Pretty sure you raised BW first (WAAAAYYYYYY back in poost 101) and continued raising it until celebrim did a bit of research to locate it. I think he did raise the sample module first (Post 259) as an example of how the exact same issue (player not engaged in scene) can occur in BW the same as in any other system. You then focused in on the fact this is a sample module, rather than the fact that BW faces the exact same issue of potential for the player not to be engaged by the scene. It was never a question of agreeing to play the sample BW module to get a feel for the game, but one of showing up for the game and being presented with this specific scenario, which the player finds not to be engaging.
This is a basic point on which I think we have very different preferences - although "occurence" is not quite the right word, as Hussar is not after an "occurence", he is after a situation, namely, being in City B able to track down whatever it is he's looking for there.
There's a lot of semantics on this thread. Whether you call it "being in the city", "arriving at the city", "getting to the city" or "interacting with the city" isn't really that relevant, in my view. You can call it an occurence, a situation, a left-handed quaffle or a squabblequawb. The nomenclature does not change my view that Hussar wants his character to be in City B, his character is not presently in City B and there is no compelling reason, in my view, to expect that a magic tunnel opens up to allow the character to immediately appear in City B. There is also no reason, once he gets there, that whatever he is looking for in City B presents itself to him in the middle of the street with a bold neon sign, just because he wants to get to that part of the scenario.
On the topic of nomenclature, it seems that you and Hussar are prone to the term "obstacle" and celebrim and I tend to use "challenge". I think there's a mindset inherent in that regard. An "obstacle" is a negative. It is something the GM makes up and tosses in the way as an impediment to the accomplishment of my goals. It connotes an active endeavour by the GM to frustrate the players by preventing their achievement of those goals, and by that connotation suggests an adversarial GM, rather than an impartial arbitrator or a co-operative force in collective storytelling. This is reinforced by the common accusation that the GM just made up the obstacle and added it in as a retroactive reason why the players' plans would fail.
By contrast, a challenge is placed to do exactly that - challenge. It is intended that the players overcome the challenge, perhaps easily, or perhaps only with difficulty and/or at great cost. But it is there to be overcome, not to defeat the players so the GM can somehow "win". A lot of the disconnect on this thread seems to come from whether one assumes the GM is adversarial. I don't believe he is - he doesn't say "No, a roc eats the centipede" nor "There are no hirelings to be had". Instead, he accepts the change of direction and works to integrate it into his game, playing out these new scenes created by the players' innovations. To me, at least, that is a sign of a good GM, not a poor one.
My view is that the players' desire for a specific situation is a virtually overwhelming reason for the rest of the world to part (metaphorically - the actual techniques are things like No Myth, "say yes or roll the dice", etc) so the group can "tunnel" directly to that scene.
My view as a player is that this robs the game of any verissimilitude, especially if done too often. I would be very disappointed to spend 10 or 15 minutes equipping ourselves for a trek across the desert only to be told "You arrive, hot and sweaty, eight days later". If crossing is that easy, why bother with a desert at all? Just put in a pleasant field, some gentle rolling hills and maybe some road signs and/or a yellow brick road.
In any case, you once again assume that the players are a hive mind - each shares the view of the others, wholly and completely. You dismiss entirely the possibility that some of the players at the table do, in fact, want to play out the desert scene(s), or the hiring scene(s). You assume that not just Hussar, but all the players, desperately want to skip forward to that one scene and have no desire to play out the existing scene. I suggest that we can be quite confident that there is one gamer at the table who is not engaged by the current scene, being Hussar. He has made that clear here - not sure how clear he made it in the actual game. We can be equally confident that at least one gamer at the table is engaged - if no other player is, then clearly the GM, at a minimum, is seeking to play out the scene. The GM is also here for an enjoyable leisure time activity, and I suggest his engagement is also relevant and important. I hope that Hussar would agree that his "not happy if even a single player is not having fun" concern extends equally to the GM.
What we do not know is how many of the other participants were in each of these polar opposite camps, or to what extent. Maybe all the players were just as bored as Hussar, but as each one fell asleep, another replaced him to keep the NPC interaction going through the full 90 minutes. Or perhaps they were highly engaged and greatly enjoying this NPC/PC interaction, to the point they don't even notice Husssar is not participating, much less that he has passed out from sheer boredom. The choice of how to proceed is vastly different depending on where we fall on the continuum between these two points.
The original assertion also seems to have morphed into "skip one, only one, just one scene forward" from "skip the whole thing and fast forward to the specific scene that catches my attention at this moment". But what is "a scene"? 90 minutes seems a very long scene, although I can certainly perceive "interview the potential hirelings" or "cross the desert" as a single scene. However, I can just as reasonably perceive "interview potential hireling #1" as one scene, with each additional interview being an additional scene. In that case, the "skip a scene" approach would be to dismiss one possible hireling ("Guys, something about this fellow just doesn't feel right - I say we dump him and get on to the next candidate"), not to dismiss the recruitment process in its entirety. Similarly, each encounter or occurence in the desert might very reasonably be its own separate scene.
You refer to "just mark off the resource and move on". Again, this is a matter of style and player preference. We can set prices for various levels of competency and loyalty for the spearmen and you "buy" them just like you buy a spear or a masterwork spear. We can also say "Battle the Grell" is a simple matter of resource expenditure - OK, mark off 15 arrows, 10 crossbow bolts, 5 sling bullets, three spells, at least one at your highest spell level, for each spellcaster, and 1/3 of the parties' total max hit points, allocated between you as you see fit. No need to play out the encounter with the Grell - just expend resources.
In fact, why don't we just map out the whole dungeon this way. The GM can toss down a card that says "Grell". The players decide whether to "Attack", "Parlay" or "Retreat". We turn the card over and it tells the characters what resources they lose in dealing with the Grell, and/or what benefits they gain (xp, treasure, etc.). We could even add some randomness by putting in die rolls (lose "21 + 4d6"% of party max hit points and/or "each character rolls dice - low roller takes half of this damage, next lowest takes 1/4 and the others divide the remander between them" and/or "Parlay: roll 1d6 - on a 1, the creature attacks - one character loses 10% of total party hp, then apply "attack" results; 2-3 the creature allows you to pass; 4-5 the creature accepts a bribe of 3d100 gold pieces or equivalent value; pay or attack; 6 the creature becomes a loyal follower of a randomly selected party member). Hey, maybe some character abilities or spells can skew those odds or results. Gee, woudn't it be cool to make it more granular and play it out over time, with combat movement and tactics? I wonder how we could do THAT!
Maybe some players would rather make combat a minor aspect of the game, so let's drop that to resource expenditure and focus the game on peaceful, rather than violent, interaction by adding depth and granularity to social interaction and removing it from combat. All that really does is cut scene combat instead of interaction. But maybe some players like combat and dislike social scenes, others like the social challenges but are bored by combat, and still others like both to varying degrees and want both included in the game.
The least likely group, and the one you seem to continually posit, is the hive mind where all players move in lockstep, but somehow the Bad GM isn't part of the hive and continues to throw up roadblocks to the fun of the player group as a whole.
As has already become clear with your other assumptions about the role of the GM in the game - seeding the world with "MacGuffins", putting the PCs up against "Big Bads", etc - we also have quite different views about what counts as worthwhile RPGing. And worthwhile RPG design.
Show me where Hussar has indicated the object of his quest in the city is neither a Maguffin nor a Big Bad. Whether it's a player-inspired maguffin ("I want to find the Lost Sword of Sar-Kor-Lahk"; "I want to meet the High Priest of my faith"; "I want to attend NovemberFest") or enemy, you need simply substitute "desired object/person/event" for Maguffin and "enemy" for Big Bad. Once again, shorthand semantics deflect the point of the discussion.
My own preference in RPG design is that the mechanics will supprt players making thematically engaging choices, rather than force the players to choose between mechanical effectiveness and "playing their character".
So what happens when one player's thematically engaging choice bores another player to tears? I don't see where anyone is asserting a conflict between mechanical effectiveness and playing their character, but perhaps you would like to point me to this element of the thread.
