Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6101304" data-attributes="member: 6681948">The group of characters have a clear goal.  That does not mean the group of players have any reason to expect that will be the next scene.  I like Christmas, but I don't get to skip there from July.  So what if I decide I want to get to the scene that follows the one which engages you?  Again, we're back to "one player wants" vs "the player group wants".If the skill checks are apppropriate (and I suggest they are) and their use means pretty much automatic failure for your plan (and it seems you believe they are), that suggests your plan should not work.  We're back to "rule of cool" suggests "I leap down on the sea serpent and stab it through the eye with my two-handed sword, slaying it instantly" succeeds vs the rules say I need to make a variety of rolls to determine success or failure of those actions.If the NPC's are unimportant, then let's just go with "you can't find anyone willing to sign on".  I suggest that, as a critical component in your plan, you have made them important.  Will they only be around for a single encounter?  Maybe they will get the adventuring bug and be a rival party going forward.  Perhaps they aren't coming along to fignt the Grell, but because they have seen the cash you are flashing around, and the fact you are using it to build combat power, and are actually planning on killing the PC's and taking their stuff (hey, you're the one who wants to motivate violence with gold - what's the guarantee you direct that violence exactly as you see fit?).  Regardless, by involving these NPC's you invested into their importance.Given the choice, my character would have lived a life of peace, security and luxury.  We don't always get to choose, and the results if we do can make for amuch poorer game.  You're in the desert.  That was a cost of your chosen goal and tactic - that's the way plane shift works, as you say.  If travel through the desert is trivial, it should make no difference whether you have a mount or not - that just means you get there faster.  If it's not trivial, I'd hope it's not boring.  You seem to have set your sights on a single outcome.  I agree with another poster's comment that this is like the GM envisioning a specific result in a scene and roadblocking anything that might lead to a different result.Sure.  Their goals include accessing wealth and power.  The game is a series of obtstacles to them doing so.  Overcoming the obstacles is where most of the fun comes from. I could just have them open a door and out spills a treasure trove, but where's the fun in that?  My players' goals, however, as opposed to their characters' goals, typically prioitize the fun of a challenging campagn with a variety of different encounters and experiences.  So having a desert between them and the city tends to be viewed as an enjoyable part of the game, not an obstacle thrown in the way of their fun.And I'd expect, having agreed to play in the GM's campaign, that when he sets a scene I assume they'd have a go and see how it plays.As the BW Sword scenario clearly failed to do in celebrim's case.  Guess we're off to the movies, however engaged the other players may be, right?  In my group, a player not interested in a given game says so, and does something else.Again, we are assuming hussar is 100% consistent with the rest of the group.  Again, I have a tough time envisioning 90 minutes of NPC interaction occuring with no player engagement.  I have a much easier time envisioning several engaged players and Hussar so focused on his vision of the Grell battle that he refuses to consider any possible enjoyment that could be derived from this scene.You made a book analogy some time back.  Hussar's approach seems to me like skipping through this book in order to get to the next one faster.</blockquote>

Verification