You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[pemerton]

The players say "I go through the desert to get to the city" and I interrupt the travel with the nomad / refugee / mercenary scene, and the players react to it. That's fundamentally the same as "we go into the city and to our goal in it" and me interrupting it with a siege / quarantine scene.

I don't agree with this - for reasons I've given upthread, plus further reasons to do with how the actual dynamic at the table is likely to go.

you accept the desert potentially being relevant. This is a huge thing in my view. This seems to have been outright objected up to this point, though more forcefully (or stubbornly) by pemerton.

I haven't accused you of bad faith, or wilfull blindness of what strikes me as an obivous distinction. I'd prefer that you extend the same courtesy.

 

[pemerton]

the objection boils down to the fact that the group does not actually have the in-game sanctioned resources to skip over the desert. I tried to make a plausible one by summoning a mount, but, at the end of the day, the critics are right, it doesn't really skip over the desert

<snip>

I don't, and I get the feeling that Pemerton doesn't, feel that the DM should have the sole say in what parts of the game can be hand waved. Yes, it would likely be best had we had the proper in-game resources, but, we didn't. But, since we're playing a game, I don't feel that the players need to be forced to play out the consequences, when they don't want to play out those consequences.

This is what I was trying to get at above - you were creating a "veneer of verisimilitude" to try and get through the desert.

In 4e terms, Teleport or Overland flight would be a power; your centipede summoning is not a power, but is rather asking the GM to "page 42" it. And you're right about my view as GM: if the players try to page 42 it, and there will be no adverse consequence of letting that happen (eg there's not some other player whose PC's teleportation ability will be unfairly overshadowed) then let's go with it.

There has been around here a sizable chunk of people who want/need the game to be largely about player choices, and the consequences of those choices. If you get to say, "I just don't feel like playing through the consequences," then you remove the meaning of the choices that led up to that situation.

This seems to be framing the meaning of choices predominantly in procedural terms.

I can't see that bypassing the desert because it's boring removes any thematic meaning. In fact, by keeping the city as the central focus of play, it might even reinforce that meaning.

 

[N'raac]

That geographic proximity makes other differences. The situation the players want to engage is (in) City B. The siege is a potential resource for the players to leverage in respect of doing stuff in City B. To use a semi-technical phase, the fictional positioning is completely different in the two cases:

* desert: until the GM introduces more content (per Hussar, "lays a trail of breadcrumbs"), the fictional positioning of the PCs does not give the players any capacity to leverage the desert in pursuit of their goal;

* siege: the fictional positioning of the PCs gives the players capacity to leverage the siege in pursuit of their goal, to be proactive and require the GM to respond to their plans (eg sneaking in under cover of bombardment).​

So the fact that the siege IS a breadcrumb, and the desert would need to have a breadcrumb ADDED is now relevant? When the Players say "we go through the desert to the city", their goal is, at a minimum, to enter the city. If the nomads, or the refugees, or the siege, get in their way, the result is the same - the players are blocked from their goal of entering the city by something the GM placed in their way, which they did not know about until they came across something which made them aware of it. They might be able to use the nomads, the refugees, or the siege, to advance their goals. Certainly, the fact they are in the way affects their goal. But the siege can be one which has no relevance, and the nomads, refugees, or anything else in the desert, can be relevant.

There is another dimension, of course. They can each lie in a different area between "highly engaging" and "extremely boring". But that can't be known in advance, and can be the case regardless of relevance.​

Until the GM runs some encounter or other, the players have no resources to leverage in pursuit of their goal. Whereas the siege is, per se, a resource that the players can leverage.

Until the GM runs the encounter with the siege (even so simple as "off in the distance, you see tents, wagons and creatures/people milling about), players have no resource from the siege. Like the nomads, or the refugees, they have to encounter it first.

The nomads are not inherent in the desert. The players have to narrate their PCs entering the desert and wait for the GM to frame a nomad encounter (in Hussar's terms, wait for the GM to lay a trail of breadcrumbs). This is reactive, not proactive.

The players have to narrate their PC's crossing the desert ("we ride our centipede") and wait for the GM to frame a siege encounter (in Hussar's terms, wait for the GM to lay a trail of breadcrumbs). This is reactive, not proactive.

Whereas, with the siege, the players aren't waiting for the GM. There is something to which they can react.

Once the GM frames a siege or nomad encounter, the players aren't waiting for the GM. There is something to which they can react. Until the GM frames the encounter, the players are waiting for the GM.

But, that presupposes a certain playstyle where the physical reality of the game world is such that only the DM can determine when parts can be hand waved. It's very much like an MMO game world. If I want to travel in an MMO, I have to travel through each of the regions in between, risking being attacked or whatnot on my way from start to finish. ((Note, I'm not trying to bring in a video-gamey canard here, just making an example))

The major difference I perceive from the MMO world is that the MMO world requires you to kep pushing the "go forward" key to cross the desert. It does not fast forward until something (whether somehing you want or not, whether something you expect or not) interrupts your journey. A a minimum, in game, the "step forward" time should not be played out. I've never seen a GM require the players to state each step "left foot, right foot", until arriving somewhere.

I don't, and I get the feeling that Pemerton doesn't, feel that the DM should have the sole say in what parts of the game can be hand waved. Yes, it would likely be best had we had the proper in-game resources, but, we didn't. But, since we're playing a game, I don't feel that the players need to be forced to play out the consequences, when they don't want to play out those consequences. Most of the time, players will want to play out the consequences. Your ship sinks and you make it to the desert island - presuming buy in from the players, you are good to go.

But, I also don't have a problem with the players having strong enough opinions to say, "Hey, y'know what? Let's skip over the Castaway scenes and I don't even have a volleyball - can we just get to the part where we leave the island?" Obviously, some people do.

Again, this comes back to two issues. How frequent (and I think you have answered that as "very infrequent"), and what happens if the players lack the hive mind to all agree on which scenes shoul be played out? Whoever is the easiest bored and most finicky about the scenes played calls the shots? All players must agree? X% of the players must agree? Here, I generally defer to the GM, but would have no problem with the GROUP perceiving things dragging in an area suggesting we cut that aspect short. The group. Not any one single player.

On a side note about relevance between the desert and the siege. Imagine for a second that the party does have a teleport spell. Now, they've arrived in the city with the city under siege. The desert in this scenerio is entirely irrelevant. Is the siege still irrelevant? I would say no. If nothing else, the players must achieve their goals before the siege breaks into the city. Plus, the presence of the siege is going to radically change the reactions of the NPC's. A peaceful city is going to be completely different than one under siege. However, the presence of the desert around the city doesn't really have much of an effect - the city happens to be in a desert and that's about it. It's entirely background and has very little impact on play.

It will or will not have an impact as th game plays out. If the siege stays outside and the PC's stay inside, the siege is entirely background and has no more impact on play than the desert outside.

That's why the siege is relevant. It's always relevant no matter what the players do. Even if they just fly over the siege, the city is still under siege. But, the desert? Doesn't really matter a whole lot. The nomads are still out there somewhere but, since they aren't linked to our goals, who cares?

I suppose we could "randomly" meet that group of nomads on our way to the city, who just happened to be the nomads that we need to meet, but, that's about as contrived as you can possibly make it. Our random Planar Travel destination results in our landing in exactly the right place to meet the nomads? If this was a novel or a movie, I'd stop right about there. That's Syfy level writing.

And yet this is about the only way Pemerton finds the nomads acceptable at all. Different playstyles indeed.

Yes, that's certainly a playstyle thing. I think the relevant phrase I've heard bandied about in the past is "meaningful choices". There has been around here a sizable chunk of people who want/need the game to be largely about player choices, and the consequences of those choices. If you get to say, "I just don't feel like playing through the consequences," then you remove the meaning of the choices that led up to that situation.

Now, if you were on a railroad prior to that, this argument doesn't really matter, as you didn't have many meaningful choices up until that point. But, as broad generalization, a case of, "I don't feel like it, please fast forward" will tend to run up against this issue.

An excellent point. You made the choice to recruit mercenaries, you make the choice how much or how little work to put into the vetting process, you play out the consequences.

 

[pemerton]

In the Burning Wheel thread that some posters on this thread participated in, chaochou made the following comments:

here's a statement from Burning Wheel:

"Nothing happens in the game world that doesn't involve a player character."

What is being stated and what is being implied by that statement?

we could ask the question 'Who decides if a player character is involved?'

I would suggest it is the player.

<snip>

let the player make the first move and thereby dictate the direction of play. I see this as distinct from what is commonly seen as a 'player offers the GM a hook'. I'd suggest Beliefs allow the player to launch directly into action without the GM saying anything or offering anything beyond what was established by the group during set-up. Play can be driven by pro-activity or reactivity on the part of the players. I read the BW statement as a call for players to be pro-active from the very start of Act 1 Scene 1, and for GMs to react, to make them fight for what they believe.

This also relates to the distinction that I was drawing and Celebrim deriding upthread, between player-driven and GM-driven.

If we take it for granted that the players' goal is to have their PCs engage the city in pursuit of something-or-other, then: if the GM describes a siege outside the city, the GM has described something which the players can leverage in pursuit of their goals - it is a (potential) player resource; whereas if the GM desribes a seemingly endless wasteland, the players have to wait for more from the GM before they have any resource to leverage.

That's why I would not particularly care for a GM who put great emphasis on the desert, requiring the playes to engage it as a serious mechanical obstacle that will therefore take up time at the table; whereas a GM who (after the desert has been handwaved) went on to point out the siege sounds more like my sort of GM.

I think this is also why many 4e players regard P2 Demon Queen's Enclave as the best of the original (HPE) 4e modules - it sets up a social dynamic that the players can easily turn into a resource.

 

[pemerton]

So the fact that the siege IS a breadcrumb, and the desert would need to have a breadcrumb ADDED is now relevant?

<snip>

Until the GM runs the encounter with the siege (even so simple as "off in the distance, you see tents, wagons and creatures/people milling about), players have no resource from the siege.

This is where we have a different view. As soon as the GM mentions the siege, the players can become proactive - asking questions about it, casting scrying spells (if they have them), sending scouts (if they have them), making plans for their PCs'.

Whereas as soon as the GM mentions the desert the players can engage the desert to make plans for their PCs' goals (unless they have very powerful magic, as I noted above - eg if the players could turn the sand into a genie or golem that went to the city to do their bidding that would make a difference, but it seems clear to me that Hussar's group didn't have such magic).

 

[Hussar]

Again, though, haven't you framed this in a way that you purposefully made the siege relevant to you? And, on that note, can't you frame the desert scene with nomads in such a way that it is relevant to you?

How could the siege not be relevant? You have to actively work to make the siege not relevant. If nothing else, the siege affects every single NPC encounter in the city - presumably they're not ignoring the siege. It will affect everything the PC's try to do - want to buy something? Good luck, there's a siege on. Want to find a room at the inn? Good luck, the inn has been destroyed by siege weapon fire. On and on and on. Every single encounter once you are in the city will be colored by the siege.

How are encounters in the city colored by the desert?

Yes, that's certainly a playstyle thing. I think the relevant phrase I've heard bandied about in the past is "meaningful choices". There has been around here a sizable chunk of people who want/need the game to be largely about player choices, and the consequences of those choices. If you get to say, "I just don't feel like playing through the consequences," then you remove the meaning of the choices that led up to that situation.

Now, if you were on a railroad prior to that, this argument doesn't really matter, as you didn't have many meaningful choices up until that point. But, as broad generalization, a case of, "I don't feel like it, please fast forward" will tend to run up against this issue.

I'd say that's a valid point. Now, is it not possible for the players to declare what they find meaningful? Do the players not get any say in the consequences? Even if the consequences that the DM is putting on the table are outright killing the fun for at least one player at the table? Given that there are generally a very, very broad range of consequences to choose from, does it really hurt the game to allow players to veto one from time to time?

 

[Campbell]

We're missing the forest for the trees here. This discussion shows the limitations of argument by example or analogy. Rather than focus on the real issues of play we end up nitpicking details and don't walk away with anything of value. Even worse because we can only know the mind of a single participant we inject our own bias into the other participants.

There are some interesting areas of argument based on the example to be pursued though:

• What should a player do when he is bored by the events of play? How does this differ from table to table?
• Should time spent at the table be reflective of character effort? When is it alright for it not to be?
• Who bears primary responsibility for player buy in?
• What takes precedence - setting or character?
• Does the GM's preferences take priority? Is he just another participant?

The answers to the above questions are fertile ground for discussion. I'd posit that their answers depend a lot on the individual group, but directly addressing concerns rather than through proxy will lead to a greater level of understanding.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't agree with this - for reasons I've given upthread, plus further reasons to do with how the actual dynamic at the table is likely to go.

I can't see the difference. You've said one is reaction where the players have to wait for the GM, and the other is a situation where they players can react to it (I assume without having to wait for the GM). I still hold that you can frame either the desert encounter or the siege either way.

Again, both situations are framed (the nomads and the siege), and the players react to it. You can make either scene one where PCs can act on their own, or they can only react to it. There's nothing inherent to either one, on this front.

I haven't accused you of bad faith, or wilfull blindness of what strikes me as an obivous distinction. I'd prefer that you extend the same courtesy.

What I said there wasn't an accusation of bad faith. I'm not saying you're arguing that way, so I won't apologize for that. I will try to be more courteous, though. Didn't mean to offend. As always, play what you like

Until the GM runs the encounter with the siege (even so simple as "off in the distance, you see tents, wagons and creatures/people milling about), players have no resource from the siege. Like the nomads, or the refugees, they have to encounter it first.

The players have to narrate their PC's crossing the desert ("we ride our centipede") and wait for the GM to frame a siege encounter (in Hussar's terms, wait for the GM to lay a trail of breadcrumbs). This is reactive, not proactive.

Once the GM frames a siege or nomad encounter, the players aren't waiting for the GM. There is something to which they can react. Until the GM frames the encounter, the players are waiting for the GM.

Exactly. As always, play what you like

How could the siege not be relevant?

I've said how this could be the case a few times in this thread.

You have to actively work to make the siege not relevant.

Basically true, but not hard at all.

If nothing else, the siege affects every single NPC encounter in the city - presumably they're not ignoring the siege. It will affect everything the PC's try to do - want to buy something? Good luck, there's a siege on. Want to find a room at the inn? Good luck, the inn has been destroyed by siege weapon fire. On and on and on. Every single encounter once you are in the city will be colored by the siege.

This isn't the case in the example "irrelevant" siege I gave. NPCs are going about their day, food is plentiful, and there are no buildings burning down.

How are encounters in the city colored by the desert?

You mean the "just sand and heat" part? Probably any number of ways you'd expect from real life cities near deserts, plus any number of magical ways (magical water being more common, maybe?).

But, again, I was using your "nothing in the desert is relevant" bit, and also using the nomad encounter that you were talking about many pages ago in this thread. And yet, I keep getting redirected to "but it's just sand, and that's not interesting or relevant." Well, sure, if you make it just sand and hot sun, that doesn't interest you. Again, though, you don't have to frame it that way. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

There are some interesting areas of argument based on the example to be pursued though:

1. What should a player do when he is bored by the events of play? How does this differ from table to table?
2. Should time spent at the table be reflective of character effort? When is it alright for it not to be?
3. Who bears primary responsibility for player buy in?
4. What takes precedence - setting or character?
5. Does the GM's preferences take priority? Is he just another participant?

Campbell, I've numbered your list.

My answers:

1. No strong view, and no clearly-established practice at my table, but I'd expect both in-character (declaring PC actions)mand out-of-character (talking to other players and/or the GM) efforts to refocus on interesting things.
2. No. Time spent at the table should be reflective of player investment, which may often be related to PC effort but not necessarily. In particular, I don't particularly like (and am not especially good at) GMing "PCs vs nature" scenarios - treks, climbs etc, and am always keen on ways that allow the PC effort to be channelled into only modest time required at the table.
3. I want the players to send clear signals (formal or informal, in or out of character) about what they want, and as GM then set out to respond to that. I will drop in the occasional "colour" encounter (like the beholder encounter I linked to upthread) but they're a minority of encounters, and when running them I take active steps to engage the players rather than relying on just a sense of duty.
4. Characters take priority over setting, which is a means to an end.
5. The GM obviously has a big role, and is in a real way first among equals given authority over scene framing plus general expectations at my table, but not absolute priority.

 

[Umbran]

This seems to be framing the meaning of choices predominantly in procedural terms.

I can't see that bypassing the desert because it's boring removes any thematic meaning. In fact, by keeping the city as the central focus of play, it might even reinforce that meaning.

The folks I have seen profess the idea don't seem to have "theme" as the basic focus of their play. If I must use Forgisms -they are more focused on game and simulation.

As Hussar said, "...since we are playing a game..." That has (at least) two interpretations. One is the sense of "... since this is honestly a trivial, entertainment activity..." The other sense instead focuses on the fact that a game has rules, and if you don't follow the agreed-upon rules, you're not really playing the game. Both are valid, and the difference is the basis of difference in playstyle.