Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6111926" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think "social contract" is a helpful place to start. But I don't think it is the necessary end point.For instance, in the gambling analogy, the losing gambler has an obvious incentive at that point to try to renegotiate the contract; and the house has a comparably strong incentive to refuse. This reflects the fact that, at least in part, the two parties have opposed interests.The social contract is different, though. It's not clear that the interest of the participants in an RPG are opposed in quite the same way. So it's not clear that renegotiating the social contract in response to actual events in play is necessarily a problem. At least arguably, in some RPGs (like AD&D, with its sprawling and ambiguous ruleset) it's actually a necessity!If I was the GM in question, and knew that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] had no interest in the desert crossing, there are at least two options I can think of: have the NPC turn up, wandering prophet-style out of the desert, as the PCs are mounting their centipede; or have the NPC meet them in the city.I think this is the sort of responsiveness to manifested player preferences that Hussar is advocating. It's certainly the sort of responsiveness that I prefer.Part of Hussar's point is that, if the only upshot of the riding will be a few falls dealing a bit of subdual damage or minor scrapes that can all be trivially healed by the PCs' daily allotment of cure spells, why go through the details?3E in this respect contrasts with Rolemaster, which has a crit system, and thereby puts on pressure to resolve all this stuff in full, precisely because you can't be confident that the damage will all be minor and easily healable.Maybe they can. My point is only that there's no reason at all to think that D&D PCs of about 3rd level and up can't sneak through a siege that, from the point of view of a city's NPC population, is a serious thing.But only the siege, as an obstacle, is also itself about the goal - on topic, as it were. And the desert can't be a means to achieving the PC goals in and of itself (unless the PCs have some very powerful Animate Desert magic).And not remotely relevant. The players aren't interested in the details of the city's urban geography. Of course relevant! If the players are doing it with enthusiasm, that's overwhelmingly sufficient evidence that it's relevant to their goals for play.To you. To me it seems completely reasonable.Hence Hussar's point (and mine) that differences of playstyle, and hence criteria of good GMing, really do differ among fantasy RPGers, and even among D&D players.And on a point related to differences of playstyle, rather than telling those with different preferences from yours what they should or shouldn't, or will or won't, enjoy, wouldn't it make more sense to try and get inside their heads?The siege is part of the city. That's what distinguishes it from the desert. And when I say "part of the city" I don't mean literally, geographically, a part of the city. I mean that to engage the siege is to engage the city. Narratively, it is a part of the city.</blockquote>

Verification