You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[pemerton]

So, if there was a cactus that glowed purple and green and smelled like roast mutton in the middle of the desert, we don't mention the players scooting straight by it, because they want to get right to the city. Then the priest in the city needs a ritual plant, so rare and difficult to find, do we now mention "hey, you remember passing one of those on your third day of centipede riding"? Or should the players have been given the option of stopping to investigate, even if all they chose to do was race by?

The player has asked, just once, to entirely pass the desert. They want absolutely nothing to do with it, and that includes "Hey, there was something back there that's useful to an NPC." Introducing the need for the plant in the first place (or keeping it after the request to skip the desert if it was planned in advance) could be thought of as disrespecting the wish of the player to ignore the desert.

What Jackinthegreen says here certainly resonates with me.

If it is already established that we, as a table, are not going to do "desert exploration" as part of this game, at least at this point in time, then why is the GM introducing an NPC whose only role (at least as described) is to send the PCs off to explore the desert. This is precisely the sort of "follow the GM's breacrumbs" play that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] was criticising upthread. (I believe the technical term among MMO players is "fetch quest". This is pretty much the opposite approach to GMing and RPGing from that which Hussar has said that he is interested in.)

What about my "walking down the street to the ice cream shop" thing? Is hearing "the ice cream shop was robbed, and is closed until tomorrow" irrelevant?

I don't see what "chance" has to do with it, when the GM is responsible for framing complications, and can purposefully make something have "ice-cream relevance."

<snip>

I'm saying what if the stuff on the street relates directly to the ice cream that you're heading to? Is that irrelevant? Hussar seems to want to skip this, but would be okay with the ice cream shop being surrounded by a SWAT team. I'm curious what the difference is, relevance-wise.

[MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] tackled this quite a way upthread with his street-and-shop example (in his case I think it was a barber shop rather than an ice cream shop).

And I tried to tackle it too, in my post 989.

As you note, the GM is able to exercise a high degree of control over introducing complications, "relevant" story elements, etc. Given this, why would the GM introduce the city-relevant story element in the desert, given that the players have made it clear they want to get to the city?

As I said in my post 989, this is what I believe [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is getting at when he says that there can't be much of relevance in the desert - what he means is that there is nothing of relevance that must, story-wise, be located in the desert. To restate and amplify this point: you seem to be treating Hussar's use of "can't", as in "There can't be anything relevant in the desert" as expressing the impossibility of something relevant in the desert. But in this context the can't is operating differently: a more formal rendering of Hussar's assertion would be along the lines of "It can't be the case that there is something relevant which of necessity must be in the desert": the thing which is impossible is not that something relevant is in the desert but rather that there is some thing which is (i) relevant and (ii) must be in the desert.

To cash out Hussar's contention with reference to a particular example: it can't be essential to the framing of the city that the PCs first encounter some nomads in the desert, because the GM is quite content with the possibility that the PCs might cut straight to the city via teleport therefore necessitating the city's framing without reference to anything (a fortiori, without reference to any nomads) in the desert. To generalise: given the possibility and permissibility of using teleport to cross the desert, it cannot be essential to framing the city that anything happen in the desert.

Hussar's question then becomes "Why is the GM nevertheless insisting on some desert encounter?" Chaochou put it a little differently, along the lines of "You, the GM, had better know what you're doing here because the players may well just skip past the thing in the street that you are trying to frame as relevant and interesting and head straight to the shop." But the point in both cases is much the same - if the players want to get to the city, and if it is not essential to the framing of the city that anything happen in the desert, why is the GM nevertheless mucking around with the desert?

Is it just not preferable since the players have been talking about the city? And, if so, like I asked Hussar (but didn't get a reply), is this a matter of wording? If the players are talking about the temple and not the city, is a siege out of place (the players are excited about the temple, not the city)?

I'm not 100% what you mean by "a matter of wording", but you are correct that if the players are gunning for the city then framing an encounter in the desert is not preferable. For the reasons chaochou stated in the abstract, and that Hussar is illustrating in the concrete, to do so would run the risk of derailing things, and needlessly sapping energy from the game.

The temple example is the same, though more detail is obviously required. But if it makes sense that you can frame the temple without extensive reference to the city (much as you can frame the city without reference to the desert as anything more than colour), then you might cut straight there, correct.

But there are other considerations, too. If the players are keen to get to the temple because they're anticipating an exciting dungeon there, all the more reason to treat both desert and city with a light touch, and forego the siege. If the players are keen to get to the temple because they're looking forward to the religous and political intrigue that is centred on the temple, then introducing such intrigue at an earlier point in the geographic narrative (eg a siege by religiously hostile forces) might well be giving the players what they want in a way that surprises and engages them, by raising the stakes that they were in any event invested in.

 

[JamesonCourage]

chauchou tackled this quite a way upthread with his street-and-shop example (in his case I think it was a barber shop rather than an ice cream shop).

And I tried to tackle it too, in my post 989.

I obviously had questions about them.

As you note, the GM is able to exercise a high degree of control over introducing complications, "relevant" story elements, etc. Given this, why would the GM introduce the city-relevant story element in the desert, given that the players have made it clear they want to get to the city?

The players also want to have fun, including dealing with complications along the way, etc. etc. etc.

However, I've also asked, twice, if this is a matter of wording. If the players said "I want to get the the temple", and we know the temple is inside the city inside the desert, is the siege inappropriate? More on this below.

As an aside, I get the "if the players say they don't want to deal with it, then why are you dealing with it?" line of reasoning. That makes sense to me. But, my questions remain, because I say "okay, you don't want to deal with it. Why not? This way I can know when framing things later." And I get back information that doesn't make sense to me, yet.

As I said in my post 989, this is what I believe Hussar is getting at when he says that there can't be much of relevance in the desert - what he means is that there is nothing of relevance that must, story-wise, be located in the desert.

I don't understand this. I don't think, story-wise, things must be anywhere, the extremely large majority of the time; the only exceptions are story bits that revolve around places (or things reliant on those specific places). Everything else can be resolved anywhere, though obviously there are different feels, outcomes, properties, etc. in different places.

To restate and amplify this point: you seem to be treating Hussar's use of "can't", as in "There can't be anything relevant in the desert" as expressing the impossibility of something relevant in the desert.

That's quite correct. That's exactly what it sounds like he means, ever since his statement that "since you can just Teleport across the desert, nothing in it can be too terribly relevant." This sounds, to me, like him saying, "well, if you could skip those encounters, and it doesn't matter to the story, then they aren't too terribly relevant, are they? Which means that, of course, nothing can be too terribly relevant in the desert. It's impossible, since skipping them is an option and doesn't do much to you."

But in this context the can't is operating differently: a more formal rendering of Hussar's assertion would be along the lines of "It can't be the case that there is something relevant which of necessity must be in the desert": the thing which is impossible is not that something relevant is in the desert but rather that there is some thing which is (i) relevant and (ii) must be in the desert.

This is true, but it's not at all what I've gotten from the his statements. To that end, Hussar seemed to want to interact with his goal, not the city. He doesn't care about the city (it's only "setting", which he explicitly doesn't care about). The city means nothing to him. If his goal moved out of the city, and his plane-shifting guide divined and found that out, I'm guessing Hussar wouldn't go to the city. Thus, nothing is both "relevant" and "must be in the city", either.

Unless I'm misunderstanding. Correct me if I am.

To cash out Hussar's contention with reference to a particular example: it can't be essential to the framing of the city that the PCs first encounter some nomads in the desert, because the GM is quite content with the possibility that the PCs might cut straight to the city via teleport therefore necessitating the city's framing without reference to anything (a fortiori, without reference to any nomads) in the desert. To generalise: given the possibility and permissibility of using teleport to cross the desert, it cannot be essential to framing the city that anything happen in the desert.

This is closer to what I thought Hussar was expressing, but I still took it as "impossible" and not "essential". The "essential" qualifier is true, but, from what I know of Hussar's goal (as a player) of interacting with his PCs goal (the thing inside the city), then the city isn't essential either. Correct?

Hussar's question then becomes "Why is the GM nevertheless insisting on some desert encounter?"

I think the reasoning would be the same as creating the siege.

Chaochou put it a little differently, along the lines of "You, the GM, had better know what you're doing here because the players may well just skip past the thing in the street that you are trying to frame as relevant and interesting and head straight to the shop."

Which is hard for me to know, since, up to this point, I'm having a hard time knowing what my players want. Their logic, thus far, does not make sense to me.

But the point in both cases is much the same - if the players want to get to the city, and if it is not essential to the framing of the city that anything happen in the desert, why is the GM nevertheless mucking around with the desert?

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: I think you've shifted the player goal to "interact with the city" rather than "have fun with complications while interacting with my PC's goal, which is in the temple." The city, from this point of view, is just a distraction. Putting a siege there seems like just as much a roadblock as the nomad / refugees / mercenary encounter.

I'm not 100% what you mean by "a matter of wording", but you are correct that if the players are gunning for the city then framing an encounter in the desert is not preferable. For the reasons chaochou stated in the abstract, and that Hussar is illustrating in the concrete, to do so would run the risk of derailing things, and needlessly sapping energy from the game.

Okay, this is why I'm still puzzled then. Hussar seems to explicitly want to deal with his goal. His goal has nothing to do with interacting with the city. You can tie the siege to his goal (rather than just the city), but the desert encounter can be tied in the same way. And yet, the desert encounter is unacceptable, but the siege is okay. This is what doesn't line up for me.

The temple example is the same, though more detail is obviously required. But if it makes sense that you can frame the temple without extensive reference to the city (much as you can frame the city without reference to the desert as anything more than colour), then you might cut straight there, correct.

Okay, let me run through this:

GM: You guys landed 110 miles outside the city with the temple in it. The guide knows the way there, but you have to travel through a desert, first.
Players: We go to the city, then, to get to the temple.

Is the desert off-limits, because the players didn't explicitly mention it (even though they know they have to cross the desert)? Is the city off-limits, since they explicitly said they're going to the city to get the temple, and never said they want to interact with it? If, instead, the players had said "we cross the desert to get to the temple", is the siege out, but the refugee encounter in?

Is it just a matter of wording? If the players say "we go to the temple", does that mean that you rule the refugees and siege out? If they say "we go to the city", but the reason why (the temple) isn't explicitly stated, is it okay to throw the siege in, but not the refugees? If they say "we cross the desert", is the refugee encounter okay, even though they're only crossing to get to their goal? In fact, if they say "we cross the desert" or "we head to the city", is a desert / city encounter expected, since they didn't explicitly say anything about the temple? This is what I mean by wording.

But there are other considerations, too. If the players are keen to get to the temple because they're anticipating an exciting dungeon there, all the more reason to treat both desert and city with a light touch, and forego the siege.

To me, this is a form of pacing. This makes sense to me.

If the players are keen to get to the temple because they're looking forward to the religous and political intrigue that is centred on the temple, then introducing such intrigue at an earlier point in the geographic narrative (eg a siege by religiously hostile forces) might well be giving the players what they want in a way that surprises and engages them, by raising the stakes that they were in any event invested in.

This makes sense to me.

What doesn't make sense to me, so far, is the siege being okay, but the desert encounter not being "relevant" while the siege is (either by your reading of Hussar as "essential" or my reading of Hussar as "impossible to be relevant"). This is what I'm struggling with. The rest of the stuff -why force exploration, why force a desert encounter, why make a siege when they are excited to deal with the temple dungeon, why make us deal with weight and water issues, etc.- I totally get. I just don't get the big difference between the refugees and the siege, yet. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

Hussar seemed to want to interact with his goal, not the city. He doesn't care about the city (it's only "setting", which he explicitly doesn't care about).

To the best of my recollection it was the desert, not the city, that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] described as "just setting".

What doesn't make sense to me, so far, is the siege being okay, but the desert encounter not being "relevant" while the siege is

Because [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] wants his PC to do stuff in the city, but not to do stuff in the desert. Why does there have to be anything more to it than that?

And why is the siege OK, given this? Because the siege is a tool that Hussar can leverage to do stuff in the city. The desert not so much, unless he's going to have his PC conjure a sand golem. Now you might think the nomads are something he can leverage - but given how things went when you made Hussar muck around for 90 minutes hiring some mercenaries, do you really think Hussar is into turning a group of nomads into a barbarian horde with which he sacks the city? (Keeeping in mind that, in anything like typical D&D, this is probably an hour or more of play in itself - even in 4e this would almost certainly be a lengthy skill challenge.)

Now if you, as GM, think that Hussar doesn't fully know his own preferences (always a possibility with any human being), and therefore think you can nevertheless catch his attention with nomads in the desert, then go for it, I guess. But if Hussar has his PC ignore them and press on to the city, you can hardly complain that you weren't warned!

 

[Hussar]

While I agree with you, in the context of a campaign (as opposed to a single demarkable 'adventure' within the campaign), I believe it is critical to begin the campaign as a whole with a massive BANG that front loads the conflict as much as possible. After that you can have a breather to allow a slower pace of exploration like you describe, but I've learned over the last 15 years or so that some of my earlier fails in campaigns were precisely due to not putting my big hook earlier enough and spending to much time in exploration/exposition mode during the earliest sessions. My players often felt that my games were very evocative, but didn't immediately realize that something interesting in terms of narrative was going on that they, from thier lower vantage point, couldn't yet see. Since that time I've basically adopted what I call, 'The Sky is Falling' approach to session one where whatever happens in session one needs to be as big and immediately itneresting as the sky literally falling. Have a great worm dragon show up. Have an army invade. Have a massive natural disaster. Have the world blow up. Have the sky fall. Whatever, make it big (at least, big for the scale of the campaign). That way, you show your players right away that the campaign is meant to be big and epic and engage big and epic things, so that when they are doing some more generic exploration for whatever reason they'll be more likely to engage with you even if that isn't their big thing. Not every player needs that, but many do. They'll realize that this small peice isn't just an isolated bit of fluff, but fits somewhere into the grand mosiac of the campaign and that part of what is going on at any time is that the players need to be figuring out how this seemingly unimportant affair fits into the Sky Falling in scene 1. Of course, it's your job for those affairs to actually fit into the or at least a big picture in some interesting way, but basically I've learned that presenting a BANG early is an important way to earn player trust.

Now this? This is solid gold goodness. Can't posrep again, as I've done so recently.

 

[Hussar]

However, while sometimes it seems like pemerton accepts that the nomads / refugees / mercenaries might be relevant (bringing the city to the desert), Hussar seems to outright reject the "Desert" encounter, while accepting the "Siege" encounter. I cannot understand the difference in "relevance" yet. Both have things that the players can proactively interact with, both tie into player and PC goals (fun for players, ties directly to PC goals inside the city).

The difference is that the nomads can be skipped with impunity and it does not affect the outcome in the city whatsoever. If we have teleport, we never meet the nomads, never know about the nomads and never spend a single second on the nomads.

OTOH, the siege cannot be so easily skipped. Even if I teleport into the town square, the siege is still right there. If nothing else, it provides a time pressure on our goals. It affects, or should affect, every single NPC interaction. And it's a giant resource for the players.

Is that clear enough?

 

[Hussar]

The players also want to have fun, including dealing with complications along the way, etc. etc. etc.

Hang on. I've specifically stated that "dealing with complications on the way" is not fun for me. So, you're projecting your play preferences on to me here.

"complications on the way" is specifically the thing I want to avoid.

 

[N'raac]

If it is already established that we, as a table, are not going to do "desert exploration" as part of this game, at least at this point in time, then why is the GM introducing an NPC whose only role (at least as described) is to send the PCs off to explore the desert. This is precisely the sort of "follow the GM's breacrumbs" play that @Hussar was criticising upthread. (I believe the technical term among MMO players is "fetch quest". This is pretty much the opposite approach to GMing and RPGing from that which Hussar has said that he is interested in.)

So why don't we just have the priest refuse to see the players, or not know the ritual they want from him, or add in any of hundreds of reasons that the players' goals in the city are not met? "Don't waste my time with the desert, I want to be in the city", followed by "don't waste my time with the city, I want to be at the temple", followed by "quit wasting precious game time with these functionaries - I want to talk to the High Priest immediately", ending with "what do you mean, he does not immediately provide what I want? We came all this way for that ritual and I want it right now". Assuming we don't think that "We cross the desert to get to the city where we visit the temple to meet the high priest who casts the ritual", resolve by "OK, you are at the temple in the city and the ritual is complete" constitutes a great game, where do we introduce the complications?

This seems to be JamesonCourage's question - where is this bright line that demarcatesw "unacceptable contrivance making desert encounter tie to our goals" and "intriguing complication that is closer to the city"?

As you note, the GM is able to exercise a high degree of control over introducing complications, "relevant" story elements, etc. Given this, why would the GM introduce the city-relevant story element in the desert, given that the players have made it clear they want to get to the city?

Again, you are changing the goal. At no time I can see has the goal been "get to the city". It is "accomplish nebulous, unrevealed-by-player, goal in the city". The city is no more integral to the goal than the desert is - it is simply the place where the goal can, or the player believes can, be achieved. It need not be this city - it could be any city where the goal is located. If it's this priest to cast a ritual, we can move him anywhere - he can be on an island temple in the middle of the sea, halfway up a mountain in a cave or living life as a hermit in the desert. So why is a city encounter that gets between the players and their objective "clearly and obviously" more relevant than a desert encounter that gets between the players and their objective?

To cash out Hussar's contention with reference to a particular example: it can't be essential to the framing of the city that the PCs first encounter some nomads in the desert, because the GM is quite content with the possibility that the PCs might cut straight to the city via teleport therefore necessitating the city's framing without reference to anything (a fortiori, without reference to any nomads) in the desert. To generalise: given the possibility and permissibility of using teleport to cross the desert, it cannot be essential to framing the city that anything happen in the desert.

Assuming the players have access to that Teleport, then the GM would need to ensure that its use to cross the desert does not prevent any relevant/essential desert elements which are essential to framing the city being lost. However, it does not seem like Hussar (or any other group assumed by the AP) could simply teleport to the desired location. As the desired resource was not available to them, there was no need to plan around it being used. If whatever they wanted from the city was instead lying on the ground when they arrived, their objective would immediately be accomplished, and the desert, city and whatever is in the city rendered irrelevant. Now everyone should be happy as nothing has frustrated them getting immediately to the one thing they considered relevant.

Hussar's question then becomes "Why is the GM nevertheless insisting on some desert encounter?" Chaochou put it a little differently, along the lines of "You, the GM, had better know what you're doing here because the players may well just skip past the thing in the street that you are trying to frame as relevant and interesting and head straight to the shop." But the point in both cases is much the same - if the players want to get to the city, and if it is not essential to the framing of the city that anything happen in the desert, why is the GM nevertheless mucking around with the desert?

If the players have a specific goal in mind, then nothing other than that specific goal is essential. Zap them to their goal and have it immediately achieved. If they had an infinite number of Wishes, they could probably accomplish their goal with no other encounter being relevant, so should we design the game around the elimination of any complication those infinite wishes could avoid? Or should we set complications that are challenging, but achievable, in light of the actual resources they do have? Which, I note again, does not include any means of teleporting directly to the city and avoiding the desert crossing.

Because @Hussar wants his PC to do stuff in the city, but not to do stuff in the desert. Why does there have to be anything more to it than that?

Because the GM has to prepare for the game, he needs to know what is, and is not, of interest. Neither JamesonCourage (I believe) nor I can fathom why a city-relevant encounter in the desert is so markedly different from a city-relevant encounter at the city gates, or anywhere else.

And why is the siege OK, given this? Because the siege is a tool that Hussar can leverage to do stuff in the city.

Coming back to those slaad or ants, the utility of the siege is just as GM determined as the utility of the encounters in the desert.

The desert not so much, unless he's going to have his PC conjure a sand golem. Now you might think the nomads are something he can leverage - but given how things went when you made Hussar muck around for 90 minutes hiring some mercenaries, do you really think Hussar is into turning a group of nomads into a barbarian horde with which he sacks the city? (Keeeping in mind that, in anything like typical D&D, this is probably an hour or more of play in itself - even in 4e this would almost certainly be a lengthy skill challenge.)

So we don't trust the GM to make negotiations and interactions with the nomads relevant, engaging and/or entertaining, but we do trust him to make negotiations and interactions with the besiegers relevant, engaging and/or entertaining. Why? How did the change from "nomads" to "besiegers" cause the GM's skill and ability (or just willingness to provide a good game) to leap so markedly? Maybe this is just the difference between firing the nomads up to lay a siege to finding the same nomads already engaged in that siege. Still not seeing that bright line difference.

Hang on. I've specifically stated that "dealing with complications on the way" is not fun for me. So, you're projecting your play preferences on to me here.

"complications on the way" is specifically the thing I want to avoid.

What we, or at least I, cannot fathom is how a complication preventing you from entering the city, or otherwise delaying you doing whatever you came to do in the city, is any less a "complication on the way" than one which delays your arrival at the city.

 

[pemerton]

So why don't we just have the priest refuse to see the players, or not know the ritual they want from him, or add in any of hundreds of reasons that the players' goals in the city are not met? "Don't waste my time with the desert, I want to be in the city", followed by "don't waste my time with the city, I want to be at the temple", followed by "quit wasting precious game time with these functionaries - I want to talk to the High Priest immediately", ending with "what do you mean, he does not immediately provide what I want? We came all this way for that ritual and I want it right now". Assuming we don't think that "We cross the desert to get to the city where we visit the temple to meet the high priest who casts the ritual", resolve by "OK, you are at the temple in the city and the ritual is complete" constitutes a great game, where do we introduce the complications?

This has been answered - the place to introduce complications is in the city, at the point at which they interact directly with the players' immediate goal, and provide both threat and oppportunity.

If the players have a specific goal in mind, then nothing other than that specific goal is essential. Zap them to their goal and have it immediately achieved.

Well, yes, we could just declare the campaign resolved and all go home, or go out to the movies. But presumably the players want to play an RPG - just not one that involves exploring a desert.

This seems to be JamesonCourage's question - where is this bright line that demarcatesw "unacceptable contrivance making desert encounter tie to our goals" and "intriguing complication that is closer to the city"?

The answer lies in the players' evinced preferences. If the players have made it clear they want to get to the city, and if there is nothing about the city that makes it hard to make things interesting there, and if there is nothing about the desert that is essential to framing the city, then why would the GM nevertheless insist on trying to run encounters in the desert? What is the GM trying to achieve, or to prove, by doing that? That s/he can entertain Hussar in spite of himself? Fine, go for it, but don't complain if it backfires!

So we don't trust the GM to make negotiations and interactions with the nomads relevant, engaging and/or entertaining, but we do trust him to make negotiations and interactions with the besiegers relevant, engaging and/or entertaining. Why?

You keep coming back to the role of the GM in making things entertaining. Whereas that is not what we're talking about. The siege could be narrated in the dullest way imaginable, but it is still there, in the fiction, waiting for the players to leverage it. The GM doesn't need to make it engaging - it is engaging in virtue of being a tool that the players can directly leverage in pursuit of their goal.

To put it another way, the players don't need the GM to make it entertaining. They can create their own entertainment out of it. All the GM has to do is not actively rain on their parade.

Again, you are changing the goal. At no time I can see has the goal been "get to the city". It is "accomplish nebulous, unrevealed-by-player, goal in the city". The city is no more integral to the goal than the desert is - it is simply the place where the goal can, or the player believes can, be achieved.

You say this as if it is nothing. The city is the setting wherein the goal is located. The players are committed to doing something in the city, presumably (given Hussar's evident enthusiasm for the siege) something that involves interacting with the city, treating the city as both chalenge and resource.

It need not be this city - it could be any city where the goal is located.

How do you know? This is like your characterisation upthread of the goal as a McGuffin? How do you know?

But even if the city is just a plot device, it is still a city - an urban location that is, by definition, replete with NPCs, and all the opportunities for good and bad things that NPCs bring with them. It's very different from a deset. Apart from anything else, it creates much richer fictional positioning for the PCs, and hence much richer opportunities for the players.

Because the GM has to prepare for the game, he needs to know what is, and is not, of interest.

There are a range of different approaches to prep. For my own part, I can't remember the last time I had trouble knowing what would engage my players. If they're not interested in deserts, they tend to make that pretty clear.

 

[pemerton]

What we, or at least I, cannot fathom is how a complication preventing you from entering the city, or otherwise delaying you doing whatever you came to do in the city, is any less a "complication on the way" than one which delays your arrival at the city.

The siege doesn't prevent you entering the city - it simply changes the character of that entry. Nor need it, in real play time at the table, delay you doing what you came to do in the city: it may even expedite that, if the players use it cleverly. And even if it does make it take longer, in real play time, to achieve the goal, all that play time will have been spent aiming directly at the goal (including perhaps by taking advantage of the siege). Which is, more-or-less, what RPGing is about - spending real time at the table engaging in realising one's PC's goals.

 

[Aenghus]

For myself, one of the requirements to facilitate proactive players is to allow them (the opportunity) to have sufficient information to make informed choices most of the time.

Given no foreshadowing, no information to the players at all about the desert, it seems reasonable to me that one or more players ask to skip it. Either the encounters in the desert are all random filler for versimilitude, or there's one or more set encounters with plot relevance that the players and PCs have every reason to try and avoid based on the information they have at the time. Forcing an encounter on unwilling players who want to avoid it is probably railroading, making this encounter integral to the plot threatens to send the message "stop being proactive and follow the linear plot".

A desert is an excellent place for players to test how linear a game actually is despite the protestations of the referee. A desert or wasteland is an empty place generally with lots of routes through, and limited ambush sites. The players should be able to avoid at least some encounters if they are focussed on the destination, not the journey. If they can't, maybe the game is more linear than proactive. Proactive players hate bait and switches such as this. If the game is about the desert, tell the players beforehand that the game is about the desert, don't try and trick them.

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.