You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Nagol]

If the GM planned for this to happen, then it is expected the goal is not to go to the city, it is then to go 100 miles away from the city, in this case the desert. If the DM told you the goal is the city, then there is a miscommunication between goals. Which is what I believe others are saying and which I explained in my post.

The purpose of the planar travel is not exploration or investigation, that was made clear when the DM told the players that their goal was in the city. They weren't out looking for a romp in the abyss. As I explained, if the DM had told the players that the goal was to find information that would lead them to the item (which happened to be in the city, although they hadn't known that at the time) then it's a perfectly acceptable and interesting occurrence. But if the DM says, "The thing you need is in the city" and then expects you to spend hours running around the desert talking to people for which you have no reason to talk to because you know the goal is in the city, then that's a problem.

Goal A - Snatch and Grab
Goal B - Explore the Abyss

The Players were expecting Goal A and got Goal B. That's a miscommunication and a problem.

The misfire relates to the use of the spell for plot purposes. There is an expectation that following the plot leads to achieving goals, not to pointless encounters. There's a huge difference between a 5 mile walk and a 500 mile trek across the desert.

This isn't a reflection on whether an exploratory trek through the desert is fun or not. I find them quite fun, especially when I encounter things like "B4 The Lost City." But then exploration needs to be the goal and point of the scenario, otherwise it's just a distraction and I'll use all my resources avoiding it (which would defeat the intention of the desert if it was there for a purpose). All that's required to make the desert interesting is the DMing changing how they share the information. "Look for clues to the item's location in the desert" versus "get to the city to retrieve the item."

No, the goal is still A; it's just the group hasn't made it all the way to the snatch part yet. If your goal is snatch something from the 'city on the plains' and you sail 1,000 miles across the sea to get to the right continent, there can be be additional journey required to reach the plains that contain said city.

In fact, Plane Shift explicitly informs the group that the additional journey will be somewhere between 5 and 500 miles long with more than a 50% chance that the journey will be at least 250 miles long. The group also knows that it won't necessarily know which direction to head upon arrival without further investigation.

So if the group has any expectation that the journey will be over once the spell is complete, it is a failure of comprehension in the group more than a miscommunication.

If the group or a member of the group says "We avoid all encounters no matter what they are because we're riding something big, visible, and highly unnatural that moves a bit more than three times our natural speed along the ground" then there may be more misapprehension at work.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

It's really starting to sound more and more like the published module itself either needed to be heavily modified or simply not run at all. "Hey, let's make them use Plane Shift and then let the DM come up with all the stuff that's in the 5 to 500 miles away from the goal! That should make things interesting!"

 

[Nagol]

It's really starting to sound more and more like the published module itself either needed to be heavily modified or simply not run at all. "Hey, let's make them use Plane Shift and then let the DM come up with all the stuff that's in the 5 to 500 miles away from the goal! That should make things interesting!"

It sounds like a poor section of the module to be sure (though it did "pre-roll" the distance to be less than 200 miles so at least the journey wasn't to be as long as average). If the players were reading along and I hadn't altered the module to better suit, I'd have no touble with the players asking to skip this section and stipulate they now liked/trusted the guy. But that's not how it works.

Generally, players aren't reading along. They don't know what lies ahead in terms of threat, value, or temptation. Players may ask to skip a scene that's dragging. I maintain the right of refusal if the scene is serving a purpose the players don't recognise.

 

[Celebrim]

It's really starting to sound more and more like the published module itself either needed to be heavily modified or simply not run at all. "Hey, let's make them use Plane Shift and then let the DM come up with all the stuff that's in the 5 to 500 miles away from the goal! That should make things interesting!"

Well, you are looking at the guy who has never faced a published module or RPG ruleset that he didn't want to modify. But, yes, I've already agreed that I find parts of the module less than well concieved and am sympathetic to the desire to want to skip them. I wouldn't run it as written, but then again I haven't run a module as written since I was like 13 (X1, Isle of Dread). I plead ignorance, but in my defence, it's a fairly popular module and in broad outline its not bad save that I don't think it foreshadows the 'end boss' strongly enough nor does it do anything to make the otherwise really interesting Lovecraftian end boss relevant. In retrospect I see that it, like so many early modules, actually assumes that the skillful DM will want to and be able to usefully elaborate on the module. At 13, though I saw the problem in play, I lacked the skill to foresee it before it happened or to rectify it once it did.

 

[PBEM66]

I believe the entire purpose of miscellaneous magic items is to use them creatively. It's a role-playing game, not a combat game (though the two often overlap, I know). There are items useful almost exclusively for combat (your magic weapons, armor, and whatnot), and having the unusual items available with quirky powers makes the game both more interesting and less computer-generated.

As DM, I truly hope I cannot out-creative/out-think every player in my group. That would be sad.

 

[Manbearcat]

Swimming a bit upthread as I've been unable to stay up to date in my reading of this thread. Apologies in advance.

I want to note that at this level, this isn't different from anyone else in the thread. Everyone has agreed that if you have IC resources to travel across the desert without difficulty, that you should be able to cross the desert without difficulty. Much of the initial argument can be seen as framed around the fact that many posters felt that Hussar did not have the IC resources that he claimed he had. Reread the early arguments from that context. Once it was established that Hussar didn't in fact have the resource he claimed - the centipede was not in fact an 'I win button' - then the focus of the argument has shifted, as lead by pemerton, that it shouldn't and doesn't matter whether Hussar has the IC resources but only that he wants to skip the scene.

I think I addressed much of this in a later post about "niche protection." My primary concern when it comes to "having the in-character resources to deploy to transition a scene" lies primarily with that concern. If I'm playing a game whereby the system is built upon (and the players expect) a method of play which projects open, serial world exploration (primarily) rather than closed scenes (primarily) as the default, then PC's will (likely) be built with travel and exploration tools premised upon that default. You will have wizards, druids and clerics with travel spells that either outright fast-forward (transition) scenes or perpetuate expedience of travel dramatically beyond mundane modes. You will have Rangers with things like Peerless Exploration above (in the Ritual/Martial Practice system; the avenue for 4e play to drift from closed scenes/encounters to serial, open world play). You will have Fighters/Paladins with resources that are purchased to expedite travel via mounts, caravan, etc. If this is the case (expediting travel or transitioning exploration scenes is a purchased resource upon which a PC must invest), handing out free "transition scene buttons" can be problematic without strong social accord at the table.

If

- the gameplay is all Action Scene/Transition Scene (such as the Cortex Plus games or default 4e), without any "expedite travel resources" purchased

or

- the gameplay is serial, open world exploration but none of the PCs have invested in any "expedite travel resources"

then I have no problem with a table veto to turn such travel into a transition scene.

So one initial question might be, "Had the PC's not had Peerless Exploration or had been unwilling/unable to spend the resources on it, would you have thought about running it differently?"

Peerless Exploration is the only "expedite exploration/travel" ability in my game. It was invested in by this particular PC for two reasons:

1 - Thematic broadening. The player is an Eladrin Bladesinger so his fundamental PC build resources are spent as a master of sword and spell. However, Background, Theme and multiple Feats were invested by this character to play up a particular backstory; wild boy lost in the Feywild woods riff off Victor_of_Aveyron.

2 - As insurance against dangerous, resource draining Exploration/Travel as Action Scene. I will do this now and again to them. They've had 2 extremely dangerous wilderness "Acts" (Lost in the Frozen North Without Supplies and Locate the Medicine Woman/Swamp Hag Before You Die of Pestilence) that almost TPKed the group both times. In this case, the player was not expecting anything terribly dangerous to happen during the Badlands crossing. He said at the table before deploying Peerless Exploration that he expected it to be a Transition Scene. However, he didn't want to risk the possibility that there would be something dangerous (and resource depleting) in the crossing when he expected that the effort to get the idle from the temple and back to the village would be extremely taxing/dangerous (and it was). As such, the investment of a few Healing Surges of his own as insurance against the prospect of multiple Healing Surges per character and the possibility of loss of Dailies and APs was well worth it. Moreover, it fit the character and let him actualize his thematic protagonism. Good stuff.

If he had not had Peerless Exploration as insurance against dangerous travel, and I was planning on including dangerous travel to the temple, and no one at the table would have had their niche invaded by a fast forward, and people expressed their urge to "cut to the temple", then I would have gladly done so. My framing of the idol conflict as chase scene, rather than stealth mission, was predicated upon (i) advance notice by all of my players (Rogue included) of yearning for a chase scene and (ii) the fact that the Rogue just recently expressed his character as a master infiltrator in-game. The framing of the chase scene was basically a collective, player-authored kicker so its in the same strain; framing versus re-framing via veto.

I don't think any of that follows, and in practice I'm positive that it usually doesn't follow. Let's say we engaged in a game mechancially resolved as I have described, and what you are here calling "serial world exploration". Suppose that there are two cities located across a body of water such that they are two days sea travel apart, and suppose that the PC's for whatever reason are frequently making this journey. It doesn't follow that because on one journey we resolve events hour by hour and in great depth with much RP and description of color, that we will do so on any subsequent journey. Nor does it follow that because we have been treating this journey as a transition scene for the last 30 trips, saying only, "You get on the boat and make the journey from Aa to Bee. The journey is uneventful, and you arrive in the morning two days later.", that on the 31st trip we might suddenly switch to something more eventful and spend several sessions again on the journey. In other words, I flat out deny that "serial world exploration" does not involve hand waves, truncation by summary, transition scnes and so forth. In every game occuring in the real world, the GM and players frequently employ cutting to the relevant action. There is a false contrast that some are trying to draw here between "cutting to the action" and "not cutting to the action". The contrast isn't over the technique of "cutting to the good stuff", but over where you think the good stuff is to be found. And even in a game of "serial world exploration", there isn't a default assumption that "the good stuff" is found in the mundane details of travel. Rather, the assumption being made is, "Travel isn't always or maybe isn't even usually mundane.", and that certainly it is within the bounds of reason to see travel through the infinite Abyss (on or off of the back of a gigantic centipede) as being at least potentially non-mundane.

We have our wires crossed on terms here or on concepts. Your "sea transit" here is not "exploration" in the way that I am using it. Its basically akin to "drive to and from work" or "walk to the baker every morning, get muffins and come home". Even in a serial, world exploration game you are going to hand-wave that. This is basically where the 4e PHB advice "skip the guards and get to the fun" generated so much rancor. They could have (should have) explained the game theory concepts with much more substance (see the MHRP advice upthread which basically addresses the same premise) and avoided the powderkeg that offended so many serial, world exploration players that often treat "gate guard" scenes as Action rather than Transition. This is where the primacy of serial, world exploration (explore the established setting which is a living, breathing world) is different with respective to hard scene-frame games. You're in a town for the first time? "Explore" the new stuff in the established setting and the GM will show you that you're in a "living, breathing world" to immerse yourself in. After that is done, you aren't going to repeat it ad nauseum; eg you aren't going to "hand over your papers" or do the "state your business" thing every time you go through that same gate in the future. Conversely, the "gate guard" scene will never, ever, ever be an Action Scene in a hard scene-framed game. If it is not charged with conflict (specifically conflict relevant to the current Act), then it will always be framed as a Transition Scene. And regardless of the playstyle (serial world exploration or hard scene-framing), you aren't going to frame the "just another drive to work" as an Action Scene unless, the "drive to work" involves something "charged with conflict". Furthermore, in a hard scene-framed game you want the "charged with conflict" aspect to be immediately framed, or foreshadowed, as relevant to the ongoing conflict.

The same applies to sea transit or anything else. I've just recently had a "Sea Transit" Action Scene because it was "charged with conflict" and was immediately framed as relevant to the ongoing conflict as they had to evade a naval blockade which forced them to navigate pirate infested (and other dangers) waters; eg it wasn't "the desert." On the way home, all events (except one) of the conflict (with the navy and therefore the dangerous waters) were resolved and, as such, the transit was completely benign, cuing a transition scene back to the port (which turned the sea into "the desert") and the Action Scene (a social conflict) to ultimately resolve things one way or another.

Conflict (immediately relevant or foreshadowed as such) + Lack of exposure to/familiarity with cues Action Scene.

So you are claiming that an action scene in the context of a journey is an anathema to 4e? Just how firmly do you intend to hold to that particular claim before I bother trying to attack something which seems so obviously a strawman. Seriously, do you really mean that???

No. I'm not. I'm saying a transition scene posing as an action scene in the context of a journey is anathema to a hard scene-based game (eg MHRP...you can play this way in 4e but it is more driftable between the two with Martial Practices, Rituals and a few other "extra-scene" based tools). See above. I'm saying that in a hard scene-based game, there is a difference between travel charged with (immediately relevant or foreshadowed as such) conflict (the first sea voyage) versus that which isn't (the second voyage, the initial badlands trek, and "the desert"). In serial world exploration, you're typically engaging that gate guard ("show me your papers", "state your business") in real time as Action Scene, rather than color/Transition Scene, the first time through, to establish and explore GM-produced setting and immersion within a living, breathing world. Its benign in nature (not charged with conflict) but you're playing it out as Action Scene; you're experiencing the world.

You said above you "hate logical fallacies". You know what I hate? I hate it when someone continuously uses the definition of logical fallacy incorrectly (presumably because if not then I really don't know where we are on this) and then ironically charges me with committing it. This is the second time you've cried foul with "strawman". In no situation have I ignored anybody's actual position on any subject and then substitute a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of their position and attribute it to them so I could defeat that distorted, and willfully, wrongly attributed argument. I'm not aware of anyone present (not you nor anyone else) taking any position nor invoking anything in the same area code that references "action scene in the context of a journey is an anathema to 4e". I said:

Conversely, if the system (such as D&D 4e or MHRP) is almost completely (or exclusively) scene-based in its organization and structure, then we will have bought into that premise...and, as such, its accepted that turning a benign badlands/desert exploration scene (not from a "danger" perspective but from a "relative to the thematic conflict the game is currently focusing on" perspective) into an Action Scene rather than a Transition Scene is anathema.

which I elaborated on directly above. As far as I can tell, that is the only invocation of the above material so far in this thread. Seeing as how I'm not "misrepresenting my own argument and then attributing the distorted version to myself so I can defeat my distorted version and make myself look foolish/wrong" (a self-strawman?), I have no clue what you're talking about with your "strawman" indignation (this time nor the last). Not a clue.

To a certain extent I feel you contrast is nonsense. I don't expect anyone at a table to have an agenda of 'serial world exploration' or 'scene based action' game. I expect players to have agendas like 'challenge', 'fellowship', 'fantasy', 'empowerment', 'narrative', etc. I expect to be able to accomodate players with different agendas provided that there agenda is sufficiently complex and broad and that they are willing to table it for short durations while some other players' agenda is at the fore. Likewise, I don't expect to run only a 'serial exploration game' or a 'scene based game', but to bounce back and forth between serial and scene techniques as they are suited to the narrative being created.

You may not be at either of the poles so perhaps that makes you draw the conclusion that the reality of poles is nonsense. Just like you I am not either in my D&D play, but I recognize those poles exist and I've seen them in play (with myself and other GMs while gaming with other systems; DitV, FATE, Socerer, MHRP primarily on one pole and Classic Traveller, and my D&D 3.x was pretty close as well, on the other). As I wrote earlier, I'm somewhere between @pemerton and @chaochou's various spectra on the spectrum with my D&D. However, I'm sure that my game has more "exploration" than pemerton's as he admits that he prefers social conflict to exploration.

 

[Celebrim]

then I have no problem with a table veto to turn such travel into a transition scene.

I'm pretty sure that I've made it clear I don't have a problem with a table veto either. I've just stated that it has to be uniamous, done without threat of acrimony, and negotiated politely out of character. I've made it clear that if Hussar's real intention was to handwave past travel, then my only objection was the way he tried to do it.

Good stuff.

I've no complaints. You didn't need to justify yourself unless you just wanted to.

If he had not had Peerless Exploration as insurance against dangerous travel, and I was planning on including dangerous travel to the temple, and no one at the table would have had their niche invaded by a fast forward, and people expressed their urge to "cut to the temple", then I would have gladly done so.

That's a lot of 'ifs'. In general, as I've said, there would be situations where if the players asked for a handwave, I would vote with them. Many times though, I'm looking to handwave travel any way, and so if I'm not doing so I have a reason. As a point of fact, I more often ask the players if we can handwave than they ask me.

My framing of the idol conflict as chase scene, rather than stealth mission, was predicated upon (i) advance notice by all of my players (Rogue included) of yearning for a chase scene and (ii) the fact that the Rogue just recently expressed his character as a master infiltrator in-game. The framing of the chase scene was basically a collective, player-authored kicker so its in the same strain; framing versus re-framing via veto.

Again, no real complaint, save that I personally feel the style you outline feels too artificial. That's purely subjective though, and as I said, I might feel differently actually being there.

We have our wires crossed on terms here or on concepts.

No, I don't think we do.

Your "sea transit" here is not "exploration" in the way that I am using it. Its basically akin to "drive to and from work" or "walk to the baker every morning, get muffins and come home". Even in a serial, world exploration game you are going to hand-wave that.

Good. I'm glad we agree on that. It's been a point of contention with other posters. Now, my point, is that when the player sets out on any sort of transit or travel scene, he can't really know whether he's about to get an action scene or a simple transition scene. This is especially true of the first time a transit is attempted. And in point of fact, in the central example of this thread, this wasn't a transition scene but an action scene. Now, we've agreed that action scenes can also be handwaved by a table vote, but I think we'll also agree that there are more 'ifs' involved. You outlined your list in one case; in other cases, we might have a different list.

Conversely, the "gate guard" scene will never, ever, ever be an Action Scene in a hard scene-framed game.

Well, except when it is charged with conflict. And I disagree that in a serial exploration game, you always deal with gate gaurds the first time. The PC's went to and from Amalteen many times, and I never framed a scene with the gate gaurds as Action Scene. Why? Because there was no action, no conflict, and no purpose to doing so. Yet I seem to be in the 'serial exploration category' or at least lean that way. I did in fact do one 'gate gaurd' scene without Action but played out as an Action Scene, but here the purpose of the scene was 'Extended Transition Scene', where I needed to do an info dump and I wanted to break that info dump up into a series of interactive scenes rather than hit them with a single wall of exposition and color. This ended up being roughly 7 hours of RP without 'Action', which was I think a record for this campaign but was needed after 3 years of gaming and a major transition in game focus. Even so, I apologized OOC for the info dump, but in my defense - they thought the gate gaurd scene was hilarious. Whether or not that is something that you'd do in a more hard scene framed game I'm not certain, but it was also somewhat extraordinary for my game. Exactly how it could have been skipped I'm not sure, but I'd welcome suggestions. It wasn't my favorite framing I've ever done.

In short, I think I am on the same page with regards your terminology and so forth, and I'm not sure that we are so very far apart on this.

eg it wasn't "the desert."... I'm saying a transition scene posing as an action scene in the context of a journey...

I've read the module. It's not a transition scene posing as an action scene. It's an action scene. It may not be the most interestingly staged or most artfully staged action scene of all time, but it is relevant to the conflict ("We need to get this obscure gizmo the dying man in scene 23 told us about, and its somewhere in the Abyss."), contains obstacles ("Surviving the horrors of the Abysmal plain"), and is critical to the rising action ("We are building the ally relationship with this knowledgable NPC who is helping us obtain our goal; little do we know at this time how critical this is to obtaining the gizmo, whatever it is").

See above. I'm saying that in a hard scene-based game, there is a difference between travel charged with (immediately relevant or foreshadowed as such) conflict (the first sea voyage) versus that which isn't (the second voyage, the initial badlands trek, and "the desert").

And I'm saying, I've read the module and you are falsely flagging the desert as 'transition' scene rather than action scene.

You said above you "hate logical fallacies". You know what I hate? I hate it when someone continuously uses the definition of logical fallacy incorrectly

I'm using it very correctly, but you aren't understanding what I said. I didn't, in the quoted text at least, accuse you of a logical fallacy at all. Nor did I accuse you of a strawman. I said, "I'm very unclear about what you mean here. It sounds ridiculous to me. Surely you don't mean what it sounds like you mean. I'm going to refrain from responding to it until you clarify, because if I do respond to it I think it all to likely I'll be making a strawman of your argument."

Sorry if that was unclear.

I have no clue what you're talking about with your "strawman" indignation (this time nor the last). Not a clue.

Yep.

In no situation have I ignored anybody's actual position on any subject and then substitute a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of their position and attribute it to them so I could defeat that distorted, and willfully, wrongly attributed argument.

I'm not terribly interested in reopening old wounds, but I disagree. There has been a lot of ignoring people's actual position on a subject and then distorting, exaggerating, or misrepresenting their position so as to defeat that distorted, willfully, wrongly atributed argument in this thread. I could probably cite two dozen instances if I was into finger pointing, and in at least one case I very willfully responded to a straw man ad hominem attack on me by throwing a straw man ad hominem post back at the poster (not necessarily proud of that, just saying).

You may not be at either of the poles so perhaps that makes you draw the conclusion that the reality of poles is nonsense.

Let's just say that while I'm open to the possibility of players more extreme than what I've experience, I think the absolute poles are unobtainable. The absolute pole of process simulation for example would involve second by second granular resolution of every player action - rolling for how long a bathroom break took, taking actions like 'I adjust my fly', and having a described penalty for what happens if you enter a fight with your zipper not properly adjusted. Find me the player who only plays at that extreme, and I'll concede your point.

On the other hand, I can imagine a wandering encounter during a bathroom break, while preparing breakfast, or other odd moment as a change of pace scene frame even in a process heavy game, or in a hard framed scene game. But I don't think anyone tries to create such scenes as a 'natural process'.

The reverse - no natural process, all hard framed action - would perhaps be something like a game of Toon or other potentially total free form game, but even then, I'm not sure that by the strictest definition every scene could be qualified as Action Scene by the definitions you are applying here.

In any event, while I can imagine players with a very strong preference for one or the other, the style itself isn't why they play RPGs. The style is a means to an end and not the end itself. The player may prefer a particular style but only because they believe that the process fulfills their actual goals of play.

 

[JamesonCourage]

But the GM isn't "throwing it in their path". The players have chosen to have their PCs go to the city. The GM isn't distracting or roadblocking them - s/he's introducing an extra complication into the city, which the players can use as a resource.

Again, the city isn't the goal. What's in the city is. The siege is a roadblock in the same way a relevant nomad encounter can be. Neither the siege nor the desert encounter have to be a roadblock, and either can be relevant and interesting. The difference, seemingly, is proximity, but you've told me this isn't the reasoning.

Sure. But the desert is not a resource for achieving the PC's goals (unless they have a spell that can, for instance, turn the desert sands into a golem, or create a sandstorm so strong it reduces the whole city to noting except for the MacGuffin left over; or they change their goals).

The "desert" has, once again, been subtly shifted to "just sand" and away from my framed nomad encounter, and the goal has been subtly shifted to "the city" and not "the temple inside the city inside the desert."

I will repeat this question, as maybe it getting answered will help: "And, no, they can't interact with the nomads or sandstorm until the GM brings it up or puts it in their path. In what way is the siege different? Like you pointed out, they cannot interact with it until the GM puts it in their path."

Not at all. I personally think a siege is a bit more dynamic than a sandstorm, but then I like social encounters. But if the party had druids and rangers, than absolutely a sandstorm locking down the city is functionally equivalent to the siege. Because, like the siege, it is a property of the city that the players can leverage as a resource (in this instance, sneaking in is the first thing I think of, under cover of the sandstorm).

Of course, if the sandstorm is locking downt the city but the players can't do anything with that - eg because their PCs are on the other side of the desert trapped in a sandstorm - that would be a different matter. That would be more irrelevance, given the PCs' goals and the players' related goals.

Like a siege might be, depending on the layout of it. But, hey, thank you very much. Saying it's the same, in essence, with different implications of actions that the players might take in response to it, is pretty much exactly where I've been coming from. You've still subtly shifted the goal to "interact with the city", as far as I can tell, but this reply did help me out some.

The siege is not inherent to the city. You cannot interact with it at all until the GM drops it in your path.

I don't fully follow this, but it's clear that you're using "inherent" in a different sense from me and Hussar.

in·her·ent
adj.
Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.
existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute; innate.

I don't consider a siege an inherent part of any city, unless there's a very good, fantastic reason for this to be the case. Now, a city on the Abyss might have that, but that's not really the example we've been using (even if it was more spot on). And, I've had a city in one of my campaigns that was constantly "under siege" by two nations (while a third held it), but it was a rather peaceful siege most of the time, though the city would switch hands often enough.

In most cities, though, "The siege is not inherent to the city."

Of course you can't interact with the city until it is narrated into the game - and in standard D&D play that is the GM's job, not the players. But once the city is narrated - which, ex hpyothesi, the GM is going to do given that s/he know the players want to get the action to the city ASAP; and once it is narrated as a city unde siege - which, ex hypothesi, is what the GM is going to narrate; then the siege has an inherent property, of being a siege of this city. It is not extraneous to or decoupled from the city. Hence it is a player resource able to be leveraged in engaging with the city.

The siege is not inherent to the city. This city might be inherent to the siege.

At any rate, the siege cannot be interacted with until it is dumped in the path of the players. The nomads / refugees / mercenaries cannot be interacted with until they are dumped in the path of the players. What is the difference? As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

Hi again JC. Nice situation! Some thoughts which may or may not be useful.

Hey, we seem to get along great, you're helpful, and once I memorize the intricacies of your name, I may even summon you to clarify for me from time to time. Glad you're here and replying to me.

Do you remember my example way back, with the character trying to cross a busy street to go to a shop? I asked if there was a difference between a street gang on the corner and a crime scene at the shop with bullet holes and spent cartridges and whatnot.

I do remember, yes.

Okay. Let's start the example 10 blocks from the shop now. And I describe police cars whizzing past in the direction you're going, sirens blazing, officers starting to cordon off the street further down, SWAT teams moving into position, black FBI cars, snipers on the rooftops.

Is this making 'the streets around the shop' relevant? It's debatable. What I'd say I was doing was foreshadowing the crime scene at the shop. What's relevant to the player is the shootout at the shop, but instead of jumping straight there I'm giving advanced warning that something's up.

Okay. I can see exactly where you're coming from. Sounds good to me.

I believe you're doing the same in Situation A, if I've read you correctly. It accepts the seige as a viable complication and is now warning of the seige. The desert only 'matters' in the sense that all human interaction happens 'somewhere'. We could interchange desert for jungle, mountain, boiling lava pits, frozen tundra. The city could be over the next rise or still 75 miles away. The 'where' in this encounter is simply a necessity of our reality. The 'what' in this encounter is 'the city is under seige.'

Yes. I'll go into this more in a second.

What this offers is a chance for players to enjoy the seige in advance. And react and adapt. This kind of foreshadowing is powerful, generally regarded as quality GMing irrespective of playstyle. But I don't see a distinction here between desert and seige. It looks, to me, like a choice between seige and pre-seige.

Right. The same could be said of most complications, and the "relevance" of them (the PC goal of "get to the temple" or player goal of "have fun along the way" and Hussar's goal of "get the game moving and resolve my PC goals") is set by the GM is each case. The siege and refugees can be relevant to either set of goals, or irrelevant. That's part of what I've been saying. More on that below.

However, I agree with your conclusion that this desert/seige split is at best a tenuous indicator of player empowerment in the way that @Hussar describes. I think questions like 'Who authored the need to go to the city - GM, player or group?' would reveal those authority structures more directly.

Thanks for your input on it. The reason I even brought this up in the first place was Hussar's wanting to skip the siege because it would be boring and irrelevant. If he finds the little things (summon duration, weight, food, etc.) boring, I understand that. If he finds "sand" boring, I understand that. I just don't know how he can knowingly skip the scene claiming that it is irrelevant when no context has been given. Context is what makes something relevant or irrelevant to your goals (PC or player). And Hussar (and pemerton, I believe) have been trying to explain to me how there is a difference in framed scenario, and I don't see it, yet.

As for your comment on 'Who authored the need to go to the city - GM, player or group?', I think I agree. The action in my game is driven by my players. I'm totally improvisation, and don't prepare any encounter ahead of time (unless we end session with it literally about to kick off). To that end, it's easy for me to say "go where you want to, and I'll make stuff up" (though I try to do it with a lot more of the established setting in mind than many GMs here would, I imagine). But, just in case I'm missing something of what you meant, feel free to expand on that thought. I'm interested in hearing what you mean by it. As always, play what you like

 

[Manbearcat]

@Celebrim At this point I think we are probably as close to agreement where we can agree and as close to clarity in our differences where we cannot. I guess that is the internet winning the game. I don't really have anything else to add I don't think. I basically just wanted to support Hussar and clarify what I thought I might be able to about his preferences (to the extent I know them).