Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JustinAlexander" data-source="post: 6110566" data-attributes="member: 6700092">The problem with this conversation is that you're ascribing properties to the desert/siege which aren't actually inherent. Nor does the phrase "geographic proximity" create the inherent properties you seem to think it does.Depending on how it's used, the desert is both an obstacle and an opportunity for the PCs. The same is true of the siege. We can also hypothesize versions of the desert and versions of the siege which are neither obstacle nor opportunity. But claiming that the difference is geographical proximity is completely silly: It's precisely that attitude of focusing on superficial qualities which leads to the bad GMing Hussar was complaining about.The actual distinctions of importance here are "interest" and "relevance".This kind of black-and-white, "only one of us can be right" absolutism is not particularly useful in the real world. And this sort of player entitlement is the other problem I have with your posts: The idea that there shouldn't be any obstacles between you and your goal unless you explicitly give permission for that obstacle to exist is, at a fundamental level, a really immature attitude to have. It treats narrative the same way munchkins treat treasure.</blockquote>