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: 6113479" data-attributes="member: 42582">I posted into this particular bit of the discussion before reading this. What you say here is exactly right.I don't fully follow this, but it's clear that you're using "inherent" in a different sense from me and Hussar.Of course you can't interact with the city until it is narrated into the game - and in standard D&D play that is the GM's job, not the players. But once the city is narrated - which, ex hpyothesi, the GM is going to do given that s/he know the players want to get the action to the city ASAP; and once it is narrated as a city unde siege - which, ex hypothesi, is what the GM is going to narrate; then the siege has an inherent property, of being a siege of this city. It is not extraneous to or decoupled from the city. Hence it is a player resource able to be leveraged in engaging with the city.  [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] gave this example quite a bit upthread.The answer is "Yes, there are differences, but they at least partly orthogonal to the relevance issue". A related point he made is that, with respect to either A or B, handle with care!A is an attempt to get the players to interact with the siege as something of interest in its own right, rather than as a resource for engaging the city. B is an attempt to get the players to interact with the desert and its nomadic inhabitants, perhaps with the benefit of getting a siege-leveraging resource out of it.As a player, I actually find B more appealing than A because of the resource aspect of it, but really hope that I won't have to do much desert resolution to find the nomad - the real action is the social/stealth encounter with the nomad, not the desert.Scenario A doesn't run the risk of getting bogged down in a GM's desert-crossing enthusiasm, put has obvious pitfalls of its own: it may be essentially boring, given that my interest in the arcanist is purely as a means to an end. The arcanist, as you've framed it (or if I'm getting your framing right), doesn't have the potential spark that the nomad does.Of course, if the players want to ignore A and B and just keep on trucking in the city, that has to be an option too.</blockquote>

Verification