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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6114459" data-attributes="member: 6681948">It’s déjà vu all over again!   And now, some 50+ pages later...  Which is precisely what was said, repeatedly, many pages ago.  In those posts, it was indicating that, while having a desert between them and the city, for the PC’s, is (perhaps, even probably) a pain in the arse - it's another obstacle.But for the players, the desert is not a pain in the arse - it's part of the situation they are hoping to engage, a complication they must overcome to achieve their goals, and in short promises an interesting session of trying to realise their PCs' goal.  Dismissing the desert outright strikes me as much more similar to “you start digging at the rumoured location of the heirloom.  After some time, your shovels strike something solid.  Clearing away some of the dirt reveals a slab of rock, adorned with runes rendered nigh-unreadable by the passage of time.  It seems like it may be the entry to an ancient tomb”, to have the player respond “Which part of ‘my goal is to find the heirloom’ did you interpret as ‘I want to engage in an irrelevant dungeon crawling slog?  I didn’t WANT a ‘tomb robber’ campaign – fast forward to the heirloom – STORY NOW – SAY YES OR ROLL THE DICE!” You/@Hussar pre-classify the campaign.  If I’m revv’ed up for “Heirloom Quest”, why are we playing “Dungeon Crawl”?Yes, you have been taking for granted that the city and the siege will be fun, and the desert trip will be a dull, boring slog.  So my very simple question is why you assume the GM in question has prepared a fantastic, well developed siege scenario beyond which lies a vibrant, living city filled to bursting with entertaining and intriguing encounters, then slapped a desert full of dull, boring, meaningless encounters he wants us to slog through in order to get to the stuff he designed to actually be fun? It seems, to me, no more appropriate to classify the desert as “boring roadblock” and the siege and/or city as “source of wondrous entertainment” than to randomly select one of the other two items as the slog – none of the three have had any opportunity to show their worth.Well, if we assume that playing out a trip through the desert (on centipedeback or otherwise) will be no fun but playing out interaction with the siege and interaction within the city will be enormously fun, then we logically want to skip the desert and get to the fun stuff.  But what makes those assumptions more valid than that playing out a trip through the desert (on centipedeback or otherwise) will be great fun but playing out interaction with the siege and interaction within the city will be another improv acting fest as the GM shows off his Mary Sue and Marty Stu NPC’s and his impov skills  while we sit and listen, a boring prospect at best, so we should play out the desert and skip past the siege and the city. Asking to skip the desert to the city (we don’t know about the siege yet) makes the assumption that the GM has designed a series of dull, boring, irrelevant desert encounters.  Why do we jump, sight unseen, to that assumption?  Does the GM have a history of running dull, boring sessions?  If so, why do we think the city will be better?</blockquote>

Verification