You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[N'raac]

But, what if one player in the group wants to play out that toil? Perhaps he's playing some sort of religious type and wants to play out the penance of his character. I dunno. But, for whatever reason, Bob wants to play out that toil.

My geneal bias is to ask the group if it is OK to fast forwar before I, as the GM, do so. "Is it OK if we move forward to the next day?", for example, or "Is there anything else anyone wants to do in town?" Just as I would not allow a blanket "one no means skip it", I would not adopt a blanket "one yes means play it out". I would be more inclined to ask Bob's plans for playing this out, or what, specifically, he is actually wanting to play out. Presumably, Bob expects something of interest to happen which I have not considered. Could Bob's wish to play this out be overridden by the group as a whole? Sure.

What if the DM wants to introduce NPC's to the party during that toil? What if there are interesting encounters in that toil?

I return to my earlier statements about the desert. If, indeed, nothing of any note is goint to happen crossing the desert (or during the toil), then narrate it away. If the players want to, say, attempt to escape the toil, then they are deciding on actions taken by their characters, and that should generally be accepted.

I find all your questions do is highlight the fact that nothing is "always" and unilaterally assuming we should just skip a scene is seldom, if ever, appropriate.

Why is it okay for you to skip the toil, but, not the desert? What's the difference between the toil and the desert? After all, both are about equally relevant to the city.

Agreed - the group as a whole should decide whether we can skip the toil or the desert; no one player should be able to make that decision unilaterally. YAY - You win!

See, for me, I'd skip both, because in both cases, there is zero player buy in for either. But, why would you play through one and not the other?

See, I would skip both if there is both zero player interest and zero GM knowledge of anything relevant within. But we are back to me neither needing nor wanting a roadmap of the campaign events laid out before me as a player. I don't want that "management by committee" railroad either.

 

[pemerton]

So, if your goal as a player was "pursue my character's goal, with few/no interruptions" then it's pretty much the same as your character's goal. As far as I can tell, at least.

Everything being equal, the PCs want a quiet life with no headaches.

The players, though, want their PCs to encounter headaches, because that's what makes for a fun game.

The key to the sort of GMing that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I are describing is identifying headaches (challenges, complications, . . .) that have player buy in, in virtue of their "story proximity" to known player goals.

I tried to make the nomad encounter obviously relevant to PC goals (based on the idea that you were interested in furthering your PC goals). That's why I gave the example of nomads potentially escorting city folk (refugees) some of whom might be wearing the symbol of the religion you're heading to, and then have the city folk shout to you. The mercenaries / nomads were there to give the players something to leverage, in addition to the refugees.

As I've said multiple times upthread, if you think you can pull this off, more strength to your arm. To me, it seems like an attempt at cleverness with little underlying rationale.

The siege is easy to narrate, it's connection to the city is plain, it's existence in the fiction as a possible point of engagement for and leverage by the players unequivocal.

The refugees and nomads, on the other hand, almost certainly require more narration from the GM to establish their place in the fiction and the stakes (are they liberators? captors? etc), and more investigation by the PCs (ie reactive play, seeking more backstory from the GM, rather than active play actually engaging and transforming the situation). If the players (and their PCs) already knew about the siege, and about nomads helping the refugees, it might be different - but that was not the case in the episode of play that Hussar described. If one of the PCs was an Unearthed Arcana-style barbarian with a class ability to leverage wild hordes, things might be different too - but there's been no indication from Hussar that that was the case in his group.

their geographical location is different

This is mostly a red herring. It's about fictional positioning, not geography. The fictional positioning of the siege in relation to the city, and the players goals, becomes clear from the moment the GM decribes it. For the nomads and the refugees, this is not the case (for the reasons I've just given).

 

[JamesonCourage]

Everything being equal, the PCs want a quiet life with no headaches.

I do not -even for a second- agree with this generalization. My current game has one PC who gets bonuses when risking his life, and the PC often goes out of his way to get into trouble, or slowly escalate situations. He's a gambler, he's in debt, and he likes taking acrobatic and combat risks. This is a character that, if he had his choice, would not want a quiet life. He wants those headaches; they're essential to his "go out and experience life" quest (which is essential to this character's take on religion).

The players, though, want their PCs to encounter headaches, because that's what makes for a fun game.

I largely agree with this.

The key to the sort of GMing that Hussar and I are describing...

I'm interested in hearing your take. But, no offense, I'd rather not hear your take for Hussar. I think that might be contributing to my miscommunication with Hussar, and since I said I didn't want to talk about "relevance" anymore in the thread, I'm only breaking that rule because something Hussar said helped me, and it seemingly contradicted what you've told me. So, again, no offense, but I'm interested in Hussar's thoughts on this. Thanks for understanding.

With that, thanks for the reply, and I hope someone else makes use of it. (Continue to feel free to reply to me, still, if you think it helps discussion in the thread, but I probably won't reply to anything that has to do with "interest" or "relevance" or "player buy-in" or the like, in general.) As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

I do not -even for a second- agree with this generalization. My current game has one PC who gets bonuses when risking his life, and the PC often goes out of his way to get into trouble, or slowly escalate situations. He's a gambler, he's in debt, and he likes taking acrobatic and combat risks. This is a character that, if he had his choice, would not want a quiet life. He wants those headaches; they're essential to his "go out and experience life" quest (which is essential to this character's take on religion).

That would be an instance of "everything not being equal".

 

[JamesonCourage]

That would be an instance of "everything not being equal".

Oh. I guess I didn't see this any different than "things are this way, unless they aren't." Which is true, I suppose. But, when it's not true, it dampens the impact of your next point. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

So, if you were to enter the city without issue (no siege or nomads), would you say that the next best place for an encounter might be at the temple? If so, then I think that this "buy-in" is very strongly tied to geographical location, but if so, it makes so much more sense to me. Thanks, in advance, for answering. As always, play what you like

It could be. Depends on the situation of course. In this case, yeah, I think that geography certainly plays a role.

I mean, if the PC's arrive at the city and learn there is a siege at another city, then, pretty obviously, the players have no buy in at all with that siege and expecting them to just drop what they're doing to go investigate this other siege would have me grinding my teeth as a player.

The goal is in the city, so, there is already some buy in right there about the city. If the temple wasn't in this city, but was in the next city, then, yeah, I'd likely want to skip this city, even if it had a siege, because it isn't really tied at all to the party goals.

But, geography isn't quite as important as all that. Let's take the example of the desert but, we'll add to it. The NPC that is going to send us across the planes to the city gives us a choice. He can either plane shift us, but, we'll have to cross the wastelands on our own, or he can plane shift us and give us a teleport scroll (or some other means to get directly to the goal) but we have to toil in Gehenna in his mines for three months first to pay off the scroll.

Now, the scenario is significantly different. The players ask a bunch of questions and figure out which option they want to do. Once they choose that option, they have likely bought into it to a fair degree. If they choose the desert, then spend some time stocking up on water and whatnot, then they have buy in for traveling in the desert. If they choose the mines, then they can ask what they will be doing in the mines, figure things out and do it.

In either case, they aren't simply plopping down in a situation with no buy in at all. And, at that point, if the group decides to go through the desert, and I, after arriving at the desert say, "Meh, skip it." then I am probably being a jerk. The DM and the group has bought into a certain scenario, and, at that point, I'm pretty unlikely to just say, "skip it". Whichever the scenario is.

So, geography can play a big part, but, it's much more about buy in. The original desert scenario, like the Grell scenario featured GM framed scenarios where there was no buy in from the players. They were just bombed in and the players are expected to play through them. I totally understand that there are groups that work this way. It's not for me though.

 

[Hussar]

See, I would skip both if there is both zero player interest and zero GM knowledge of anything relevant within. But we are back to me neither needing nor wanting a roadmap of the campaign events laid out before me as a player. I don't want that "management by committee" railroad either.

Whereas, to me, interest has nothing to do with it. It's not about the scenarios being interesting or not. It's about having buy in from the players beforehand. Or, to put it another way, the only way a scenario will be interesting, for me, is if it has buy in.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It could be. Depends on the situation of course. In this case, yeah, I think that geography certainly plays a role. [SNIP]

I think I get all of this now. If, in your example, the players chose to skip Gehenna and traverse the desert, then the next step of the player goal is "cross the desert", as it is the next obstacle. Thus, an obstacle in the desert is okay (player buy-in and geography directly relate to the next step). I think I get it, now. Thanks, again, for the civil discussion, and talking it out with me. As always, play what you like

 

[Balesir]

I think I get all of this now. If, in your example, the players chose to skip Gehenna and traverse the desert, then the next step of the player goal is "cross the desert", as it is the next obstacle. Thus, an obstacle in the desert is okay (player buy-in and geography directly relate to the next step). I think I get it, now. Thanks, again, for the civil discussion, and talking it out with me. As always, play what you like

I haven't read all of this humungous thread (sorry), but from the last few pages, if you want more insight into this sort of thing there is a book I can recommend. It's called "Story", is by Robert McKee and relates most obviously to scriptwriting, but it contains an account of how a story is built that I find useful for roleplaying games, regardless. It distils down roughly like this:

Take a character - any character - and give them a goal. More than a goal, really - a "dramatic need". It could be anything - we have generated pretty good stories starting with the need "have a cigarette".

The character - if they are rational - will start out acting to meet their need by the simplest and most straightforward route possible (e.g. look in her handbag for a packet of cigs). The storyteller just needs to make fulfilment by this means impossible (all she finds is an empty packet). Then the character will try the next simplest way to fulfill their need (she checks the cupboards). Make that one unsuccessful, too (in the sense that there are no cigarettes there, not that the character fails to check the cupboard - although having it sealed shut might be fun, too!). Keep doing this until either the character fulfills the need or a Story (capital 'S') happens (the character goes to the corner shop, finds it shut despite it being after lunch, checks round the back to find the back door open and the shopkeeper lying dead in the storeroom...).

In an RPG sense this consists of the characters being given a dramatic need (this is the players' job) and there being reasons why the ways they try to sate that need won't work (this is the GM's job). Eventually, either the PCs get what they need or Story happens.

Relating this to the nomads mentioned earlier: I wouldn't expect the players/characters to be interested in the nomads - the nomads don't represent the most simple and straightforward way to get what they need. But make it so that, for some reason, getting in past the siege is beyond the characters' powers (maybe they were relying on simply flying in, but it turns out the besiegers have lots of ridden wyverns circling the city) - NOW they might well want to go looking for those nomad guys, because maybe they have some other way to break through the siege!

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION], welcome to the thread!