You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[JamesonCourage]

Hi JC.

Hey! Here's hoping you can help me out.

I've avoided this thread, but I guess I'll throw some thoughts out there because this seems reasonable and relevant.

I think scale is making this example more complicated than necessary. We could restate this example: You're trying to get to a barber's shop on the other sides of a busy street.

Well there's traffic. Okay, I wait until it is safe to cross.
Well, the police have stopped a motorist down the way. Okay, I wait to cross and go to the shop.
Well, there's this gang of youths outside a tattoo parlour. Well, I avoid them and go the the shop.

Are these the same complications as if we say:
The shop is boarded up?
The shop is on fire?
The shop has 'Police: Do Not Cross' tape all around it and chalk marks where the bullet casings fell on the pavement?

None of those complications seem the same to me. They all have different implications, and some complications are more severe than others.

The street is 'place'. It's relation to the shop is purely one of proximity. It could be any street. It can have any cars, any pedestrians, any other shops, a postbox, street lighting. It's filled with all the things streets are filled with. None of which present any reason not to walk into the shop.

The shop is boarded up, on fire, a crime scene. This is a property of the shop and clearly changes how I'm going to interact with it. Now I can't walk into the shop.

Okay, that's true. I agree with that. There are obviously other differences, but that generalization is more or less right, so far, from what I can tell.

What I think is interesting is that if I make my complication the police tape and bullet marks, or ablaze, or boarded up, now the player has an incentive to interact with the street... Call on neighbours to ask what happened, etc.

Well, I might have some personal doubts about how Hussar would handle this. He's complaining that the desert is nothing more than a roadblock. The street problems seem like much less of a roadblock than the three you listed, which outright kill the opportunity to kill with his goal right now. Which, again, it seems like he wants to skip to dealing with.

As far as myself goes, yes, it'd encourage me to look into it, which might include interacting with the street, police, media, etc.

I could, possibly, do something like: "You see an old man on a bicycle get clipped by a car and knocked over. You see blood spilling onto the pavement." If in that situation the player had reason not to want to draw attention to their visit to the shop, then suddenly I've created a moral dilemma for the player - do they get involved? Give their name and number and location to the emergency services?

So it's not completely cut and dried. But I have to know the players very well and be very conscious of what pushes their buttons to go that route. Because they can refuse my moral dilemma and simply say 'Yeah, well, someone will call an ambulance - I go to the shop."

Right, I think this is similar to the barbarian killing a mercenary who had a wife example of play I gave earlier. You don't have to interact with it, but things other than practicality might push the players to do so. I like those kinds of complications a lot, actually. Not sure how right they are for Hussar's style (he wants to skip to dealing with the goal), but that resonates with me.

I see the difference you're pointing out, though, I think. It's not as black and white as it might be to others, but I'm trying to grasp it. Thanks for the post. I appreciate it. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

Darn! to get to the Mcguffin in the city we first have to cross this desert, unfair!

Darn! to get to the Mcguffin in the city we first have to get past this siege, cool!

No.

Darn! To achieve my goal in the city I have to interact with the city (which happens to be under siege)! Cool.

Nagol just about summed up my thought process on it.

1) Our goal is in the city.
2) Desert stops us from getting to our goal.
3) This is not relevant, and should be skipped.

OR

1) Our goal is in the city.
2) Siege stops us from getting to our goal.
3) This is relevant, and is fine to play through.

I don't get it, still. The siege is at the city, but all its doing is stopping us from getting to our goal.

I think you are running together the ingame and the metagame.

The PCs' goal is in the city. The players' goal is to have a fun time trying to resolve their PCs' goals.

The desert, which has nothing to do with the city, isn't bound up in resolution of the PCs' goals. The city is.

You and Nagol both seem to be analysing the situation purely procedurally/causally: both the desert and the siege are procedural/causal obstacles to the PCs achieving their goal.
[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I are looking at the situation narratively/thematically/topically: the city is the focus of play, and the siege is an aspect of the city. It's an obstacle to the PCs; but for the players it's part of what they are wanting to engage with in the game.

Here's another example: the PCs are on their way to a meeting with the Montagues, and are ambushed by some Capulets in the streets of Verona; vs the PCs are on their way to a meeting with Montagues, and fall down a manhole into a sewer encounter with an otyugh. The first would be relevant; the second a distraction.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think you are running together the ingame and the metagame.

I don't think I am. I've talked extensively about complications; obviously, which almost exclusively appeals to the players, not to the PCs. I'm keeping the in-game and the meta-game separate.

The PCs' goal is in the city. The players' goal is to have a fun time trying to resolve their PCs' goals.

Exactly. Which means the desert can be quite fun, potentially.

The desert, which has nothing to do with the city, isn't bound up in resolution of the PCs' goals. The city is.

Well, the desert isn't related necessarily. This seems to be a sticking point for this conversation.

Then again, you're having the city besieged. That has nothing to do with Hussar's goal which is inside the city. Both are merely roadblocks put in the way, and both can be made relevant or kept separate from whatever the goal in the city is. The difference is in backdrop.

You and Nagol both seem to be analysing the situation purely procedurally/causally: both the desert and the siege are procedural/causal obstacles to the PCs achieving their goal.

@Hussar and I are looking at the situation narratively/thematically/topically: the city is the focus of play,

Based on what Hussar has said in this thread, I disagree. Hussar wants to be in the city. He wants to be dealing with the goal inside, not stopped from getting inside. That's (now) why he doesn't like the desert. Before it was just tedium, but it seems like it's boiled down to "I want to deal with my goal, and not deal with stuff unrelated to it (or some variation of this... it's been hard to pin down)". If that's the case, then the city is just as much an unrelated roadblock as the desert. It's related to the city, but that's just "setting". The city is not "plot", as Hussar described it. Only his goal within the city is.

and the siege is an aspect of the city. It's an obstacle to the PCs; but for the players it's part of what they are wanting to engage with in the game.

Well, that's a moving target depending on the table. Obviously, "the players want to engage with it = good" makes sense to me.

Here's another example: the PCs are on their way to a meeting with the Montagues, and are ambushed by some Capulets in the streets of Verona; vs the PCs are on their way to a meeting with Montagues, and fall down a manhole into a sewer encounter with an otyugh. The first would be relevant; the second a distraction.

Well, yes, but that's an entirely different situation. This one is "on the way to meet with this family, we're ambushed by their enemies." The other is "on the way to our goal, something got in our way, stopping us from getting there."

The difference is because the siege may have absolutely nothing to do with the goal in the city. If, say, the siege was there to obtain the same object, or whatever, then now it's related. But, the desert can be related in the same manner (though different means). Otherwise, both are unrelated to the goal​. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

/snip

If they want to get to the city beyond the desert, they must pass through the desert. If they see a distant spire glinting as if made of gold as they cross the desert, they choose how to react, with “investigate” and “ignore” both being perfectly valid choices.

If three Giant Desert Scorpions spring from hiding, they also have choices. I guess they could choose to deny all interaction and just keep walking, but unlike the spire, the scorpions will take actions themselves. With the scorpions defeated or driven off, the PC’s could carry on, investigate their hiding places, search for a lair, bury their bodies, or eat them, with varying potential results.

The players control the actions and reactions of their characters, and what those characters try to do. Perhaps they avoid the scorpions entirely because they take a different path, or evade them by flying overhead. They do not, however, dictate the results. It would be cool to slay one with a single mighty blow, or resist their poison and valiantly battle onward, but those desired results materialize only if the dice permit.

This is certainly one way of playing. Everything in the world is pre-determined and the players will encounter X if they go to the place where X is.

I don't play this way. I play with the assumption that nothing exists that hasn't been established at the table. There are no three Giant Desert Scorpions between you and the city. They do not exist. However, if the players raise flags that exploring the desert interests them - perhaps through knowledge checks or other ways, then those desert scorpions just might pop up.

Otherwise, they don't.

 

[Hussar]

Not quite, no. The desert, even without anything extra, is serving the same exact purpose as the siege -stopping you from getting in the city. The circumstances are different, as are the ways of dealing with it, but both the desert (without anything extra) and the siege both only serve one function at any base level: they stop you from getting to your goal in the city. You can make both more relevant by adding more to it.

But, as you say, only at the base level. Yes, both are stopping us from getting into the city.

But the desert does not add any time pressure to the game. The desert does not provide us with any obvious opportunities to achieve our goals in the city. Only in the most contrived ways do the encounters in the desert aid us with our goals.

IOW, the siege allows the players to pro-actively determine their means to achieving their goals. The desert is entirely reactive. It's not like the players can look for resources they have no idea exist. So, until they interact with the nomads, which they have no real reason for doing, they cannot know that the nomads have anything to help them further their goals.

OTOH, the siege presents very clear opportunities and challenges.

But, yes, if you want to reduce it down to the most basic level, they are functionally the same. But in play I'd say they are completely different.

Well, yes, but that's an entirely different situation. This one is "on the way to meet with this family, we're ambushed by their enemies." The other is "on the way to our goal, something got in our way, stopping us from getting there."

The difference is because the siege may have absolutely nothing to do with the goal in the city. If, say, the siege was there to obtain the same object, or whatever, then now it's related. But, the desert can be related in the same manner (though different means). Otherwise, both are unrelated to the goal​. As always, play what you like

To me, there is no difference. That's exactly the point I've been trying to get through. The desert is just something that gets in the way. The siege cannot be delinked from our goals in the city. There's no way it couldn't be related to any goal within the city. Even if the siege is just a bunch of barbarians who want to burn the city, that's still directly linked to whatever we want to achieve in the city. If they succeed, then we fail. No matter what, the siege is relevant. There is a definite incentive to interact in some form (sneak past, break, talk, whatever) with the siege.

The desert can only become relevant after the fact. There is no way for us to know the desert is relevant to our goals in the city before we interact with the desert. And we have no incentive to interacting with the desert. It's an open manhole. Yes, I could just trust that the DM is going to make it relevant later, but, now you're asking me to step outside of my character in order to play through the complications you've put on the table. My character has no reason to do anything other than traverse the desert as quickly and easily as possible.

/one more edit

I think this little back and forth, more than anything in this thread shows why I would not enjoy a game that uses a playstyle such as is advocated by N'raac or JamesonCourage. If you cannot see the difference between the two complications, and refuse to accept that for me there really is a difference, then obviously we are not going to come to any sort of agreement.

I've explained the difference multiple times. Permerton has also tried several times to explain the difference. Despite that, there is this insistence that we are wrong and there is actually no difference. Why not take the position that, even though you don't see the difference, you accept that we do, and for us, it would be a very important criteria for whether or not we want to engage in something at the table?

I was reading the thread about changing starting HP and saw a conversation between Celebrim and JC about how to deal with hp of very small creatures and deer. The fact that you cannot one shot a deer with a bow while hunting and the rules surrounding dealing with that. For me, this is a complete non-issue. I wouldn't even consider thinking about it. The deer dies because the character is a hunter and when you shoot a deer, it dies. Done. It wouldn't even have hit points because hit points are related to the combat mechanics and have no meaning outside of that. A farmer doesn't have 1 HP, nor does a house cat. They don't have HP at all, because, for me, they don't need to. Which again goes back to the very large gulf in playstyles in this thread.

We are not simulation players. This is a difference of playstyle. The fact that you cannot perceive the difference pretty much nails it that you would not enjoy my playstyle. Fair enough. But instead of labeling other playstyles as whiney, or characterizing them as disruptive, why not try to keep an open mind about it?

 

[JamesonCourage]

But, as you say, only at the base level. Yes, both are stopping us from getting into the city.

But the desert does not add any time pressure to the game. The desert does not provide us with any obvious opportunities to achieve our goals in the city. Only in the most contrived ways do the encounters in the desert aid us with our goals.

The desert can add a time pressure, and can help add opportunities to achieve your goals. I can't comment on what you find contrived, but it seems like a siege could be just as contrived, especially the more closely it relates directly to your goal (the more relevant it becomes).

IOW, the siege allows the players to pro-actively determine their means to achieving their goals. The desert is entirely reactive. It's not like the players can look for resources they have no idea exist. So, until they interact with the nomads, which they have no real reason for doing, they cannot know that the nomads have anything to help them further their goals.

Right, which is why you'd skip through the bits of desert where nothing happens until you've met the nomads.

Now, the examples are "nomads in the desert" and "siege". Both can be related or unrelated. We can make either one relevant or irrelevant.

OTOH, the siege presents very clear opportunities and challenges.

Well, the nomads can, too. We're just missing context on them. But the siege could be there for a reason entirely separate from your goal. It's just a roadblock, like the context-less desert is. That is, they both are irrelevant, until we make either one relevant.

But, yes, if you want to reduce it down to the most basic level, they are functionally the same. But in play I'd say they are completely different.

In play, I'd say all complications are completely different. That's why I like playing them all out; I like seeing how they'll affect play, what we'll learn about characters, how NPCs respond and interact with PCs, etc. I know that doesn't interest you as much, but we do agree that in play they're probably completely different.

To me, there is no difference. That's exactly the point I've been trying to get through. The desert is just something that gets in the way. The siege cannot be delinked from our goals in the city. There's no way it couldn't be related to any goal within the city.

Disagree. Let's say your goal in the city is to get to a certain temple to attune a certain tune to your fork for Plane Shift (Celebrim's example, I think, and I'm guessing from the module). Okay, so, this siege is here because they want the mayor to turn himself over as a traitor, and he's not willing to.

Okay, that's not related to your goal. At all. All it does is close the gates -it's a roadblock. Just like the desert can be. The only difference is backdrop.

Even if the siege is just a bunch of barbarians who want to burn the city, that's still directly linked to whatever we want to achieve in the city. If they succeed, then we fail. No matter what, the siege is relevant. There is a definite incentive to interact in some form (sneak past, break, talk, whatever) with the siege.

Yes, that'd make it relevant. But, that's you making it relevant. My context makes the siege irrelevant. It's merely a roadblock. The desert can be made relevant in the same way that you made your siege relevant, or made irrelevant in the same way I made the siege irrelevant.

The desert can only become relevant after the fact. There is no way for us to know the desert is relevant to our goals in the city before we interact with the desert. And we have no incentive to interacting with the desert. It's an open manhole.

Well, you have no way of knowing that the siege is relevant until you interact with it. It's the same thing. You need context before you know whether or not something is relevant.

Yes, I could just trust that the DM is going to make it relevant later, but, now you're asking me to step outside of my character in order to play through the complications you've put on the table. My character has no reason to do anything other than traverse the desert as quickly and easily as possible.

What? I don't get this; the siege is a complication, whether or not it's relevant. The desert can be, too. Your character would want to deal with either one, if they are getting in his way, since he wants to get to the city. I wouldn't be asking you to step outside your character at all.

I think this little back and forth, more than anything in this thread shows why I would not enjoy a game that uses a playstyle such as is advocated by N'raac or JamesonCourage. If you cannot see the difference between the two complications, and refuse to accept that for me there really is a difference, then obviously we are not going to come to any sort of agreement.

Well, don't worry, I have no doubts about my skill as a GM. However, I can't see the difference, inherently, between the complications. I see how they can affect things differently (nomads will resolve differently than interacting with a siege), but not how one is inherently related and relevant, and the other isn't. That depends entirely on context.

I do accept the difference is real to you. I'm trying to understand it. I am objecting the reasoning given thus far, but I am trying to get where you're coming from.

I've explained the difference multiple times. Permerton has also tried several times to explain the difference. Despite that, there is this insistence that we are wrong and there is actually no difference. Why not take the position that, even though you don't see the difference, you accept that we do, and for us, it would be a very important criteria for whether or not we want to engage in something at the table?

I've said I accept there is a difference. I've just said I can't see what it is.

I was reading the thread about changing starting HP and saw a conversation between Celebrim and JC about how to deal with hp of very small creatures and deer. The fact that you cannot one shot a deer with a bow while hunting and the rules surrounding dealing with that. For me, this is a complete non-issue. I wouldn't even consider thinking about it. The deer dies because the character is a hunter and when you shoot a deer, it dies. Done. It wouldn't even have hit points because hit points are related to the combat mechanics and have no meaning outside of that. A farmer doesn't have 1 HP, nor does a house cat. They don't have HP at all, because, for me, they don't need to. Which again goes back to the very large gulf in playstyles in this thread.

We are not simulation players. This is a difference of playstyle. The fact that you cannot perceive the difference pretty much nails it that you would not enjoy my playstyle. Fair enough. But instead of labeling other playstyles as whiney, or characterizing them as disruptive, why not try to keep an open mind about it?

You're replying to my post, right? Go back and find a post where I called you whiny or disruptive. I didn't. Please, don't project the entire thread onto me, or my posts onto other posters in this thread. It's not productive, it needlessly muddies the conversation, and it fosters ill will. Thank you. As always, play what you like

 

[N'raac]

Really. People fail all the time.

And really, it's okay for it to happen in-game, too.

I think it is important to recognize "fail" does not mean "character dead or beyond recovery". It can mean a setback, a delay, "they beat us to the item; we have to get it from them", "they win this round; we'll get them next time" or any one of numerous disappointments that are far from the end of the world.

Um, only if it's literally "cross the desert" and that's it. But, other options have been proposed, but they are "railroading" or "contrived", while the siege isn't. And, both the siege and desert can be pre-planned for by the GM, or improvised, or rolled for, or whatever. I can't see the difference yet, assuming both hold something relevant to the city.

To be fair, when the siege was first mentioned, Hussar noted it probably seemed a bit contrived when he first commented on it.

 

[N'raac]

Darn! To achieve my goal in the city I have to interact with the city (which happens to be under siege)! Cool.

No. The desert and the besieging force are both between me and the city. So are the city gates. The goal is something inside the city (a something that we have never had clarified, other than it being in the city).

Say, what if the city is under siege by a desert nomad tribe? Perhaps that other tribe we so disparagingly ignored is their clan enemy and would be easy to persuade to battle the besiegers. Or maybe they are the noncombatants, and we could have made contacts who could persuade the leadership to either call off the siege, or assist us in our goal in the course of the siege.

The difference is because the siege may have absolutely nothing to do with the goal in the city. If, say, the siege was there to obtain the same object, or whatever, then now it's related. But, the desert can be related in the same manner (though different means). Otherwise, both are unrelated to the goal​. As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think it is important to recognize "fail" does not mean "character dead or beyond recovery". It can mean a setback, a delay, "they beat us to the item; we have to get it from them", "they win this round; we'll get them next time" or any one of numerous disappointments that are far from the end of the world.

Right. You arrive late, you arrive fatigued, you arrive early, you have too much extra wealth to carry, etc. Lots of complications that don't include "death" or the like. That's why I mentioned earlier that, as a player, when you only care about your party (HP, goals, wealth), then those are the only complications that you can threaten. If everything else is ignored, then the other complications aren't "relevant", and thus you don't care about them.

I can see why Hussar seems to think "those things don't matter" about a lot of things, and then think "if something does complicate things, it's going to completely mess with our goals / lives", since it seems like that's what he's more interested in. And that's fair enough, and while I find that narrow (what he called "focused"), it's a legit way to play.

To be fair, when the siege was first mentioned, Hussar noted it probably seemed a bit contrived when he first commented on it.

I noted that, too, but it seems like it's changed since then, and I want to try to stay on the same page as he's on now, so that I can try to understand what he's trying to express. I didn't feel that bringing it up would help with that, so I let it slide. As always, play what you like

 

[Celebrim]

IOW, the siege allows the players to pro-actively determine their means to achieving their goals.

Why? If the siege is the aforementioned zombies, they are essentially mindless. If you say, "Well, I can control zombies so they are potentially a resource", then we can always replace them with chaos beasts or something else uncontrollable. There is nothing inherently interactive about the siege.

OTOH, the siege presents very clear opportunities and challenges.

No more or less than a desert journey does.

But, yes, if you want to reduce it down to the most basic level, they are functionally the same. But in play I'd say they are completely different.

You are suggesting that they are qualia.

siege cannot be delinked from our goals in the city. There's no way it couldn't be related to any goal within the city.

That's ridiculous. The beseigers can have a completely different goal than yours. I've already given one example, but its hardly the most extreme case. Particularly when we consider an outer planar seige, the goal of the besiegers can be ineffable and incomprehensible. Perhaps the beseigers are Slaad, and they want to plant white flowers in a certain garden that the inhabitants of the city only wish to see have black flowers. They have neither desire nor ability to communicate to your their reasons, and fundamentally have no interest in your goals. They exist only to provide 5 predictable combat scenes to grind through and some outer planar color to the setting. Is this a good scene? Perhaps not, I wouldn't do it (unless I had a really clever blow your mind later reason behind the flowers) but it just shows that intrinsically there is nothing about the seige that has to intrude on your goals. The beseigers do not need to be interested in your goals or to threaten them, even if they threaten you (in the same way that random desert encounters do). And in an outer planar siege in particular, this seige could have been going on for centuries and might not complete for centuries more.

There is a definite incentive to interact in some form (sneak past, break, talk, whatever) with the siege.

If sneaking past or evading the siege counts as interacting with it, than surely travelling through the desert counts as interacting with it to the same degree.

If you cannot see the difference between the two complications, and refuse to accept that for me there really is a difference, then obviously we are not going to come to any sort of agreement.

I accept that for the purposes of this thread you have a subjective personal preference for 'seiges' over 'deserts'. I believe that it a real experience for you, however illogical and ineffable the reasons may be for it. But yeah, if the difference is truly uncommunicatable, then there is no way to agree about it.

Despite that, there is this insistence that we are wrong and there is actually no difference. Why not take the position that, even though you don't see the difference, you accept that we do, and for us, it would be a very important criteria for whether or not we want to engage in something at the table?

The two beliefs aren't contridictory. I happen to insist on both of those things.

However, the city itself is also an arbitrary decided upon time and place. It didn't even actually exist in the original scenario. There was no city. The actual destinations were three locations in the desert. Suppose we say that the goal is in the desert. Is the desert relevant now? What if the goal is a black pyramid in the desert. Is the desert relevant now? What if you don't know that the goal is the black pyramid, only its approximate location in the desert? Is the desert relevant now? Consider that in the original scenario, the PC's don't actually know any details about there destinations. They only know they are in the desert. In fact, if they know the final destination, two of the three destinations can be skipped. Figuring out what the destinations are and where they are is part of the original scenario. Is the desert relevant now? Note, we both agree that it is a bad scenario as written, but I'm only asking about the question of relevancy. Suppose the goal is to protect a caravan across the 200 miles and five days of the desert journey. Suppose that the mechanics of resolution - same chance of random encounters, same random encounter tables - is exactly the same as in the original scenario. Do these random encounters get alchemically transformed into something more fun because of the relation to the goal, or a is 5 day journey with 20 random encounters boring and tedious despite relevance to the goal?