NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6107056" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Let me go out on a limb and suggest that these setting elements did not start out as "the anchor of a whole lot of intraparty roleplay and player-driven stuff", but that you actually had to play through some games where the setting presented itself before you could follow up on those aspects which became "the anchor of a whole lot of intraparty roleplay and player-driven stuff", and perhaps even play through some elements which did not become part of that anchor.  Had you simply dismissed intro scenes out of hand, I suspect you would not have had the  makings of "the anchor of a whole lot of intraparty roleplay and player-driven stuff".The need to cross the desert, as noted upthread, stems directly from the desire to travel to City B.  If I want to visit, say, the Temple in City B, then having to cross the desert between there and here is as relevant a complication as arriving at the city gates to discover that, for whatever reason, I cannot be granted immediate entry to visit the temple.I would suggest crossing the desert between you and the city is directly related to engaging in any activity which requires you be in that city, and by choosing to travel, you initiated the engagement of the scene as well.  And I note that you would also find it somewhat contrived that there is a seige.  It does not seem at all contrived that there would be a desert, presuming maps of the area were available before you decided on the travel. No, instead we'll have to spend a session or more faffing around dealing with this unrelated siege.  So much better!Exactly.An alternate fiat would be that there are no warriors seeking a day or less work risking their lives battling some supernatural beast.  Or that it is illegal to build a mercenary force with no licensure.  Sorry I misinterpreted your "GM fiat" for anything but "the GM allowing me whatever I find convenient".So you cannot envision the possibility there could be some level of engagement interacting with well written mercenaries.  I found the Myth Adventures book where the protagonists gather a force to defend against an army had very engaging mercenary characters myself.  The Magnificent Seven and the Dirty Dozen provide other examples.  Or we can just hire half a dozen cardboard cutouts who add nothing to the game.  Now, which one would  be more engaging?I think the onus is on the GM to make that interaction have meaning, and be connected to something of significance to the players, and I would much rather game at a table where the NPC's have their own unique personalities and are memorable than one who provides Generic Spearmen #1 through #6.I would concur - with the caveat that, like everything, it depends on a lot of factors.  If the player comes across as demanding that this scene he thinks may not be interesting be cut before it even begins, and we've been gaming with him for two whole hours, that seems a lot more likely to result in an invitation to depart than if he is polite in his request, engages in the scene before condemning it and/or has already demonstrated he is otherwise a decent fit for the group. As is pointed out later, that leaves me to assess which ones you think are the best, so I guess I'd simply ask you for a Sense Motive check and we'll see who Bluffs you.  To be clear, the character has the Sense Motive skill, so the roll should, IMP, be made regardless of the play-out of interaction.The two potential advantages I see to playing it out?  First, you get the opportunity to decide for yourself which factors you discover weigh heaviest in your decision.  Second, if the GM is going to spend the time on it, I would hope the NPC's have personalities that will make them engaging enough that the distraction from tactical combat is an enjoyable gaming diversion, and not a grind we have to endure in order to be permitted to have another battle.  I do prefer a game where investigation, NPC interaction, etc. is there for reasons other than filling time and drawing a link between combat scenes.Is it better that I "force you to play out several hours of" trying to get past the gates, or trying to get an NPC to direct you to where you want to go in the city?  No one who supports playing these scenes out is arguing that there should be hours of game play meandering aimlessly and being bored - only you and Pemerton seem to think the GM has a vested interest in boring you to tears.All of which requires trusting the GM to present an interesting encounter or series of encounters rather than a slog through the sand, a measure of trust [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] seems unable to build up.  Yet we should all trust that he would require a cut scene only when it is in the clear best interests of all at the table, and only very rarely, despite the rather common nature of the scenes he so desperately wants to skip.So you hang up a sign saying "Wanted:  brave stalwart heroes to come and help us kill a creature for revenge - departure in three hours" and you expect that you will get a bunch of brave, reliable and loyal stalwarts with no one in the bunch that may have a skeleton in the closet?  Newsflash:  you are hiring people to take money for going out to kill something that has done them no harm.  The likelihood of getting a crew of Paladins with a spare afternoon seems remarkably remote.  Or, to choose another word bandied about a lot here, "contrived".I would suggest you sound like the kind of player who "of course" had winter gear packed away for just such an emergency, and has simply neglected to transcribe it when updating that character sheet last.I think he mentioned being quite irked that the first applicant was a Dwarf, so I guess there is a racial determinant.  Why a Dwarf was unsuitable never came up, IIRC.  But what's more important, someone who seems very capable with that spear, or someone who seems very calm and rational?  I'd expect it won't be an easy decision if I'm going to play through extensive interviews with each applicant, and we might very well differ as to who we would choose.</blockquote>

Verification