Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 6115913" data-attributes="member: 23935">The lack of incident on the trip is in itself not a bad thing unless this type of trip is normally fraught with difficulty.&nbsp; The fast-forward prevented the group from making second guesses and potentially coming into conflict.&nbsp; It also ate a fair portion of time for the trip I would expect and the group has to assume the return will eat at least as much ignoring the time cost for the further exploration and investigation/control of the dig site.The group's triage and prioritization techniques is likely to harm the less forceful players if their goals and player 1's goals remain in conflict.&nbsp; Whether this is a bad thing depends on the group and how you as GM operate.&nbsp; In my case. I allow player choice to be meaningful -- in other words, players choose actions consciously with the understanding that those choices can involve trade off and consequence and those consequences will be allowed to play out.&nbsp; In a environment like my preferred table style, player 3 will likely end up in trouble.&nbsp; That can become be a problem if player 3 doesn't like trouble and player 3 does not understand their choices have consequences OR if player 3 feels unable to stand up to player 1.&nbsp; Player 2 is in a similar boat&nbsp; -- the PC is concerned an important NPC is MIA.&nbsp; This time there isn't time pressure, but there is no indication from the player perspective that it doesn't.&nbsp; Player 1 dominance&nbsp; may be entirely acceptable to the group.&nbsp; It may not be.&nbsp; If it isn't, it is likely to breed disaffection over time.Do you think you did the right thing? Do you plan on enforcing time constraints and consequence of inaction -- either this time or in the future? Does the group have that same expectation?&nbsp; Is the dynamic between the PCs going to be tolerable or will divergent goals drive a wedge?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nagol, post: 6115913, member: 23935"] The lack of incident on the trip is in itself not a bad thing unless this type of trip is normally fraught with difficulty. The fast-forward prevented the group from making second guesses and potentially coming into conflict. It also ate a fair portion of time for the trip I would expect and the group has to assume the return will eat at least as much ignoring the time cost for the further exploration and investigation/control of the dig site. The group's triage and prioritization techniques is likely to harm the less forceful players if their goals and player 1's goals remain in conflict. Whether this is a bad thing depends on the group and how you as GM operate. In my case. I allow player choice to be meaningful -- in other words, players choose actions consciously with the understanding that those choices can involve trade off and consequence and those consequences will be allowed to play out. In a environment like my preferred table style, player 3 will likely end up in trouble. That can become be a problem if player 3 doesn't like trouble and player 3 does not understand their choices have consequences OR if player 3 feels unable to stand up to player 1. Player 2 is in a similar boat -- the PC is concerned an important NPC is MIA. This time there isn't time pressure, but there is no indication from the player perspective that it doesn't. Player 1 dominance may be entirely acceptable to the group. It may not be. If it isn't, it is likely to breed disaffection over time. Do you think you did the right thing? Do you plan on enforcing time constraints and consequence of inaction -- either this time or in the future? Does the group have that same expectation? Is the dynamic between the PCs going to be tolerable or will divergent goals drive a wedge? [/QUOTE]

Verification