You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[JamesonCourage]

But the desert is different in that there is nothing for the players to puzzle out. You're in a desert. You want to go to the city over there. What puzzling out is there? There's no reason for the players to start interacting with the desert unless the DM starts bombing reasons in there.

Okay, let's look at things. You want to cross the desert to get to the city. There's nothing in the desert that's been communicated to you other than "desert", so you understandably assume "sand and such" and decide to pass through it. After all, what is there to explore? You don't know as a player, really.

Now, along the way, the GM interrupts the "skipping the desert" narration to say "something happens."

Situation A: There is a group of nomads guiding city folk through the desert, with what looks like hardened city mercenaries escorting them. Some of the city folk shout out to you.

Situation B: There is a siege around the city as you approach it.

I'm struggling to understand how one is more "player empowering" than the other. Both could not be explored by players before they were introduced by the GM, as the players didn't know either situation existed. They can react to either one, or even interact with it later on if they choose to (seeking out nomads, looking for leaders in the siege, etc.). I'm honestly struggling to find the "reactive vs active" difference, or the "player empowered" difference. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

All of these can be applied to the desert. It can be especially hot, cold, barren, hostile, filled with sandstorms or monsters, or whatever. They know the desert is there, and can know these things about it, and the implications that these things would bring to a city situated in it. The players can certainly interact with the desert willingly.

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.

Exactly.

Nomads and monsters are not inherent to the desert. The only thing I can do to interact with the desert is wander blindly around until something pops up. That is not a meaningful choice.

Leaders and soldiers are generally inherent in sieges. It's not too much of a stretch to assume that there is a leader of a siege that I can interact with. Or at least a soldier, or something. These are inherent elements of a siege. Thus, the players have meaningful choices to make.

I have no problem with dropping the desert or the siege into the game. That's fine. My beef is that you're assuming that I'm going to start wandering around the desert looking for something to interact with when there is absolutely no reason to expect that there is anything to interact with.

 

[Hussar]

Okay, let's look at things. You want to cross the desert to get to the city. There's nothing in the desert that's been communicated to you other than "desert", so you understandably assume "sand and such" and decide to pass through it. After all, what is there to explore? You don't know as a player, really.

Now, along the way, the GM interrupts the "skipping the desert" narration to say "something happens."

Situation A: There is a group of nomads guiding city folk through the desert, with what looks like hardened city mercenaries escorting them. Some of the city folk shout out to you.

Situation B: There is a siege around the city as you approach it.

I'm struggling to understand how one is more "player empowering" than the other. Both could not be explored by players before they were introduced by the GM, as the players didn't know either situation existed. They can react to either one, or even interact with it later on if they choose to (seeking out nomads, looking for leaders in the siege, etc.). I'm honestly struggling to find the "reactive vs active" difference, or the "player empowered" difference. As always, play what you like

You don't understand because you insist on changing the parameters. Nomads are NOT inherent to the desert. There is no reason for my group to assume that there are nomads there. The players cannot actually LOOK for the nomads. Nor are the nomads linked to the city except in a completely contrived way - while wandering through the desert we just happen to find a caravan of city people heading in the same way.

The siege is part and parcel to the city. It is right there. It's inherently linked to the city. The DM doesn't have to "interrupt" anything. It's an element of the city, no different than walls or anything else. It's framing the city. This isn't just a city in a desert. It's a city under siege. That's part of the framing of the city.

It's contrived in that it's a bit unlikely that we happen to arrive just as the siege is going on, but, meh, I'm more than willing to allow for that. But, the only way to make the desert actually relevant is by adding things to the desert which aren't actually part of the desert but are actually part of the city - either there are prisoners with the nomads, or city people with the nomads or whatever. The nomads themselves are actually completely unimportant as far as the player's goals go.

But, I keep coming back to this. You are perfectly fine with me skipping the desert. You don't care if I skip the desert. I can make the desert 100% irrelevant and it doesn't bother you in the slightest. The issue here isn't skipping the desert. If it was, then teleportation would be an issue. But it's not. So the issue has to be something else - and that's entirely, 100% the fact that I want to skip something without having the in-game resources to do so.

You can keep bringing up how interesting the desert is, but, it doesn't matter. The desert could be the best adventure ever written, and, if I've got Teleport, we skip it and that's perfectly fine. But, if I don't have teleport, no matter how good or bad that desert scenario is, I am obligated to play through it out of some sense that the rules must be adhered to and the simulation must be preserved, no matter what.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Nomads and monsters are not inherent to the desert. The only thing I can do to interact with the desert is wander blindly around until something pops up. That is not a meaningful choice.

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

Leaders and soldiers are generally inherent in sieges. It's not too much of a stretch to assume that there is a leader of a siege that I can interact with. Or at least a soldier, or something. These are inherent elements of a siege. Thus, the players have meaningful choices to make.

Once the GM drops the siege in their path, then probably, yes. Of course, the GM could set up a desert scene that allows for meaningful interactions with the players (my scenario).

I have no problem with dropping the desert or the siege into the game. That's fine. My beef is that you're assuming that I'm going to start wandering around the desert looking for something to interact with when there is absolutely no reason to expect that there is anything to interact with.

I have literally never said that you'd do this. Problem resolved?

You don't understand because you insist on changing the parameters.

Uh. No.

Nomads are NOT inherent to the desert. There is no reason for my group to assume that there are nomads there. The players cannot actually LOOK for the nomads. Nor are the nomads linked to the city except in a completely contrived way - while wandering through the desert we just happen to find a caravan of city people heading in the same way.

Let us assume you're heading from somewhere populated, and that the nomads are escorting the refugees to the place you just came from. No more contrived than a siege is, now.

The siege is part and parcel to the city. It is right there. It's inherently linked to the city. The DM doesn't have to "interrupt" anything. It's an element of the city, no different than walls or anything else. It's framing the city. This isn't just a city in a desert. It's a city under siege. That's part of the framing of the city.

The siege -the thing that you were saying the players can proactively interact with- can only be reactively responded to, since the players don't know it exists until the GM drops it in their path. They can now actively interact with it, just like they could the nomads / refugees / mercenaries.

It's contrived in that it's a bit unlikely that we happen to arrive just as the siege is going on, but, meh, I'm more than willing to allow for that. But, the only way to make the desert actually relevant is by adding things to the desert which aren't actually part of the desert but are actually part of the city - either there are prisoners with the nomads, or city people with the nomads or whatever. The nomads themselves are actually completely unimportant as far as the player's goals go.

Okay. So it can be relevant to your goal. Like the siege can be irrelevant. This has been my point so far.

But, I keep coming back to this. You are perfectly fine with me skipping the desert. You don't care if I skip the desert. I can make the desert 100% irrelevant and it doesn't bother you in the slightest. The issue here isn't skipping the desert. If it was, then teleportation would be an issue. But it's not. So the issue has to be something else - and that's entirely, 100% the fact that I want to skip something without having the in-game resources to do so.

Not even that. I don't care if you go the opposite direction of the city. Skip it. Don't interact with it. It doesn't bug me in the slightest. You can move towards or away from whatever goal you want, and it won't bug me.

You can keep bringing up how interesting the desert is, but, it doesn't matter. The desert could be the best adventure ever written, and, if I've got Teleport, we skip it and that's perfectly fine. But, if I don't have teleport, no matter how good or bad that desert scenario is, I am obligated to play through it out of some sense that the rules must be adhered to and the simulation must be preserved, no matter what.

I think that depends on the group. My point, though, is that when you tried skipping the desert because you thought it was irrelevant, you don't know that. The desert might be very relevant. It's not relevant yet, just like the siege may not be relevant at all. It depends entirely on context, and until you have that, I don't understand the "it's irrelevant" logic that's been used so far. As always, play what you like

 

[Nagol]

Oh, sure, the PC's could ignore the siege, to some extent, presuming that the orcs don't come busting through the walls while the PC's are in the city. But, the point is, the players get the choice. It's up to the players to determine just how important the siege is. If they want to just skip over the siege, they certainly can.

But the desert is different in that there is nothing for the players to puzzle out. You're in a desert. You want to go to the city over there. What puzzling out is there? There's no reason for the players to start interacting with the desert unless the DM starts bombing reasons in there. IOW, the PC's without any additions from the DM, will only ignore the desert. Even if the DM doesn't do anything with the siege, the players can certainly choose to interact with it.

Put it another way. As a player, can I tell the DM, "I want to explore the desert to find nomads that live here" without knowing that there are nomads in this desert in the first place? Can I assume nomads? Can I assume giant scorpions? Besides sand and rock, what can I assume?

With the siege, I can assume all sorts of things - leaders, hardships, soldiers, lots of things to interact with. I don't really need to ask if they exist - they're going to be there because it would be pretty difficult to have a siege without them. If I want to go find the leaders of the siege, I simply tell the DM that I'm looking for the leaders and we can run with that. It's entirely player driven.

Without knowing what's in the desert first, what can the players drive?

Right I get that part. Though I think you've been swapping reactive and proactive which threw me the first time. The players need to be proactive in the desert because there is nothing present to trigger a reaction and until the PCs have further information or need, such activity isn't warranted. The players have many possible ways to react to the presence of a siege and the PCs may feel such action is warranted depending on the situation.

Let's say the PCs had a fast travel ability and used it as soon as the Plane Shift completed. *Bam* you're in a desert. *Bam* you're in the city. Oh, neat it's under siege, huh.

Whilst interacting with the city to accomplish your goal, you get hints that the goal here is just a trap/red herring and some additional information would be valuable.

Scenario A:
The head arcanist in the siege force should know the truth. The siege is at best indirectly related to your goals and you can possibly get the information through social, covert, or overt means.

Scenario B:
The leader of a nomadic tribe off to the west should know the truth. Once you locate them, you can possibly get the information through social, covert, or overt means. As an added bonus, they don't know about the siege yet and can be drawn into the conflict here if the PCs desire.

Is there any difference between these scenarios?

 

[pemerton]

??? Well, I guess that's that then. pemerton has spoken.

You seemed to be asking questions about how to run BW. I responded.

Here's a BW game I don't think I could run: one in which one of the players wanted as a Belief "If there's a ticking bomb, I torture them until they tell me where it is."

You seem to have pretty resolute views about what a true king must be. That's fine, but I think it rules you out from GMing a game in which a player wants to put the nature, source and character of true kingship up for grabs.

It's not an insult.

I'd advise you to look to things like 'The Magicians' by Lev Grossman and 'His Dark Materials' by Phillip Pullman for counter examples that I think show that regardless of the cosmological framework those questions of whether the judgment of the gods is unquestionable can still be put into play

I'm sure they can. But unless the player wants to do that, I'm not going to. You mentioned upthread you wouldn't override a player-authored backstory. If the conformity of the PC's conduct to divine requirements is itself part of the backstory, I'm not going to put that under pressure. There are plenty of other points of pressure to be found, after all.

 

[pemerton]

The difference between the desert and the siege, for me, boils down to empowering player choices.

Oh, sure, the PC's could ignore the siege, to some extent, presuming that the orcs don't come busting through the walls while the PC's are in the city. But, the point is, the players get the choice. It's up to the players to determine just how important the siege is. If they want to just skip over the siege, they certainly can.

But the desert is different in that there is nothing for the players to puzzle out.

<snip>

As a player, can I tell the DM, "I want to explore the desert to find nomads that live here" without knowing that there are nomads in this desert in the first place? Can I assume nomads? Can I assume giant scorpions? Besides sand and rock, what can I assume?

With the siege, I can assume all sorts of things - leaders, hardships, soldiers, lots of things to interact with. I don't really need to ask if they exist - they're going to be there because it would be pretty difficult to have a siege without them. If I want to go find the leaders of the siege, I simply tell the DM that I'm looking for the leaders and we can run with that. It's entirely player driven.

Without knowing what's in the desert first, what can the players drive?

Terrific posts.

The cannot search for a siege they don't know exists, they can only react to one if the GM throws one in their path. Right?

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.

The players can certainly interact with the desert willingly.

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).

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.

Or if there's a giant sandstorm, and the gates are closed and everyone is locked down? But that's different, I guess.

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.

 

[pemerton]

The siege is part and parcel to the city. It is right there. It's inherently linked to the city. The DM doesn't have to "interrupt" anything. It's an element of the city, no different than walls or anything else. It's framing the city. This isn't just a city in a desert. It's a city under siege. That's part of the framing of the city.

I posted into this particular bit of the discussion before reading this. What you say here is exactly right.

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.

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.

Scenario A:
The head arcanist in the siege force should know the truth. The siege is at best indirectly related to your goals and you can possibly get the information through social, covert, or overt means.

Scenario B:
The leader of a nomadic tribe off to the west should know the truth. Once you locate them, you can possibly get the information through social, covert, or overt means. As an added bonus, they don't know about the siege yet and can be drawn into the conflict here if the PCs desire.

Is there any difference between these scenarios?

[MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] gave this example quite a bit upthread.

The answer is "Yes, there are differences, but they at least partly orthogonal to the relevance issue". A related point he made is that, with respect to either A or B, handle with care!

A is an attempt to get the players to interact with the siege as something of interest in its own right, rather than as a resource for engaging the city. B is an attempt to get the players to interact with the desert and its nomadic inhabitants, perhaps with the benefit of getting a siege-leveraging resource out of it.

As a player, I actually find B more appealing than A because of the resource aspect of it, but really hope that I won't have to do much desert resolution to find the nomad - the real action is the social/stealth encounter with the nomad, not the desert.

Scenario A doesn't run the risk of getting bogged down in a GM's desert-crossing enthusiasm, put has obvious pitfalls of its own: it may be essentially boring, given that my interest in the arcanist is purely as a means to an end. The arcanist, as you've framed it (or if I'm getting your framing right), doesn't have the potential spark that the nomad does.

Of course, if the players want to ignore A and B and just keep on trucking in the city, that has to be an option too.

 

[Nagol]

You're right. I put a rider on the desert side without thinking.

A better comparison would be

Scenario A:
The head arcanist in the siege force should know the truth. The siege is at best indirectly related to your goals and you can possibly get the information through social, covert, or overt means. As an added bonus, the PCs can try to effect the siege's resolution if they have the desire.

Scenario B:
The leader of a nomadic tribe off to the west should know the truth. Once you locate them, you can possibly get the information through social, covert, or overt means. As an added bonus, they don't know about the siege yet and can be drawn into the conflict here if the PCs desire.

 

[N'raac]

All this means is that if I were to sit at your table, I would play core casters only. That way I know that I could retain the ability to control pacing within the framework of the game and you would have no problems with it. I know that if I were to play a non-core caster, I would simply be frustrated and likely leave the game as I am forced, yet again, to somehow justify my preferences to you, and you are apparently incapable of understanding them.

As I stated above, I would consider the characters’ capabilities in my adventure design. If the desert will be meaningless drudgery, then you can easily skip it through flight or teleport or whatever. And if you don’t have those resources, as a party, then perhaps I need to add those resources somewhere so they will be available to the players. Or perhaps this is as simple as “ZAP – you materialize within the center of the city. What do you do next?” becoming “After three weeks of hot, sandy, arduous desert travel, you arrive at the city. What do you do next?”

If my expectation is that the players will travel through the desert, wherein relevant encounters will occur, then I look again to the available resources. They’re 5th level? They don’t have the spells to circumvent the desert? Great – they will have to travel by conventional means. They have Overland Flight? Any encounters must then be meaningful from the air or they will be missed. That needs to be factored in. They can Teleport? Well, they’ve never been to the city, so a teleport error is a possibility. But they can just keep trying (assuming “false location” does not enter into the picture). Greater teleport? As long as you “have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination or a reliable description of the place to which you are teleporting”, its failsafe. So now I need to provide some reason for the players to hike through the desert. That may be ham-handed (you can’t get a good enough vision of the city to teleport; there’s an anti-magic field) but ideally would be more subtle (an indication of something you want or need that can be obtained, or advanced, through something in the desert).

I would say that the DM would know the desired scene by actually LISTENING to the players. When the players say, hey we don't like scene X, don't do scene X. When they play through scenes A through W, then it's probably not a problem. If the players have a goal, then maybe focusing on that goal is a good idea.

Here again, the goalposts move. None of the players like Scene X? That’s a significant problem. One of the players doesn’t like Scene X, and the others do? That is a very different problem. And “skip the scene” is a much better answer for the former than the latter.

But, just to flog the equine one last time.

Sure, why not…although other responses have covered this as well as I will, I am sure.

The Difference Between the Desert Scenario and the Siege Scenario

In the desert scenario, we can completely skip the scenario with an application of in-game resources and you would be perfectly fine with it. We could land at one side of the desert, teleport and arrive at our goal and that is perfectly fine.

Assuming you possess the in-game resources, both desert and siege can be circumvented, yes. The GM should be assessing those in-game resources and, if interaction with desert or siege is an expected part of the adventure, ensuring that the players will logically do so. Lots of options, as discussed above.

Once we arrive at our goal, any and all encounters within the desert scenario are rendered completely irrelevant unless the DM adds in additional information to send us back out into the desert. The desert becomes scenery through the simple application of character resources. The nomads, the giant scorpions, whatever, cannot be interacted with from inside the desert. And, without additional information, the players have no reason for even trying to interact with elements in the desert since they don't know those elements even exist.

Once we have bypassed the siege, any and all encounters within are rendered completely irrelevant irrelevant unless the DM adds in additional information to send us back out into the siege, rather than bypassing it on the way out just as we did on the way in. And without additional information, there is no reason for the players to choose to interact with the siege. If you know there are nomads and scorpions in the desert, that in no way motivates you to interact with them, so knowing there are soldiers and leaders in the siege is not a major differentiator to me.

The players can certainly interact with the siege without any further prompting from the DM. They know the siege is there, they can see it. If they choose to interact with the siege, they can certainly do so. It's entirely in the hands of the players. The players are now empowered to make informed choices, or at least fairly educated guesses.

They can walk back out into the desert, too. Why should they interact with the siege without a reason to do so? Maybe that reason becomes some concern for the well-being of the city and its occupants. But that same concern could see the players leading a caravan of food, medicine and other supplies across the desert (and no, Teleport won’t transport a ton of supplies, or a few dozen camels).

Could the DM have a besieged city where the siege has absolutely no effect on the inside of the city? Sure. But, then, why would you bother having a siege in the first place? Other than as a fairly clumsy roadblock for a group that lacks teleport, I suppose. A DM has to pretty actively work to make the siege completely irrelevant to events in the city. Most sieges do have pretty strong effects on the besieged and most players are probably going to expect that there would be effects.

To the last, first – all the GM has to do to make the siege completely irrelevant to the events in the city is to factor no implications of the siege into the encounters. Just as the impact of the desert can be ignored – everyone rides horses, water is plentiful, the weather is temperate, and there are no shortages of goods or supplies despite being in the middle of a nigh-impassible desert. Neither is a shining example of great GMing. Both reduce a major element to mere backdrop description. Both are easily possible.

The difference between the desert and the siege, for me, boils down to empowering player choices. The desert is 100% reactive. The players have no choices to make. They cannot search out for nomads that they don't know exist, they can only react to the nomads that the DM throws in their path.

What prevents them making an educated guess? Sure, someone is calling the local shots at the siege. What makes you believe “bring people to me for a friendly chat” rather than “slay all those seeking to enter or leave the city in a slow, painful and gruesome manner as an example to others”? What reason do you have to believe the field commander has any real authority? He’s following his orders. Why would you think he would be inclined to listen to your motley crew anyway?

You are making guesses about the siege, just as you might make guesses about the desert. If you have the resources to avoid either, I would expect you would do so. If not, then you will have the opportunity to react to what the GM throws in your path. Neither seems so different, in that regard, from where I sit.

They know it exists and they can assume a number of things - hardship in the city,

Like difficulties getting goods, water shortages, that sort of thing which is likely day to day life in the middle of a desert?

leadership of both the siege camp and the besieged city who have needs and wants that the party could choose to interact with.

Assuming they choose to interact with you – and, if they do, on terms you find acceptable. What do you think the typical reaction of the leader of a siege to “Oh great General, six motley adventurers riding a monstrous centipede wish to speak with you” might logically be?

Danger and quite likely a time pressure as well can certainly be implied or outright stated.

Like dangerous beasts in the desert, and the possibility your target will move on in time?

I mean, you arrive at Helms Deep with a sea of orcs pounding on the gates. Are you really going to tell me that the orcs are irrelevant to the party if there is something in Helms Deep that they need?

Oh, a SIEGE. There must be a central courtyard. Teleport in. Walk to the temple. Meet with the High Priest. Get the MacGuffin. Teleport home. Orcs irrelevant. Note that they didn’t have the in game resources to bypass the siege in LoTR, so their GM did not have to plan around those resources. They also lacked the in game resources to avoid travel, but unless the GM had an encounter to throw in their path, that travel was relegated to brief flavour text.

Say, there’s my answer! “If you use powerful travel magicks like Teleport, lo the Dark Lord shall sense this, and send his forces, far more vast than you can even imagine, upon you!” There, no teleports.

Nagol says the same thing, but far more concisely.