of the original hypothetical, it's not too far out there to get sidetracked. But, once the siege was posited, I didn't have a huge problem with it because it offers too many pro-active options for the group.

The desert, in and of itself, offers absolutely nothing. Nomads or refugees or whatever, aren't actually part of the desert. They are things that are being added in after the fact to try to "prove" that there are interesting things in the desert.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

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.

And, this would be in direct contrast to at least one player's stated wishes for the game. One of the players has flat out stated that he wants nothing to do with exploring the desert. But, now he's being thrown under the bus because the DM feels it will be more interesting to explore the desert. Everyone in the group is interested in achieving the group goals, but, that doesn't matter, because, come anything, the desert MUST be explored.

Yah, no thanks.

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.

Yes, well, nothing can save games from crap DMing, so, what's your point. If the DM sets up the siege in such a way that it has zero relevance, then that's just poor DMing. If the DM is solely using the siege to roadblock then, sure, that's crap DMing, same as forcing the players to explore the desert.

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.




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.

But, exploring the desert where the city is, is not essential to the goal. Yes, we must cross the desert, but, no, we do not have to interact with the desert. You must cross a desert to drive to Las Vegas. But, even if your goal in Las Vegas isn't really specific to Las Vegas itself, you can still pro-actively do all sorts of interesting things in Las Vegas.

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.

But, you still have not shown how an encounter that may be skipped with impunity can be anything other than irrelevant. All you've done is move the goal back into the desert and then claimed that the desert is relevant.

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.

Got no real problem with that. You want to write it off as color? That's EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN ASKING FOR.

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”.

And, of course, any subsequent encounters will automatically be "more difficult".

Since the players don't actually know about what they skipped, why would they care? The question has always been, "Why can you skip things sight unseen?" Well, since I won't see them, I don't care. The first time I meet Mr. NPC will be the first time.

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.

Well, fair enough. I would never, ever pull a Darth Vader moment on a player without clearing it with him or her first. There's just no way. Heck, I'd walk away from a table where the DM did that to another player.

And, this is why I see players who come from tables like this who's character backstories are iron clad with no ambiguity. Their families are all reliably dead, the character is a drifter with no connections to anyone or anything and the PC comes to the table largely a cypher. It's because DM's cannot keep their hands off of their player's characters. So, players respond by making sure that their characters have absolutely nothing the DM can leverage.

I've seen this way, way too many times to think that it's a fluke. Player after player that comes to my table acts this way. And, after a brief conversation, the reason is almost always the same - to keep the DM from screwing around with the player's character without the player's explicit permission.

I have very few absolutes at my table. Very, very few. But, this one is iron clad. I will not, under any circumstance, make any changes to a player's character in any way, shape or form, without clearing with that player first.

 

[innerdude]

And, this is why I see players who come from tables like this who's character backstories are iron clad with no ambiguity. Their families are all reliably dead, the character is a drifter with no connections to anyone or anything and the PC comes to the table largely a cypher. It's because DM's cannot keep their hands off of their player's characters. So, players respond by making sure that their characters have absolutely nothing the DM can leverage.

I've seen this way, way too many times to think that it's a fluke. Player after player that comes to my table acts this way. And, after a brief conversation, the reason is almost always the same - to keep the DM from screwing around with the player's character without the player's explicit permission.

I have very few absolutes at my table. Very, very few. But, this one is iron clad. I will not, under any circumstance, make any changes to a player's character in any way, shape or form, without clearing with that player first.

Hmmm, I don't know how I feel about this. Nothing? No shaping at all? No culling interesting tidbits from a character's backstory, then inserting elements into the fiction that directly address that backstory? See, for me, this brings up an interesting question---does the mere act of inserting elements into the fiction regarding a character's backstory, necessarily alter that backstory? With or without a player's permission?

Truthfully too, if you've had a revolving door full of players refusing to allow ANY GM force at all, no matter how mild, to affect their character's place in the fiction, then what kind of GMs are you playing with? I can see one kind of playstyle where this would be relatively "accepted practice," for a highly gamist-centric playstyle, where the "step on up" of the challenge is the real "meat" of the action. In this case, a GM interfering with backstory becomes a nuisance, a way of justifying "keeping those uppity powergamers down," and preventing players from accessing new magic items, gear, or powers. If a GM has some perverse desire to keep players from "the awesome," and uses fictional character positioning as a way to do it, yeah, that'd get old, very very fast.

But for a group looking for "narrativism," in the sense of really exploring a moral "premise," then as a player you almost HAVE to cede some control of your character fiction to the GM. In so saying, I'm not advocating that this should be heavy-handed, punitive control. But the GM naturally has a better idea of the entirety of "the fiction" than the player, and may understand interesting ways to juxtapose the character's assumed fiction into the world's fiction that the player simply has no conception of. I think FATE's concept of "tagging" is very much a back-and-forth of this nature--who has control of what elements of the fiction at any given moment? It actively moves between player and GM.

For "simulationist" play, it can go either way---If the player and GM agree on basic character backstory, then "natural consequences" are bound to arise in play, based on character actions / reactions, and NPC actions / reactions, and I think most players are okay, and regularly enjoy it when it happens. That said, you run into the danger of a GM saying, "No, that backstory's not possible because it doesn't fit the 'authenticity' of the fiction." But if that's what the player's interested in exploring, the GM should find ways to work with the player to make that possible.

Bottom line: it's about GM trust.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, fair enough. I would never, ever pull a Darth Vader moment on a player without clearing it with him or her first. There's just no way. Heck, I'd walk away from a table where the DM did that to another player.

Frankly, I think that's way overreacting. I'm not sure that I've ever had a player who would object strongly to a Darth Vader moment. Instead, my expectation would be a responce like this: "Wait a minute... does this mean the second most important person in the galaxy/world/nation/village is may dad!?!? Awesome!!! If I join with him, I gain an enormously powerful ally. And if I don't join with him, I can kill him and take his stuff!" And of course, the thespians are just happy to be able to say, "N0ooooo!! It's can't be!!! That's impossible!!!" in a really angsty way.

And, this is why I see players who come from tables like this who's character backstories are iron clad with no ambiguity.

This isn't possible. In D&D, there is nothing that is 'reliably dead' for example. This is a classic comic book complication. Pa Kent is reliably dead in your backstory, Superman, then who is this guy that looks just like your Dad and claims to be your Dad and why is Pa Kent's grave now empty?

It's because DM's cannot keep their hands off of their player's characters. So, players respond by making sure that their characters have absolutely nothing the DM can leverage.

I've seen that before, usually in players that are power gamers and/or express a preference for sand box style play. I'm an orphan, I was raised by a martial arts master (who I'm estranged from and who is now dead), I have no friends and no enemies. This is a player signalling - "Don't hook me." I'm ok with that, I just tend to find that players who do do that often get jealous of players that don't do that. And besides, it's not like I can't hook those players. They have really simple levers if you want to hook them - money, power, fame, etc. I've had a player of this sort once say something like, "I wrote I was an orphan so that you'd make me the long lost heir to a king or something, but you aren't doing anything with my backstory." I'm like, "Errr.. if you wanted something like that maybe you should have talked about it before hand. Every orphan isn't the lost legitimate heir to a kingdom you know. I'm sorry you feel that the characters that worked out their backstory in great detail are more connected to the world and influential because of that. Your backstory explicitly said you didn't know anyone and know one knows you. I thought you were indicating you wanted to make your own fortune. You are doing that. What's the problem? Do you really want to play out the story of being the king's son, or are you happy becoming king by your own hand like Conan?" As I expected, it was the later.

I have very few absolutes at my table. Very, very few. But, this one is iron clad. I will not, under any circumstance, make any changes to a player's character in any way, shape or form, without clearing with that player first.

I'm largely in agreement with you on this, but I'm not quite so hands off of the empty spaces in the background. If you leave part of your background open, I consider it implicit permission to mess with you at least a little. Just because you don't mention a family, doesn't mean you don't have one. The mess with it value of having the quest giver be your sister and the lost kid being your nephew is in my opinion 'low', especially if the players have already agreed to 'Adventure Path' style play. I'll freely adapt modules so that the NPC's - even the monsters sometimes - are prior friends and relatives. In general, if I think that I might be adding something someone might find really objectional (like deciding that the character has the 'Innsmouth look'), I'll ask, "On a scale of 1 to 10, how much can I mess with you?" without necessarily specifying how I'm planning to do it. If I get a '10' as an answer, don't be surprised if all heck breaks lose in the unexplored spaces. If I get some low value, I'll play it entirely hands off but don't expect then to have interesting connections to the world. Generally people who write long backstories expect them to matter. Those with short backstories don't expect or want this, and I'll stay off them. Over time, I find people decide that they want the treatment the player with the longer backstory is getting, because backstory complexities generally equal both screen time and potential rewards as well as dangers. The stakes are higher, so the rewards are higher too. Even enemies are resources. An enemy is just someone whom you are allowed or expected to kill and take their stuff. Often not having a backstory relegates you in the eyes of society to being the follower of someone else in the party who has one. If you are largely a cypher then you'll tend to remain that unless you are really proactive in making yourself a hero (or villian!) in the eyes of the game world.

 

[sheadunne]

I'm seeing some different uses of relevant in these posts.

1) Relevant to the player's goals
2) Relevant to the DM's plot

I'm seeing both of these uses mix-matched in various posts.

Take the desert discussion for instance. I'm seeing the desert is relevant to the DM's plot and shouldn't be bypassed and I'm seeing the desert is irrelevant to player's goals so it can be bypassed. It seems to me that this is where the conflict is coming from. A misalignment of player goals versus DM plot.

If the player's goal is to reach the city to find the thing in question, then the desert is irrelevant to that goal.
If the DM's plot requires the players interact with nomads in the desert to learn about "x" to further the plot of finding the thing in question, then it's relevant to the plot.

How can these two things be rectified?

I suppose it has to do with how the desert is presented. If the players arrived in the center of the nomad encampment at the end of the plane shift, then they could have immediately received the needed information while not wasting time wandering around the desert. Poof, you appear in the middle of nomad camp. The nomads are sitting around the fire talking about this siege around the city. After the surprise wears off, the players and nomads chat and learn about "x" and how to quickly and efficiently navigate through the desert to reach the city. The players then head off. Then the desert could be a transition scene that doesn't interfere with the DM's plot, nor derailed the players goals. I would find it hard to believe that the players wouldn't interact with the nomads in this situation, since it isn't about wandering around the desert, but instead about social interaction and information gathering.

The DM's plot is affirmed and the players goals are supported.

It might look like this

1) Players are transported to outer plane (transition scene)
2) Players arrive at nomad encampment (Social interaction)
3) Players cross the desert (transition scene)
4) Players arrive at the city under siege (social or action scene)

I don't see any tension between relevance in this layout of events. If instead you added 1a and 3a - players travel the desert (exploration scene) then their might be conflict, since the player goals are about getting to the city to accomplish x.

I'm also seeing that when the players first arrive on the plane, there is no description to interact with. You're in the desert, there's red sand and it smells like sulfur. There's nothing for the players to leverage or additional information to move the scene forward. In those events players usually fall back to goal achievement, which is perfectly understandable. What else do they have to do?

When I run online games, players and myself are required to end any post with either a question (if its a social scene) or an action (but not resolution). Both which lead into the next post. What I wouldn't do is say "You arrive at place x. It's pretty. What do you do?" That doesn't further the game along. The players would sit around going, ummmm, we head towards our destination. If there was something else for them to interact with, I had better present it to them or they'll focus on their goals and miss what I had in mind, regardless of its relevance to the plot or story. If that makes any sense.

Anyway, it's still an interesting discussion and it wouldn't surprise me if it continued for another 1000 posts.

 

[Celebrim]

That said, you run into the danger of a GM saying, "No, that backstory's not possible because it doesn't fit the 'authenticity' of the fiction." But if that's what the player's interested in exploring, the GM should find ways to work with the player to make that possible.

This happens with me a lot. Usually you can rework the backstory slightly to get around these problems. They are also a great oppurtunity to insert, "Your character believes this is what happened. In reality, some details of what your character believes are wrong and may be revealed in play. Are you ok with that?" For example, one of my characters believes his mother was an elvish slave, kidnapped by a cruel man and forced to maintain a sham marriage before dying in childbirth. Anyone that knows anything about elves in my game knows that story is pretty much impossible. So, what detail or details is wrong? The answer depends on whether you said, 1 or 10 to my, "How much can I mess with you?" question. He said 10. Muhahahahahhaa.

Bottom line: it's about GM trust.

Yep.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

To summarize [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION]'s explanation: Don't assume that the player is alright with having their character and/or backstory modified. Lay out the rules at the start so the player and DM can negotiate what might happen based on their intents for the game. If it's going to be more narrativist where the players have to have a backstory that can be changed a bit and looked into, then that needs to be made clear up front. If it's a game where the backstories won't actually may much of a role, then that should probably be made known at the start too lest a player come into the game wanting to have his backstory drive things. And of course there will be a continuum of possibilities between "no backstory interaction" and "backstory drives everything."

As far as whether it's the city or the temple, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s original recollection was that of a city being the goal. That was the hypothetical situation at the time. We can't use the temple in place of the city because they are two different situations.

I think something has to be said about the desert: The desert is one thing, and the encounters within the desert are another. Yes, the city is one thing and the encounters within the city are another, but let's take a look at the context of those.

The desert is hundreds of miles of wasteland and the encounters within the desert are going to reflect that. Because of the distance, encounters might interact with each other but they don't do it too often. None of those encounters are the end goal The city is definitely not as large, but it has far more potential. If getting to the city is the party's goal then they'll be rewarded with plenty of opportunities to play the game. If a certain place within the city is their goal, then that place will almost certainly have some interaction with other parts of the city, and the players can use those interactions to make things more interesting almost immediately.

While it's on my mind, has the potential difference in narrative proximity occurred to anyone? Or it might be a complex combination of narrative, geographical, and temporal (time) differences that make the desert be perceived as different from the city. An encounter in the desert could have an effect on the city, but that effect won't be resolved until the party actually gets to the city. Between the start of the change and its resolution, the characters probably won't get a chance to see the change actually happen; merely that it did happen.

 

[Umbran]

Goodness gracious...

In the course of human events, it is possible to become... invested in not giving up, not allowing another person a last word. As a matter of pride, or not even really thinking about it, folks can stay in entrenched positions despite having no expectation of changing anyone else's mind, nor of having their own mind changed. People continue to state positions, but others don't really listen, but simply rebut. Over and over again, people butt heads, not really exchanging information or learning anything they intend to apply. This can result in endless rehashing of old arguments, and overall lasting hostilities between people.

Now, I don't know if that's happening to anyone in this thread. But, given the length and repetitive nature of the discussion, it might be, so it perhaps pays to check.

I'm here to give folks an anonymous route out of a miasma. If you find yourself stuck, endlessly replying out of pride, simple reflex arc, or dogged tenacity, feel free to PM me. If we get a couple/few such notes from folks active in the thread, we will consider shutting the thread down, breaking the cycle. We won't reveal who made the requests. Everyone can keep their pride intact, and not "lose points" for giving up. Nobody will get knocked with infraction points, or the like - we'll just say the thing has run its useful course, and should be closed.

If, on the other hand, you feel you're actively getting somewhere, like this thread is producing something useful for the participants (as opposed to unknown, potential anonymous phantom readers), just continue on as you are. If we don't get any reports, we'll assume you actually feel this is a good and positive experience, and leave it all be.