Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6114736" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I disagree.I disagree with your definition of &quot;desert&quot;.Well, unless stuff is established for the desert. That's correct. And yes, you can generally assume those things about a city. Since that's been established. You cannot safely make assumptions about either until they're established.I honestly don't begrudge your &quot;I'd rather all (or most) play occur in a place where I can make assumptions about stuff I can interact with, and there's stuff for me to interact with.&quot; That doesn't bug me at all. I do, however, don't think these things are nearly as &quot;inherent&quot; as you do.Right? I agree. The city just isn't the goal. Does this have less to do with your goals, and more to do with things you can interact with? That'd make sense to me. That's normal, from my experience. It's something I'm used to, and if that's the case, that'd make total sense to me.Okay, a question here. Your &quot;Yes And&quot; is &quot;you arrive at your destination, and there's a siege&quot;, while your &quot;Yes But&quot; is &quot;you go to the city, but your way is blocked desert.&quot; If that's correct (and it should be, based on your post), then my question is, &quot;at what point is it okay to add a complication?&quot;Let me expand on that thought a bit. I ask because you, as a player (and PC), want to interact with the goal in the city in the desert. What I want to know is, at what point is it to throw a relevant wrench into the plans of the PC (in a way that's hopefully fun for the player, thus the &quot;relevant&quot; qualifier)?Interrupting them in the desert isn't okay, but at the gates of the city is. Is that because the players worded things &quot;we go to the city&quot; and not &quot;we cross the desert&quot;? That is, if the players had said &quot;we cross the desert&quot;, is it &quot;Yes And&quot; to say &quot;you cross the desert, and along the way you run into nomads / refugees / mercenaries&quot;? And, if that's the case, if the players said &quot;we go to the temple in the city&quot;, would it be &quot;Yes But&quot; to say &quot;you get to the city with the temple, but there's a siege&quot;? Are &quot;Yes And&quot; and &quot;Yes But&quot; based more on player wording than on player intent?This is &quot;Yes And&quot; to you. Okay.So, this is &quot;yes you can cross the desert, but you must weather a sandstorm or wait it out.&quot; A &quot;Yes But&quot; to you, I think.This is where I start to question player wording. This is a &quot;Yes And&quot; to you. To me, it's a &quot;Yes But&quot;, by my perception of your definition. It sounds like &quot;yes you can cross the desert, but you must interact with or bypass a siege that has the gates closed.&quot; This seems like a &quot;Yes But&quot; to me.This isn't even the encounter I framed. Some differences:(1) The nomads didn't block you.(2) There are no city folk mentioned.(3) There are no mercenaries mentioned.(4) The reason to interact with them is that some city folk are shouting out to you.(5) You do not have to interact with them if you want to enter the city.I'll answer my thoughts on a &quot;Yes And&quot; or &quot;Yes But&quot; in relation to that when the scenario is straightened out. It seems counterproductive to build on a scenario that I'm not talking about, and that someone else has mis-framed. 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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 6114736, member: 6668292"] I disagree. I disagree with your definition of "desert". Well, unless stuff is established for the desert. That's correct. And yes, you can generally assume those things about a city. Since that's been established. You cannot safely make assumptions about either until they're established. I honestly don't begrudge your "I'd rather all (or most) play occur in a place where I can make assumptions about stuff I can interact with, and there's stuff for me to interact with." That doesn't bug me at all. I do, however, don't think these things are nearly as "inherent" as you do. Right? I agree. The city just isn't the goal. Does this have less to do with your goals, and more to do with things you can interact with? That'd make sense to me. That's normal, from my experience. It's something I'm used to, and if that's the case, that'd make total sense to me. Okay, a question here. Your "Yes And" is "you arrive at your destination, and there's a siege", while your "Yes But" is "you go to the city, but your way is blocked desert." If that's correct (and it should be, based on your post), then my question is, "at what point is it okay to add a complication?" Let me expand on that thought a bit. I ask because you, as a player (and PC), want to interact with the goal in the city in the desert. What I want to know is, at what point is it to throw a relevant wrench into the plans of the PC (in a way that's hopefully fun for the player, thus the "relevant" qualifier)? Interrupting them in the desert isn't okay, but at the gates of the city is. Is that because the players worded things "we go to the city" and not "we cross the desert"? That is, if the players had said "we cross the desert", is it "Yes And" to say "you cross the desert, and along the way you run into nomads / refugees / mercenaries"? And, if that's the case, if the players said "we go to the temple in the city", would it be "Yes But" to say "you get to the city with the temple, but there's a siege"? Are "Yes And" and "Yes But" based more on player wording than on player intent? This is "Yes And" to you. Okay. So, this is "yes you can cross the desert, but you must weather a sandstorm or wait it out." A "Yes But" to you, I think. This is where I start to question player wording. This is a "Yes And" to you. To me, it's a "Yes But", by my perception of your definition. It sounds like "yes you can cross the desert, but you must interact with or bypass a siege that has the gates closed." This seems like a "Yes But" to me. This isn't even the encounter I framed. Some differences: [B](1)[/B] The nomads didn't block you. [B](2)[/B] There are no city folk mentioned. [B](3)[/B] There are no mercenaries mentioned. [B](4)[/B] The reason to interact with them is that some city folk are shouting out to you. [B](5)[/B] You do not have to interact with them if you want to enter the city. I'll answer my thoughts on a "Yes And" or "Yes But" in relation to that when the scenario is straightened out. It seems counterproductive to build on a scenario that I'm not talking about, and that someone else has mis-framed. As always, play what you like :) [/QUOTE]

Verification