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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6113475" data-attributes="member: 42582">Terrific posts.But the GM isn't "throwing it in their path". The players have chosen to have their PCs go to the city. The GM isn't distracting or roadblocking them - s/he's introducing an extra complication into the city, which the players can use as a resource.Sure. But the desert is not a resource for achieving the PC's goals (unless they have a spell that can, for instance, turn the desert sands into a golem, or create a sandstorm so strong it reduces the whole city to noting except for the MacGuffin left over; or they change their goals).And, no, they can't interact with the nomads or sandstorm until the GM brings it up or puts it in their path. In what way is the siege different? Like you pointed out, they cannot interact with it until the GM puts it in their path.Not at all. I personally think a siege is a bit more dynamic than a sandstorm, but then I like social encounters. But if the party had druids and rangers, than absolutely a sandstorm locking down the city is functionally equivalent to the siege. Because, like the siege, it is a property of the city that the players can leverage as a resource (in this instance, sneaking in is the first thing I think of, under cover of the sandstorm).Of course, if the sandstorm is locking downt the city but the players can't do anything with that - eg because their PCs are on the other side of the desert trapped in a sandstorm - that would be a different matter. That would be more irrelevance, given the PCs' goals and the players' related goals.</blockquote>

Verification