NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6111608" data-attributes="member: 42582">A 3E player is building a ranger, and asks the GM "I'm tossing up between favoured enemy: orcs and favoured enemy: dragons. Any advice?" The GM replies, "I was planning to run Red Hand of Doom [I hope that's the right adventure] whereas I just sold my copy of Draconomicon. I'd suggest orcs." That's a house rule now?Anyway, for the record, the only rules on overland travel in 4e specify distance per hour and day of travel. When applicable, I apply those rules.My game doesn't have house rules for overland travel. It's just not something on which I focus in play. I even pointed out that I use the magic item rules (Basket of Everlasting Provisions) as part of the device for creating the requisite degree of verismilitude. (Upthread [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] mentioned Dark Sun's "survival day" rule as a different device, in his game, for doing much the same thing.)The rules pertain to distance travelled per unit of time. I use them. There are no rules in 4e of the Marsh/Cook Basic or Gygaxian AD&D variety, about mapping, getting lost, periodic encounters, etc. The absence of such rules - the fact that 4e is focused on the scene as the key element of play - is part of its attraction to me as a system.Part of what is involved in describing something as bad GMing is saying that the call was wrongly made.When I criticise the president for the making of an executive order, I'm not typically questioning his authority to have made it. I'm criticising the choice that he made in the exercise of that authority.Likewise here. Hussar is saying that the GM made the wrong call. Given that I have no testimony but Hussar's as to what happened, and Hussar's testimony is clear and consistent and fits into what is (for me, at least) a well-known style of ordinary-to-bad GMing, I find it very easy to believe.No one is disputing that the PCs have to travel that distance. What is at stake is how that should be resolved at the table.The directional issue I'll disregard - for all we know, the PCs cast Commune.As for the rest - I think it is well within the bounds of normal 3E D&D play to sometimes skip the Ride rules, and to treat the overland travel rules in a fairly cursory fashion. This was even part of normal AD&D play, which has far more detailed overland travel rules (closer to the much-discussed Exploration rules for Next) than does 3E.Hussar is arguing that this was a time for such skipping. First, I don't think this is really a counter-example to Hussar's claims upthread that certain GMs have a tendency to treat players' novel suggestions unfavourably.Second, how do you know the PCs don't have relevant siege gear - for all we know (given they seem capable of casting Plane Shift and summoning a huge centipede at will) they have Fly and Invisibility availabe in sufficient doses, or can Dimension Door through, or just have really good Climb and Hide in Shadows bonuses.To engage the siege is to engage the city. The siege is a (relational) property of the city. That's the whole point. That's why it's different from the desert.The PCs' goals are in the city. The players' goals are to play a fun RPG which involves pursuit of, and engagement with, their PCs' goals.The siege is an obstacle to the PCs achieving their goals. But it is not an obstacle to achieving the players' goals. Rather, it is one way of achieving the players' goals. The contrast with the desert crossing is that that does not engage with the PCs' goals, because it is not about the city.Answer: none. Because the whole significance of the siege is that it is not an encounter outside the city. It is one way of encountering, and dealing with, the city itself.If you want to GM successfully for Hussar or me, but you don't want to run the siege, the question to ask yourself is, therefore, "What other complications can I come up with that complicate the dealing with the city?"This confuses me. The reason it's not of interest is because it isn't relevant.Here's yet another stab, using the terminology of metaphysics.The relationship between the siege and the city is internal - the siege's relationship with the city is essential to the siege being what it is. To engage the siege is, without more, therefore to engage the city. And vice versa, given the impact the siege will have on the city (as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has pointed out).Whereas the relationship between the desert and the city is not like that. The city is not essential to the desert being what it is, and to engage the desert is not, without more, to engage the city. (Also vice versa.)When I want to engage the city and the GM makes me engage the desert, that's not relevant to my concern. When I want to engage the city, and the GM tells me it is under siege, that is directly relevant to my concern, and layering it with the sort of complication that is typical - arguably, even emblematic - of a fantasy RPG.Approching the game this way has absolutely nothing to do with Burning Wheel, and would be in direct contradiction to it's crystal clear advice to both GMs and players. (The relevant advice on this particular point was cited upthread by chaochou. More related advice was cited by me on the BW play advice thread.)Even outside the bounds of BW play, I would have zero interest in being GMed by someone who responds to a player's setting of PC goals in the way that you describe.</blockquote>

Verification