You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Jackinthegreen]

Why is the desert seen as something similar to the siege by one side, but as something almost completely different to another?

The differences are in geography, narrative, and in-game time with regards to the party's goals. Some similarities, as best I can tell, are that they're both still seen as ways to potentially make things interesting for the game. If it can affect the way the players get to their goal then it's similar and put in the same bag. I know Hussar sees quite a difference in them, and I personally do too.

Perhaps a bridge analogy? If you come up to a sign that says "bridge out" and it's totally collapsed then you're going to react differently to it from seeing some policemen there who look like they're wrapping things up. And you'll further react differently to it if Godzilla is tearing up the place.

Sure, all of these things prevent getting across the bridge, but they're also very different scenarios. One is "nuts, I need to find another bridge," the second is "I might find another bridge, but these guys might finish and I can get across before I find another bridge," and of course Godzilla means "oh hell no, I'm not going there." And of course these are examples and there are still numerous other ways of reacting.

How the scenes are interacted with matter. One interacts very differently with a desert than a siege because they are inherently different things regardless of the fact that they are both "in the way of the goal."

 

[JamesonCourage]

Not quite. I have no interest in playing out a scene which has no player buy in before the scene. In other words, no investment in the scene. I don't have to express interest in a scene beforehand. However, that scene better include elements of investment and that better be pretty obvious up front, if you want me to engage in the scene.

This makes more sense to me (the rest of the post doesn't help me, really). It still leaves me with questions, but it's so much more clear than our "relevant" discussion ever was. Thanks for continuing the discussion; I appreciate it.

Though, this makes me doubt that @pemerton was correct when he told me that geographical distance to the goal didn't matter ("The proximity that matters is not geographic proximity, but "story" proximity" -post 906, page 91). It seems like it matters quite a bit:

• Jackinthegreen just said "The differences are in geography" (post 1,181, page 119).
• Manbearcat said "Both, might be interesting and fun and per chance there may be "ice-cream relevance" that manifests at some point (such as the ice-cream truck song playing on the horizon and the truck coming over a bend). However, neither are * spatially or ** temporally associated" (post 995, page 100).
• In post 1,010 (page 101), @Aenghus said "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", placing some amount of importance on the geographical location of the city, which pemerton went on to agree with "Everything in your posts makes sense to me. Particularly the bit that I've quoted" (post 1,027, page 103), which is literally the same length of quote from Aenghus that I quoted here.

All of that pointed to geography making a difference, but I assumed that it didn't when that's what pemerton told me. (This is part of the reason why I have been hesitant to agree with pemerton when he says he understands what Hussar wants; there have been things that aren't lining up, and this might be a big one.) That is, Hussar, if we only take your "buy-in" as "head to the city" (and nothing inside, since you haven't cooperated in that part of the hypothetical), it looks something like this: in the desert encounter, there is no city; in the siege encounter, there is the city. Thus, the siege is fine, since we've bought into interacting with the city.

Still, it makes me wonder if wording has to do with this, or if your view on the siege changes if you don't want to interact with the city, but with something inside the city (like a priest in a temple in the city in the desert). But, overall, a lot more clear, in my mind, I think. Thanks again. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

One of the biggest indicator of a railroad, IMO, is that there is only one way to accmplish a goal. If there are multiple ways to accomplish a goal, any single means of accomplishing the goal can be skipped with impunity, as the goal can still be acheived.

For me, the marker of a railroad is that the complications/encounters/challenges that the PCs will confront are invariant with respect to player choices.

The strongest version of this, I think, is a game in which the villain, the places that will be visited, the events that will occur, etc are all mapped out in advance.

Within this context, multiple ways to achieve a goal is for me pretty minor - for instance, if the door can be circumvented either by using the right key, or performing the right opening ritual, that won't stop the game being a railroad by my criteria if the players have no practical option in play other than to pass through the door.

Conversely, if the players decide to woo Vecna, and the only way to do that is to kill Kas, that is not necessarily a railroad. (It may be. But knowing only what I've said, I don't think we can tell.) For instance, the players may be able to proceed by a path other than wooing Vecna. Perhaps they kill him instead, and thereby woo Kas.

we could completely ignore the social encounters of the besieging force's leadership

What encounter with the besiegers' leadership? Hussar and I have both talked about the players initiating contact by the PCs with the leaders of the siege. But within that context, "skipping" or "ignoring" the encounter is meaningless. There isn't an encounter unless the players intitiate one.

whether BobPC is targeted by the cult for reasons unknown to any of the players, whether only Bob knows why, or whether everyone knows why, the PC's have a vested interest in dealing with this cult which is trying to harm one or more of their teammates.

You are talking about the PCs. Hussar and I are talking about the players.

I mean, the GM could frame a scene in which the PCs face some crisis and the only solution is for them to all toil in the slavepits of Gehenna for the rest of eternity. From the PCs' point of view, the PCs would of course have an interest in the slavepits and in toil. But I suspect many players would classifiy this as a crappy scenario, and have little enthusiasm for playing it out.

Hussar and I are applying the same principle, but more forcefully - whether it's worth playing out isn't just a function of how entertaining the GM makes it, but how much it expresses or is related to the players' goals for the campaign and for their PCs.

you take irrelevant in an in-game meaning. Which has always been the breakdown in communication here. I mean irrelevant to the players Nothing in your example is irrelevant to the players because all three options are available to the players. They can choose one of the three options, but, they also have to decide which option to choose, which means, at the very least, they have to interact somewhat with all three options.

The desert has zero buy in from the players. The only reason they have to cross the desert is geography. The goal is inside the desert. But, the desert itself is irrelevant to the players because there is no buy-in from the players.

Does that make sense?

Yes.

The tendency to reshape issues of player buy in, investment, interest etc by reference to the PCs' interests is an obstacle to clear communication.

Also the tendency to reframe things in terms of GM power rather than player activity - eg the idea of a predetermined encounter with the siege, whereas as you point out the whole difference of the siege from the desert is that the players can choose how to engage it in a way that serves their city-related goal.

I don't tailor my games to the group. Never have. I run a much more sandboxy campaign where I create encounters and scenarios based on the player's stated goals and motivations. The capabilities of their characters are largely unimportant except in the broadest sense - no bombing dragons on 1st level parties because that wouldn't be fun. But specific abilities? Nope, I don't plan that way.

Likewise, I tend to find out what my players' PCs can do when they show it off in play.

You have spent over 100 pages of this thread telling us we should tailor the game to the group. But you don’t consider their capabilities, only their backgrounds and personalities. So if a character or two never get a chance to shine, who cares?

This is why I run a system (4e, in my case, but it's not the only example) where the players' ability to have their PCs shine isn't up to the GM tailoring ingame challenges to suit them - partly because competence is broad and driven by players in how they engage particular encounters, and partly because PC competence reflects and expresses the goals and motivations to which I am responding as GM.

this makes me doubt that pemerton was correct when he told me that geographical distance to the goal didn't matter ("The proximity that matters is not geographic proximity, but "story" proximity" -post 906, page 91). It seems like it matters quite a bit

Only because in all these discussion geographic proximity and story proximity correlate. How might they not? If the PCs Plane Shift into the desert, and see a city official waiting expectantly for their arrival.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Only because in all these discussion geographic proximity and story proximity correlate. How might they not? If the PCs Plane Shift into the desert, and see a city official waiting expectantly for their arrival.

Well, in your quote, you mentioned the refugees being acceptable; Hussar disagrees. "Relevance" to the story (what the players bought into) doesn't seem like enough off in its own; it also seems to be the location. I think this has to due to geographical proximity, as expressed by other posters. As always, play what you like

 

[N'raac]

For me, the marker of a railroad is that the complications/encounters/challenges that the PCs will confront are invariant with respect to player choices.

Like "Kas will show up eventually because I want him to show up"? I guess my question is the required degree of player buyin. I see nothing wrong with the GM introducing Kas as an NPC villain - let's see where it takes us. I don't think the players first need to request that Kas show up, or even give the GM permission to have Kas show up. He shows up. We play out the encounter and see where it takes us.

I would see it as problematic if the GM tries to force combat with Kas, or negotiation with Kas, or fleeing from Kas, or allying with Kas, or what have you, as "the only choice to resolve the encounter". Maybe all of these are not viable (Kas is beyond their capabilities to defeat in combat, or he is diamerically opposed to their goals so alliance is impossible), but the players should have choices on how to deal with the encounter (beyond "hit him with a sword or an axe").

And I would see it as problematic if the players resolve matters with Kas, and the GM tosses him back in, over and over, despite the plaers clearly being done with "all that is Kas". Or, for that matter, having Kas unexpectedly disappear when the PC's go looking for their old ally, Kas, or old enemy, Kas, in game.

The strongest version of this, I think, is a game in which the villain, the places that will be visited, the events that will occur, etc are all mapped out in advance.

I have no problem with AP play, so I'm probably not as opposed to this as you are, but it comes down to social contract. And maybe we get part way through that AP and decide it's just not great, so let's move the game down another path.

You are talking about the PCs. Hussar and I are talking about the players.

I don't disagree that there is a degree of difference there, but I also believe the players should be invested in their characters. Again, however, I dont see the GM requiring player permission to have an unknown enemy take action against the PC's, and I would expect the PC's to react in character in an effort to deal with this threat.

I mean, the GM could frame a scene in which the PCs face some crisis and the only solution is for them to all toil in the slavepits of Gehenna for the rest of eternity. From the PCs' point of view, the PCs would of course have an interest in the slavepits and in toil. But I suspect many players would classifiy this as a crappy scenario, and have little enthusiasm for playing it out.

Now we've moved beyond "relevance", though. For me, I would MUCH rather have a game session surrounding the trip through the desert (even if it is chock full of irrelevant, but entertaining, encounters) than a game session where we play out toil in the slavepits of Gehenna as payment for a teleport spell directly into the city, despite that immediate city relevancy. But that's me - I was OK with "the desert is between you and the city, so you must cross it if you wish to get to the city", just as I would be OK with "Kas insists that your killing of Vecna is a prerequisite to sealing your alliance with him". I'm not OK with a boring game (relevant or irrelevant though those boring encounters may be). And I would find a series of combat encounters with no storyline, purpose, etc. boring, so there's a relevancy aspect to making the game "not boring".

The tendency to reshape issues of player buy in, investment, interest etc by reference to the PCs' interests is an obstacle to clear communication.

Why would you play PC's whose interests are utterly opposed to the interests of the players? I might run a "reluctant rebel" in that Star Wars campaign, but I would not run a conscientious objector who will refuse to get involved. I might run a character who does not want to get involved, but has other aspects that mean he will nonetheless get involved, and I think the onus is on me to create a character who logically WILL get involved.

 

[Warbringer]

Wow ...

This is what it looks like when a deaf man and a blind man have an argument.

 

[pemerton]

Like "Kas will show up eventually because I want him to show up"?

That's not a description of an encounter. It's a description of a story element. Once a player starts having his/her PC flirt with Vecna-worship, that Kas will turn up as a story element is close to guaranteed, isn't it? But an encounter is not a story element. It's a situation - a challenge with stakes.

Even in the Kas encounter I described, the PCs entered the encounter as Kas's enemies and left it as his allies. That's a non-railroad, by my lights.

 

[Hussar]

This makes more sense to me (the rest of the post doesn't help me, really). It still leaves me with questions, but it's so much more clear than our "relevant" discussion ever was. Thanks for continuing the discussion; I appreciate it.
/snip for brevity

Yeah, I've come to the realization that a large part of this was a mistake on my part using the word "relevant". For me, I meant relevant in the sense that it was relevant to the players, not particularly the characters. After all, it is totally true that the kidnapped prisoner in the bandit nomad camp is relevant to the characters.

However, there is no buy in from the players because they cannot know about the kidnapped prisoner until after they interact with the nomads, and they have no buy in at all for interacting with the nomads.

Go back to all my posts and cut relevant and replace with "buy in from the players".

Perhaps a clearer example comes from the grell example and the wanted criminal hireling. The players have buy in to go back to the grell - they've flat out stated that. They have no buy in for the criminal hireling complication and, in fact, that complication actually serves to interfere with what they really are bought into. The players have no real reason for exploring this complication and no interest beforehand in doing so.

But, the DM is not giving them any choice in the matter. The hireling is a wanted criminal. It's very unlikely the Players will discover this on their own - after all, why would they even really think of it? They're just hiring 6 Warrior 1's, it's 2sp/day according to the DMG. They offer 10 gp to each hireling, 5 now, 5 when we finish and that's about the end of it.

There's a reason we don't have lengthy character interaction with red shirts.

 

[Hussar]

Now we've moved beyond "relevance", though. For me, I would MUCH rather have a game session surrounding the trip through the desert (even if it is chock full of irrelevant, but entertaining, encounters) than a game session where we play out toil in the slavepits of Gehenna as payment for a teleport spell directly into the city, despite that immediate city relevancy. But that's me - I was OK with "the desert is between you and the city, so you must cross it if you wish to get to the city", just as I would be OK with "Kas insists that your killing of Vecna is a prerequisite to sealing your alliance with him". I'm not OK with a boring game (relevant or irrelevant though those boring encounters may be). And I would find a series of combat encounters with no storyline, purpose, etc. boring, so there's a relevancy aspect to making the game "not boring".

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

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.

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?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Yeah, I've come to the realization that a large part of this was a mistake on my part using the word "relevant". For me, I meant relevant in the sense that it was relevant to the players, not particularly the characters. After all, it is totally true that the kidnapped prisoner in the bandit nomad camp is relevant to the characters.

However, there is no buy in from the players because they cannot know about the kidnapped prisoner until after they interact with the nomads, and they have no buy in at all for interacting with the nomads.

Well, first, I acknowledged the difference between "relevant to player" and "relevant to character", but then I also noted that you wanted to pursue your character's goal (interact with the temple in the city). 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.

Second, 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.

But, the nomad / refugee encounter still didn't seem sufficient. Based on a decent number of other posts, it seems like this is because you (as a player) are pursuing your last known character goal (enter the city). So, geographical distance to the city may make a large difference, even if both encounters are relevant to player and PC goals.

Go back to all my posts and cut relevant and replace with "buy in from the players".

Yeah, I do think the wording charge really does help me. Thanks for that insight.

Perhaps a clearer example comes from the grell example and the wanted criminal hireling. The players have buy in to go back to the grell - they've flat out stated that. They have no buy in for the criminal hireling complication and, in fact, that complication actually serves to interfere with what they really are bought into. The players have no real reason for exploring this complication and no interest beforehand in doing so.

This is where I was faltering earlier. The players have no interest beforehand in exploring the siege, either, so it seemed the same. However, if you, as a player, are taking your character's goals in steps, it might look like this (subject to change as each step is interacted with and resolved):
(1) Enter the city.
(2) Enter the temple.
(3) Interact with the temple.
(4) Accomplish the goal.

So, if this is the case, your first step, as the player (who has buy-in to player goals), is "enter the city." This means that you are more likely to accept the siege, as it directly complicates the first step in your goal as a player. It, like a nomad / refugee encounter, might slow you down, but their geographical location is different. So, it's better at the city; it's a complication to your current first step, as a player ("enter the city).

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