Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6113246" data-attributes="member: 22779">All this means is that if I were to sit at your table, I would play core casters only.  That way I know that I could retain the ability to control pacing within the framework of the game and you would have no problems with it.  I know that if I were to play a non-core caster, I would simply be frustrated and likely leave the game as I am forced, yet again, to somehow justify my preferences to you, and you are apparently incapable of understanding them.I would say that the DM would know the desired scene by actually LISTENING to the players.  When the players say, hey we don't like scene X, don't do scene X.  When they play through scenes A through W, then it's probably not a problem.  If the players have a goal, then maybe focusing on that goal is a good idea.But, just to flog the equine one last time. The Difference Between the Desert Scenario and the Siege ScenarioIn the desert scenario, we can completely skip the scenario with an application of in-game resources and you would be perfectly fine with it.  We could land at one side of the desert, teleport and arrive at our goal and that is perfectly fine.  Once we arrive at our goal, any and all encounters within the desert scenario are rendered completely irrelevant unless the DM adds in additional information to send us back out into the desert.  The desert becomes scenery through the simple application of character resources.  The nomads, the giant scorpions, whatever, cannot be interacted with from inside the desert.  And, without additional information, the players have no reason for even trying to interact with elements in the desert since they don't know those elements even exist.Now, the siege is again bypassed by a teleport spell.  That's true.  But, that last bit about the desert is where the difference really enters into it.  The players can certainly interact with the siege without any further prompting from the DM.  They know the siege is there, they can see it.  If they choose to interact with the siege, they can certainly do so.  It's entirely in the hands of the players.  The players are now empowered to make informed choices, or at least fairly educated guesses.  Could the DM have a besieged city where the siege has absolutely no effect on the inside of the city?  Sure.  But, then, why would you bother having a siege in the first place?  Other than as a fairly clumsy roadblock for a group that lacks teleport, I suppose.  A DM has to pretty actively work to make the siege completely irrelevant to events in the city.  Most sieges do have pretty strong effects on the besieged and most players are probably going to expect that there would be effects.The difference between the desert and the siege, for me, boils down to empowering player choices.  The desert is 100% reactive.  The players have no choices to make.  They cannot search out for nomads that they don't know exist, they can only react to the nomads that the DM throws in their path.  They cannot search out for a hostage they don't know exist, they can only react when the DM throws that in their path.  But they can certainly choose to interact with a siege in some fashion.  They can see it right there.  They know it exists and they can assume a number of things - hardship in the city, leadership of both the siege camp and the besieged city who have needs and wants that the party could choose to interact with.  Danger and quite likely a time pressure as well can certainly be implied or outright stated.I mean, you arrive at Helms Deep with a sea of orcs pounding on the gates.  Are you really going to tell me that the orcs are irrelevant to the party if there is something in Helms Deep that they need?</blockquote>

Verification