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: 6115611" data-attributes="member: 6668292">No, they probably would. But hey, we both know that we need context before we know if something is tedious or not. More on that below.True. In Hussar's experience, there was a desert he didn't know much about. So, he wanted to skip it, because there's nothing relevant there for him to interact with. But, as we both know that this entirely depends on context of what the GM "puts" there, can't we agree that it's a little premature to judge relevance?I'm not debating his wanting to skip the Ride checks, or his want to have a strong hand in pacing, or whatever. I'm just disputing his claim that "nothing too terribly relevant" can be there. That depends entirely on context. And, if we can trust a GM to give the siege stuff for the "players to leverage", let's trust him to do the same in the desert.But, they have to wait for the GM to narrate the discovery of the siege. Or they city. Or the temple. And so on. Nothing has bits for them to leverage until it has been introduced, and every time the GM introduces something, he can make it relevant with bits to leverage.I don't think you're talking about my complaint with Hussar, which is his judgment of the situation without so much as a description. I'm not saying his immediate goal of "let's get to the city" is bad, since he doesn't know of anything else in the desert. But, I do object to his claim that "nothing can be too terribly relevant" since it's okay to skip the desert. That's almost nonsensical, to me, when the desert is clearly relevant in his eyes. 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