Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6109944" data-attributes="member: 6668292">But the GM is framing these scenes based on what the players want. So far, all I know is "the desert is relevant because [mumble], but the siege is relevant because [it's at the city?]." I just don't have enough to go on to even set up scenes that they might want to engage in.As far as the NPCs, deer HP, etc., that's crystal clear to me. We play differently, but I totally get it. I just don't get the difference, above, yet.I appreciate the effort. Thanks.Okay. I wouldn't bypass the rules for it, most of the time, but I get the spirit of what you're saying.Okay. But that's not the example I gave. Once again, you're comparing a siege ("must be tied to our goals; no way for it not to be") for the city, and something entirely and purposefully irrelevant for the desert ("random scorpions!").To me, the random scorpions are just as relevant in the desert as they are at the gates; they both threaten to stop you from achieving your goals, but, otherwise, have nothing really to do with your goals. The same goes for a "siege" in the desert (what pemerton called my example of nomads in the desert), or a siege at the city walls.The relevance of each is entirely in the hands of the GM either way, in that he can decide how much it ties into the party's goals. The party can then change their goals, making it irrelevant, sure. But, the GM, when he describes the scene, sets the relevance to the party's current goals.I do get this one. I just don't get any inherent difference between the desert and the city other than backdrop. Admittedly, that backdrop might have other effects on how the game unfolds, but the relevance (or irrelevance) is inherently the same, from what I can tell.Okay, so it's about your goal. Gambling in Las Vegas.Yes, this prevents you from gambling in Las Vegas. I get how it is relevant.That is usually true. The guy in charge of the siege might let you through, only allow certain people in/out, or whatever. For all we know, the siege could be an effective quarantine, and you can go in, but not out. We really can give it whatever context we want, just like the desert. You could even just fly over it, like Celebrim brought up pages ago, and never interact with it.But, like the siege, you can add stuff that makes it relevant to the characters.The GM is forcing the siege on the players, too, and what they do is entirely reactive... isn't it?That's true. So we know that it is there preference. I just can't figure out why, yet. I've offered "is it the backdrop [of at the city's walls, rather than the desert]?", but that hasn't seemed to be it. Trouble is, outside of that, I'm seeing the same logic offered by you and pemerton applied to one example, and then different logic applied to the other. And that makes it hard for me to figure out why your group has the preferences it does. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification