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: 6109578" data-attributes="member: 42582">Of course you might do this if the grell battle was just a grind. But we've already establish that the players were invested in it. Given that, why would we skip over the bit the players are interested in? The whole point Hussar and I are trying to make is that we want a game where the focus of play is on the stuff that the players are invested in.At least in my case, because the tasks in question are narratively trivial ones the detailed resolution of which would add nothing of interest to play. It's not as if, because we skip over them, we won't have anything to do in our game! We'll do the interesting stuff, like getting vengeance on the grell!Welcome!Nice restatement.And a nice illustration of some complexities that can arise.Suppose we look at it this way. The players can make the siege relevant to their goals in the city just by engaging with it - [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] mentioned some possibilities upthread, like using the disruption caused by the siege to cover up or facilitate their own skullduggery in the city.Whereas the players can't make the desert relevant to their goals. Only the GM can do that. Which is what Hussar was getting at with reference to "bread crumbs" upthread, I think.Again, the difference to me at least is night and day. The relevance of the siege is self-evident - our goal is under siege! - and there is a situation that the players can, proactively, leverage in pursuit of their goal.Whereas the relevance of the nomads is entirely in the hands of the GM.As far as I can see we are on exactly the same page, and see the situations in exactly the same light! Everything you say here is crystal clear to me, and makes perfect sense.The tedium and the "goal blockage" are the same thing - the reason the desert is tedious is because it's not implicated in the goal.I guess it's possible that a GM could set up and run the siege in such a way that it ends up having no bearing on the PC's goals, and all their attempts to interact with or leverage it in pursuit of their goals come to naught. But I personally don't see why a GM would do that.I agree. [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] upthread actually suggested that we were in bad faith, denying that the desert and the siege are the same simply for the sake of rhetorical advantage.It's one thing for a poster to say that, for them, they wouldn't care which complication the GM used. But it continues to baffle me that some posters can't see why, for others (eg you and me) there would be a pretty obvious and important difference.I guess that's one take on it, that Hussar and I differ from your own play preferences only in having some illogical and ineffable idiosyncracies.</blockquote>

Verification