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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6114683" data-attributes="member: 6668292">True. Or crossing the desert. Both can get in the way along the way to the goal, or stay out of the way.Oh. Sounds like your goal changed. Then the siege is probably going to be more relevant. And the desert encounter should probably be tied to the city if it's to be relevant to you.But you have to add the siege before the players can interact with it... it's the same in that respect... isn't it...?"The city" is a bit too broad for me to say "yes" universally (it depends on context). You do need to enter the city to get to the goal, yes. But you also need to cross the desert. Beyond that, neither seems inherently more tied to the goal.But, yes, I'll say that there's a lot more stuff you can probably proactively do in the city. Whether or not it's relevant to your goal in the city is another matter.Depends on the siege (see my quarantine siege example). But probably, yes. That's why I brought up relevant desert encounters (the sandstorm, the nomads / refugees / mercenaries, etc.).Same with the sandstorm.Very possible. Or damage caused by the sandstorm, or making people go inside and empty the streets, etc. That's the desert being relevant.Which was my point. See <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?334595-You-re-doing-what-Surprising-the-DM/page91&p=6114291&viewfull=1#post6114291" target="_blank">my post</a> for it all laid out (the one I think pemerton skipped). The siege can certainly be relevant, and probably is, yes. But my point is that the desert might be, and that my skipping it "because it's not relevant", you're judging it before you even know if it is relevant. And I was saying how that isn't a good way to judge things.So, do you think pemerton's preference as GM to complicate things by making it be a dungeon makes him a bad DM? I don't think he is one, I just think that it's probably a play style preference. But, in pemerton's, there's also no bait and switch, I think (his players want "relevant" complications). The thing, now, is to determine what is "relevant".Right, true. Most of that city is probably irrelevant to your goals unless you make it relevant, which is admittedly harder to do for the players with the desert than the city. That is, the players can go get supplies, try to find people to hire, etc. rather easily, while in the featureless and not-yet-described desert, it'd be harder to proactively do things.I'd prefer understanding your position, but I'll settle for compromise.Probably not, but depending on just how emotionally pressing it is for you to take a break, then yes.I'd have no problem with the Fighter not going, unless it was out of character for him. This might bring up how well he fits into the party, and I have a rule about requiring party cohesion. But, my players have their characters split up all the time, and they have also had people bow out of specific things from time to time, and I have no problem with that being an exception (and actually quite like it).As for you as a player bowing out... again, probably not okay with you taking off, unless you're really emotionally stressed over it. If you're getting really visibly irritated or frustrated, then yeah, I'd be okay with it. If it's mild boredom, then no, I'd say you'd need to stick around. I'll get to that below.This is a different question, in that it's more broad. If it's out of boredom, then no, it's not okay. If it's out of some charged emotions, or because they find the content strikes a nerve too close to home, or whatever, then yeah, man. Sure. If the emotions are too bad and this type of thing is a rare event, we can even skip it. We're all friends here. But, if it's out of boredom? Not so much. More on that below.I wouldn't eject you from the game, but I would make you play through it. Again, I might very well speed things along, now, but I'm not going to skip it (four other people want to play through it).But, on to my reasoning for this. The simple answer is, really, that I want you to stay and interact, and I don't want to pause my game so that you can be filled in later. I don't like pausing my game for that, as it can kill the feel of whole scenes, slow momentum, let emotions cool, or whatever. And, I'd probably hope (and half expect) that you kick in some stuff while you're around the place that bores you (which, again, I'd likely speed up). Even out-of-game, kicking in suggestions to other players. That's fine. I'd hope for some level of engagement, but it wouldn't be mandatory unless you needed to act or react.But, that's my table. I don't want to slow it down for your boredom, and, based on my experience, my players don't get that disengaged. They'll pipe in. They'll act, if they're around. So, I'd half expect that to be the case. But, no, there's going to be no phone games at my table, no ducking out until you're less bored. If the table isn't a good fit, and you're bored, you can leave, and I'm okay with it. It has never happened to me, but I'm okay with that, since people are different, and like different things. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification