Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6111643" data-attributes="member: 177">Don't have my 1e and 2e books on hand, so I'll have to look it up when I get home.&nbsp; But aside form that, you say that like it is an indication that this is some Johnny-Come-Lately thing.&nbsp; It has been a dozen years, roughly a third of the existence of D&amp;D!&nbsp; The operation of the spell should be consistent.&nbsp; If the GM does not intend the spell to generally be able to take the PCs exactly where they want to go, he or she should not set the expectation that it will.&nbsp; Free narrating that it did so here would be kicking the can down the road a bit, setting up the players for an issue later when the spell fails to do what they want, probably in a case where it would be far more critical for it to do so, which I expect would be far more harmful to the player-GM relationship than having to sit through a scene that doesn't really thrill you.&nbsp; The GM would still be free to say, &quot;You encounter nothing of interest in crossing the desert,&quot; of course.&nbsp;&nbsp; But, interestingly, it now comes out that really, there is something interesting in the desert - an NPC that is apparently supposed to help frame the issues the party is going to encounter in the city!&nbsp; Several times now, I raised the issue of dismissing scenes out of hand - &quot;How do you *know* there's nothing relevant to your city jaunt in the desert?&quot;&nbsp; And lo and behold there apparently *WAS* something!&nbsp; Go figure!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6111643, member: 177"] Don't have my 1e and 2e books on hand, so I'll have to look it up when I get home. But aside form that, you say that like it is an indication that this is some Johnny-Come-Lately thing. It has been a dozen years, roughly a third of the existence of D&D! The operation of the spell should be consistent. If the GM does not intend the spell to generally be able to take the PCs exactly where they want to go, he or she should not set the expectation that it will. Free narrating that it did so here would be kicking the can down the road a bit, setting up the players for an issue later when the spell fails to do what they want, probably in a case where it would be far more critical for it to do so, which I expect would be far more harmful to the player-GM relationship than having to sit through a scene that doesn't really thrill you. The GM would still be free to say, "You encounter nothing of interest in crossing the desert," of course. But, interestingly, it now comes out that really, there is something interesting in the desert - an NPC that is apparently supposed to help frame the issues the party is going to encounter in the city! Several times now, I raised the issue of dismissing scenes out of hand - "How do you *know* there's nothing relevant to your city jaunt in the desert?" And lo and behold there apparently *WAS* something! Go figure! [/QUOTE]

Verification