Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
You're doing what? Surprising the DM
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6111400" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I don't understand this. How does a city being under siege not bear on the player goal of engaging that city? As [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has pointed out, it is likely to affect nearly everything going on in the city.</p><p></p><p>I don't really understand this, either. Of course if there is no siege and the PCs just walk in, the players are leveraging a different fiction - a city at peace - in pursuit of their goals.</p><p></p><p>The point is that the fiction is different in each case, and in either case makes a difference to what is happening in the city. The fictional positioning of the PCs is different. Furthermore, I think for many players at least <em>sneaking in under cover of bombardment</em> would be more exciting than <em>walking through gates past bored city guards</em>.</p><p></p><p>Of course they're matters of interst to me. "Mutual interest" <em>entails</em> interesting to me. If they were not interesting to me, they wouldn't be of <em>mutual interest</em>. The key point is that these things of interest to my players also.</p><p></p><p>I gather (from upthread) that you don't believe that my players enjoy my game, and that you think I present them with situations that are of no interest to them. Though given that they're 40-something year old adults with jobs and kids and lives, I'm not quite sure what power you think I hold over them so they keep turning up to session after session despite the fact that they find them so horrible, in some cases for over 15 years!</p><p></p><p>But on this I'm disregarding your opinion, based on zero evidence whatsoever, and going with the evidence of my own experience. My games focus on matters of mutual interest to me an my players. Hence they don't focus on strategic overland travel, which I don't enjoy and (perhaps in part for that reason) don't GM particularly well.</p><p></p><p>I have one player who would be very happy if wargame-style conflicts were part of the game. In 15 years they haven't been, though, because (again) I don't particularly care for such episodes of play, and actually find them very hard to make work within a RPGing context. Luckily there are a large number of other things that this player also finds interesting, and some of them figure in our game as matters of mutual interest.</p><p></p><p>Once the PCs are in the town, describing a sandstorm that hits the city strikes me as obviously relevant (though personally I think a siege is more exciting). Indeed, if the players are interested in the city, but the GM for some reason what's to draw the desert to their attention, that might be one way of doing it (a bit like how, in the examples discussed by [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] upthread, various ways of framing the barber shop complication can serve as invitations to the players to engage the street).</p><p></p><p>But if the players goal is the city, and you start them in the desert with a sandstorm, you haven't suddenly succeeded in giving the desert any interest or relevance by the criteria that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I are using, which are criteria to do with narrative or thematic weight, not procedural obstacle.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>At least by me, you're being told "If I'm invested in the city, the desert isn't interesting."</p><p></p><p>And that statement of preference has been explained, at some length, both in general terms and by reference to a comparison - the siege.</p><p></p><p>It seems that you (and some others) don't understand why a desert crossing that has no bearing on the city other than settling the question of whether or not we get there might be uninteresting to a person, yet a siege which is going to both colour all city action and serve as a player resource for engaging the city might not be. That's fine; you're under no obligation to understand anyone else's preferences!</p><p></p><p>But I hope you can appreciate that your inability to undestand my preferences or the reasons behind them isn't going to persuade me that those preferences aren't real, or lack a rational foundation! Especially when a number of other posters - Hussar, Campbell, Manbearcat, chaochou and jackinthegreen - are pretty clearly able to make sense of them without much trouble.</p><p></p><p>I don't see anyone saying that "say yes" should be part of all games. Hussar, in particular, has been quite expicit that he is not trying to tell others how to play.</p><p></p><p>But I think it's quite reasonable for Hussar and I to say that (i) "say yes" is a tenable and coherent approach to RPGing, and (ii) it's one we prefer, such that GMing that doesn't proceed in that sort of way is not GMing we want to engage in or play under.</p><p></p><p>I share your puzzlement. As is clear from this and other threads, my 4e game is much more trad than the games you run. But I've learned a lot about GMing techniques from the Forge and related games and discussions, and use them to advantage in my 4e game.</p><p></p><p>Umbran is completely correct that no one is obliged to play that way. But I find it pretty weird being told that <em>the way I do things</em> isn't actually a way that things are, or can, be done. And to be told that all those bits of RPGing advice I'm using, and that make it clear to me why Hussar sees a difference between the desert and the siege, don't actually say anything useful or meaningful - let alone shed any light on what sort of play experience Hussar (and I, and others) are interested in!</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6111400, member: 42582"] I don't understand this. How does a city being under siege not bear on the player goal of engaging that city? As [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has pointed out, it is likely to affect nearly everything going on in the city. I don't really understand this, either. Of course if there is no siege and the PCs just walk in, the players are leveraging a different fiction - a city at peace - in pursuit of their goals. The point is that the fiction is different in each case, and in either case makes a difference to what is happening in the city. The fictional positioning of the PCs is different. Furthermore, I think for many players at least [I]sneaking in under cover of bombardment[/I] would be more exciting than [I]walking through gates past bored city guards[/I]. Of course they're matters of interst to me. "Mutual interest" [I]entails[/I] interesting to me. If they were not interesting to me, they wouldn't be of [I]mutual interest[/I]. The key point is that these things of interest to my players also. I gather (from upthread) that you don't believe that my players enjoy my game, and that you think I present them with situations that are of no interest to them. Though given that they're 40-something year old adults with jobs and kids and lives, I'm not quite sure what power you think I hold over them so they keep turning up to session after session despite the fact that they find them so horrible, in some cases for over 15 years! But on this I'm disregarding your opinion, based on zero evidence whatsoever, and going with the evidence of my own experience. My games focus on matters of mutual interest to me an my players. Hence they don't focus on strategic overland travel, which I don't enjoy and (perhaps in part for that reason) don't GM particularly well. I have one player who would be very happy if wargame-style conflicts were part of the game. In 15 years they haven't been, though, because (again) I don't particularly care for such episodes of play, and actually find them very hard to make work within a RPGing context. Luckily there are a large number of other things that this player also finds interesting, and some of them figure in our game as matters of mutual interest. Once the PCs are in the town, describing a sandstorm that hits the city strikes me as obviously relevant (though personally I think a siege is more exciting). Indeed, if the players are interested in the city, but the GM for some reason what's to draw the desert to their attention, that might be one way of doing it (a bit like how, in the examples discussed by [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] upthread, various ways of framing the barber shop complication can serve as invitations to the players to engage the street). But if the players goal is the city, and you start them in the desert with a sandstorm, you haven't suddenly succeeded in giving the desert any interest or relevance by the criteria that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I are using, which are criteria to do with narrative or thematic weight, not procedural obstacle.[/quote] At least by me, you're being told "If I'm invested in the city, the desert isn't interesting." And that statement of preference has been explained, at some length, both in general terms and by reference to a comparison - the siege. It seems that you (and some others) don't understand why a desert crossing that has no bearing on the city other than settling the question of whether or not we get there might be uninteresting to a person, yet a siege which is going to both colour all city action and serve as a player resource for engaging the city might not be. That's fine; you're under no obligation to understand anyone else's preferences! But I hope you can appreciate that your inability to undestand my preferences or the reasons behind them isn't going to persuade me that those preferences aren't real, or lack a rational foundation! Especially when a number of other posters - Hussar, Campbell, Manbearcat, chaochou and jackinthegreen - are pretty clearly able to make sense of them without much trouble. I don't see anyone saying that "say yes" should be part of all games. Hussar, in particular, has been quite expicit that he is not trying to tell others how to play. But I think it's quite reasonable for Hussar and I to say that (i) "say yes" is a tenable and coherent approach to RPGing, and (ii) it's one we prefer, such that GMing that doesn't proceed in that sort of way is not GMing we want to engage in or play under. I share your puzzlement. As is clear from this and other threads, my 4e game is much more trad than the games you run. But I've learned a lot about GMing techniques from the Forge and related games and discussions, and use them to advantage in my 4e game. Umbran is completely correct that no one is obliged to play that way. But I find it pretty weird being told that [I]the way I do things[/I] isn't actually a way that things are, or can, be done. And to be told that all those bits of RPGing advice I'm using, and that make it clear to me why Hussar sees a difference between the desert and the siege, don't actually say anything useful or meaningful - let alone shed any light on what sort of play experience Hussar (and I, and others) are interested in! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
You're doing what? Surprising the DM
Top