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: 6114601" data-attributes="member: 6681948">What does the city have that is inherently interesting for the players with nothing added by the GM?  Until the GM adds in locations and NPC's it has nothing.  The GM can proceed with:Excited Players (EP):  We go to an inn!!!Flat Monotone GM (FMG):  You find an inn.EP:  What's the name of the inn???  Look on the sign!!!FMG:  The sign is faded with age and just looks like a board.EP:  Go inside!!!FMG:  You are inside the Inn.EP:  Is there an inkeeper???FMG:  Yes.  He will rent you rooms for 3 sliver pieces.EP:  Talk to the Innkeeper - ask him if he can direct us to the Church of the Holy McGuffin.FMG:  The innkeeper grunts, and says "three blocks east".And so on.  Just monotones, dull NPC's and boring locations.  Pretty much what you expected of the desert.It is as relevant or irrelevant as we choose to make it.  Just like the desert.  Just like the siege.  I would hope the GM would make the areas we will spend time in relevant and interesting, and fast forward us past any irrelevant or uninteresting areas.  I'm not sure why that is so difficult to comprehend.The fact that the city is under siege is ALSO relevant to the players , just as much as the simple fact that the player's goals lie within the city which is under siege lies within a desert renders the desert ALSO relevant to the players.  In my game, the likelihood you would be automatically killed if you attempt to interact with the siege is equal to the likelihood that I will force you to play out all the bnoring mundane aspects of the trip through the desert.  You assume the worst of the desert and the best of the siege and the city.  Why?  What prevents the assumption that the GM will work to make all encounters interesting and entertaining, rather than the presumption one will be a dull, boring waste of everbody's time?   Based on WHAT?  Again, the character has yet to set foot in the desert, and the player simply dismisses it as dull and uninteresting because, as near as I can tell, it was not what you had in mind.  I don't believe you were hoping to engage in the siege, not having known it was there, yet for some reason we assume the same GM who will make the desert a dull, frustrating roadblock will make the siege a dynamic, interesting scene of interaction.  Why is that more likely than both being vibrant and entertaining, or both being PITA roadblocks?There you go, Pemerton.  Hussar is not interested in your VecnaCrawl.  Fast forward to Hussar standing over Vecna's re-dead body, holding the heirloom to the sky and howling in triumph!So the city and the siege were your design, then?  That's the first I have heard of that!I'd say this depends largely on frequency.  A player might just as easily not show up because he's ill, tired or what have you.  Missing a game hardly seems like the end of the world.  Hwever, I'm not sure I get the "give me a call" business.  If the tomb is searched after an hour, I would not commit to putting the game on hold while you make your way back, or end the game early because you now want to participate again, or stop play when some creature in the Tomb turns out to have the heirloom.  I might very well reschedule a game because I know something very relevant to the player/character is likely to arise, but I'm not going to tell ou the Big Reveal is part of the near-term scenario.I'm not sure whether that's a positive or negative answer from your perspective.  Same here.  Nagol, am I correct that the session continues without the player, or would you be prepared to stop play on reaching the end of whatever the player didn't want to play out so the player can come back and not miss the parts he may have been more interested in?Same here, I think, an I pose the same question I pose to Nagol above.</blockquote>

Verification