Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6110342" data-attributes="member: 22779">How could the siege not be relevant?&nbsp; You have to actively work to make the siege not relevant.&nbsp; If nothing else, the siege affects every single NPC encounter in the city - presumably they're not ignoring the siege.&nbsp; It will affect everything the PC's try to do - want to buy something?&nbsp; Good luck, there's a siege on.&nbsp; Want to find a room at the inn?&nbsp; Good luck, the inn has been destroyed by siege weapon fire.&nbsp; On and on and on.&nbsp; Every single encounter once you are in the city will be colored by the siege.&nbsp; How are encounters in the city colored by the desert?&nbsp; I'd say that's a valid point.&nbsp; Now, is it not possible for the players to declare what they find meaningful?&nbsp; Do the players not get any say in the consequences?&nbsp; Even if the consequences that the DM is putting on the table are outright killing the fun for at least one player at the table?&nbsp; Given that there are generally a very, very broad range of consequences to choose from, does it really hurt the game to allow players to veto one from time to time?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6110342, member: 22779"] How could the siege not be relevant? You have to actively work to make the siege not relevant. If nothing else, the siege affects every single NPC encounter in the city - presumably they're not ignoring the siege. It will affect everything the PC's try to do - want to buy something? Good luck, there's a siege on. Want to find a room at the inn? Good luck, the inn has been destroyed by siege weapon fire. On and on and on. Every single encounter once you are in the city will be colored by the siege. How are encounters in the city colored by the desert? I'd say that's a valid point. Now, is it not possible for the players to declare what they find meaningful? Do the players not get any say in the consequences? Even if the consequences that the DM is putting on the table are outright killing the fun for at least one player at the table? Given that there are generally a very, very broad range of consequences to choose from, does it really hurt the game to allow players to veto one from time to time? [/QUOTE]

Verification