Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 6115884" data-attributes="member: 23935">Was it a mistake to handle it this way?&nbsp; That's impossible for us to say.&nbsp; There is no objectively correct way to handle this form of transition – just what the table expects and what suits the table dynamic.Part of the table dynamic is based on the rules engine and the base expectations it drives.&nbsp; Savage Worlds is different from many editions of D&amp;D in that random encounters aren't part of the base expectation.Part of the table dynamic is based on player interaction.&nbsp;&nbsp; It appears you're trying for a united party.&nbsp; To that end introducing multiple potentially time sensitive goals in diverse regions places the party in conflict with itself.&nbsp; This can be a complicating factor and can be a mistake at some tables.&nbsp; At other tables, its not an issue because the players have confidence the situations faced will either prove linked or the situations will not resolve themselves in unpleasant manners in the absence of the PCs. Should you have used the trip to introduce complications that would engage the other players?&nbsp; Again that depends.&nbsp; Do the other players appear disaffected or need further engagement?&nbsp; Will further complications overwhelm the players' ability to track what is going on and what is important?&nbsp; Would the complications work to speed or retard the resolution of the ongoing plot?&nbsp; Would a further complication work to heighten party conflict by adding delay for investigation/side trek?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nagol, post: 6115884, member: 23935"] Was it a mistake to handle it this way? That's impossible for us to say. There is no objectively correct way to handle this form of transition – just what the table expects and what suits the table dynamic. Part of the table dynamic is based on the rules engine and the base expectations it drives. Savage Worlds is different from many editions of D&D in that random encounters aren't part of the base expectation. Part of the table dynamic is based on player interaction. It appears you're trying for a united party. To that end introducing multiple potentially time sensitive goals in diverse regions places the party in conflict with itself. This can be a complicating factor and can be a mistake at some tables. At other tables, its not an issue because the players have confidence the situations faced will either prove linked or the situations will not resolve themselves in unpleasant manners in the absence of the PCs. Should you have used the trip to introduce complications that would engage the other players? Again that depends. Do the other players appear disaffected or need further engagement? Will further complications overwhelm the players' ability to track what is going on and what is important? Would the complications work to speed or retard the resolution of the ongoing plot? Would a further complication work to heighten party conflict by adding delay for investigation/side trek? [/QUOTE]

Verification