Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6109059" data-attributes="member: 42582">How hard is that? They want some decent hirelings. If in doubt, get them to roll a Gather Information or Profession (mercenary captain) or whatever the relevant 3E skill check is, and for every 5 points over 15 (or whatever the system-appropriate threshold is) guarantee the hirelings at least a minimum of 2, 3 etc hp per hit die.The GM doesn't have to do this, because the GM can always choose not to introduce the unsavoury hireling into the encounter. Or, if the GM does decide that that would be a fun complication to introduce, there are literally dozens of other ways to have the players respond to or engage with that short of running the hiring episode that Hussar objected to.No, because as I've said above and upthread there are many other ways of letting the players discover or respond to complications.But anyway, my advice to any GM who wanted to avoid being dumped on, or more likely just dumped, would be to let the players hire a handful of competent merecenaries with a minimum of fuss. Or, if the GM doesn't want the mercenaries in the game - eg because resolving their actions will slow things down at the table, or just because the GM wants all the focus to be on and all the effort to come from the PCs - then make that clear to the players out-of-character, at the metagame level.And to elaborate on this - once you turn the hiring into a major piece of action resolution, you are conceding that - if the players succeed - then the PCs will have the benefit of the hired mercenaries. Which is to say you've conceded that the hirelings won't wreck the game. At which point, the players mght reasonably ask, as Hussar has, "Why are we wasting time on this boring hiring stuff when the real action is waiting for us with the grell?" Turning the hiring into a major piece of action resolution isn't serving any balance purpose (so it's not like, for instance, the classic D&D spell research rules, which are all about sucking up treasure). It's just making the game be about one thing (hiring) rather than another (grell vengeance). And a GM who makes the game be about stuff the players don't care for is (I think pretty obviously) running the risk of being dumped on, or dumped.Things that are not relevant don't add to my game. (And, as best I can tell, nor to Husssar's.) And the besieging force is not a distraction and a delay from the action. It is part of the action in a way that the desert obviously, to me at least, is not.No - but see my next line of reply.You didn't describe a sandbox game. As per my quote just above, you described a game in which the GM knows that something is relevant because the GM has a prewritten scenario. That's what I described as a railroad.As it happens I'm not that into sandbox play, but not because I think it's railroady.I don't think this is generally true, although it might affect particular techniques. For instance, if you want the twist or reveal to involve element A, you may have to frame the scene to also include element B which is a self-standing relevant element.Correct. That is the difference between what I am characterising as player-driven, and GM-driven, play.The players provide the hooks. The players decide where the action will be. The GM responds to them. If the player can't see his/her hook in what the GM serves up, the GM hasn't done his/her job. S/he has not "gone where the action is".The difference is as per Hussar's post quoted immediately below. The goal is the city - the siege is about the city. As [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] pointed out, the players can even potentialy exploit the siege to facilitiate their dealings in the city.Whereas the desert has nothing to do with the city. Unless (to borrow Hussar's phrase) the GM drops some bread crumbs that lead the players to something with info about the city (eg the hypothesised prisoner of the hypothesised nomads).In dealing with the siege the players are in the action they want to be in. In dealing with the city they are not.To me, at least, this is crystal clear! In the terminology I've been using (borrowed from Eero Tuovinen) you want the GM to go where the action is, as flagged by the players. And that's the city, not the desert; the grell, not the intereview room.I did mention the related counterpoint, that one of the mercs turns out to be an aberration-worshipper. Depending on context and the mood at the table at the time, that could be kind-of fun without involving the boredom of job interviews. I certainly think it's more interesting than being a random criminal who will kill you in your sleep!Still, I take your point.</blockquote>

Verification