Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6106574" data-attributes="member: 42582">But not as an object of exploration. Not as a focus of play. It's colour.That's not what I said. I said that I'm not interested in economic ramifications.But also, the test is not inconvenience. It's tedium. Which is related to economics - I personally find ingame economics pretty tedious. It's also related to geographic exploration - I tend to find that tedious too.A desert can make for perfectly fine colour - Sultans, oases, scimitars, minarets, etc (just to pick up on some of the well-worn tropes) - without playing a game of desert exploration.First, why are we positing that gaining access will take the rest of the session?But even if it does, there's a huge difference, if the goal of play is City B, between spending a session engaged with City B (finding ingress through a siege, or closed gates) and spending a session not engaged with City B (because crossing a desert).But why would we do that? Why would we skip over interesting stuff?Sure, that's one way to play. It's not my preferred way. I haven't seen any evidence that it's Hussar's either.I feel there's some sort of disconnect here. By explaining how, for you, the mercenary recruitment episode might in itself be interesting, you're not persuading me that I would enjoy it as a player, nor that I would want to run it as a GM.The availability of mercenaries can be resolved by a simple roll, CHA check, GM fiat or something similar that takes a lot less than 90 minutes to resolve.What's this got to do with anything? It's suddenly "videogamey" to skip boring stuff?You haven't commented on any of the posts I linked to (twice now) upthread. If you look at them, you'll see that the NPCs in my game are more interesting, and more central to the action, than random spearcarriers.Quite.</blockquote>

Verification