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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6109520" data-attributes="member: 22779">But, as you say, only at the base level.  Yes, both are stopping us from getting into the city.But the desert does not add any time pressure to the game.  The desert does not provide us with any obvious opportunities to achieve our goals in the city.  Only in the most contrived ways do the encounters in the desert aid us with our goals.IOW, the siege allows the players to pro-actively determine their means to achieving their goals.  The desert is entirely reactive.  It's not like the players can look for resources they have no idea exist.  So, until they interact with the nomads, which they have no real reason for doing, they cannot know that the nomads have anything to help them further their goals.OTOH, the siege presents very clear opportunities and challenges.But, yes, if you want to reduce it down to the most basic level, they are functionally the same.  But in play I'd say they are completely different.To me, there is no difference.  That's exactly the point I've been trying to get through.  The desert is just something that gets in the way.  The siege cannot be delinked from our goals in the city.  There's no way it couldn't be related to any goal within the city.  Even if the siege is just a bunch of barbarians who want to burn the city, that's still directly linked to whatever we want to achieve in the city.  If they succeed, then we fail.  No matter what, the siege is relevant.  There is a definite incentive to interact in some form (sneak past, break, talk, whatever) with the siege.The desert can only become relevant after the fact.  There is no way for us to know the desert is relevant to our goals in the city before we interact with the desert.  And we have no incentive to interacting with the desert.  It's an open manhole.  Yes, I could just trust that the DM is going to make it relevant later, but, now you're asking me to step outside of my character in order to play through the complications you've put on the table.  My character has no reason to do anything other than traverse the desert as quickly and easily as possible./one more editI think this little back and forth, more than anything in this thread shows why I would not enjoy a game that uses a playstyle such as is advocated by N'raac or JamesonCourage.  If you cannot see the difference between the two complications, and refuse to accept that for me there really is a difference, then obviously we are not going to come to any sort of agreement.I've explained the difference multiple times.  Permerton has also tried several times to explain the difference.  Despite that, there is this insistence that we are wrong and there is actually no difference.  Why not take the position that, even though you don't see the difference, you accept that we do, and for us, it would be a very important criteria for whether or not we want to engage in something at the table?I was reading the thread about changing starting HP and saw a conversation between Celebrim and JC about how to deal with hp of very small creatures and deer.  The fact that you cannot one shot a deer with a bow while hunting and the rules surrounding dealing with that.  For me, this is a complete non-issue.  I wouldn't even consider thinking about it.  The deer dies because the character is a hunter and when you shoot a deer, it dies.  Done.  It wouldn't even have hit points because hit points are related to the combat mechanics and have no meaning outside of that.  A farmer doesn't have 1 HP, nor does a house cat.  They don't have HP at all, because, for me, they don't need to.  Which again goes back to the very large gulf in playstyles in this thread.We are not simulation players.  This is a difference of playstyle.  The fact that you cannot perceive the difference pretty much nails it that you would not enjoy my playstyle.  Fair enough.  But instead of labeling other playstyles as whiney, or characterizing them as disruptive, why not try to keep an open mind about it?</blockquote>

Verification