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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6116078" data-attributes="member: 42582">There are a few ways a game can begin without the players having to "flounder around waiting for the GM to frame the scenes that signal the connection of what is happening to the players' goals" (my words from upthread).One is the player-authored Kicker from Sorcerer - basically, the player frames their PC's starting scene.Another is the approach I used in my 4e game - I told each player to be build into their PC a reason to be ready to fight goblins. (This is also a little like       [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s group template.) So the players know that, in the first instance at least, they are heading into a fight with goblins.A third approach is the BW one, in which backstory - including PC relationships - is built collaboratively between players and GM, and in which the players also have mechanical resources (Circles, Wises) that permit them to introduce new backstory elements. On this approach, when play actually starts the fictional positioning of the PCs is rich enough that the players can declare actions for their PC from the outset, obliging the GM to respond by playing NPCs, narrating additional backtory etc (@chaochou has described his use of this sort of approach in detail upthread).This is not true. In conventional BW, for instance, it is the GM who frames scenes, but from the very start of the game the players can still declare actions for their PCs which oblige the GM to frame those scenes - because their PCs have the requisite fictional positioning to ground such delcarations of action. The siege is relevantly simiar in this respect - before the GM frames any scene involving the siege, while the siege is still just part of the colour narration of the desert crossing and arrival at the city, the PCs are fictionally positioned with respect to it and hence in a position to leverage it.Not at all. In fact, I've made it pretty clear that if the GM framed the PCs into some sort of releavnt context - eg as they arrive in the desert via Plane Shift they see a dustcloud in the distance and a long line of human figures (the much hypothesised refugees!) - then that would be fine, although some contexts are more compelling than others.My objection is to the PCs being framed into a wasteland, and the players being expected to play through a desert exploration until the GM gets round to framing something relevant. If you don't particularly care for exploratory play (which I don't) then all that wandering around is doing nothing but soak up time at the table - especially if it brings the resolution of needless mechanical minutiae with it.Why? In the city it's a property of the city. In the desert, it's not. A giant rat might well be relevant in the city, too - many D&D scenarios involve sewer-crawling in my experience. But not so much in the desert. The latter two are not that engaging to me, assuming that I (like Hussar) am invested in my PC's goal in the city. Because the latter two do not, as you present them, speak to my goal. They are purely obstacles that, in terms of my interest in the fiction, will soak up time at the table but add nothing more.Here is the same idea from the author of <a href="http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/images/3/36/BurningTHAC0.pdf" target="_blank">Burning THACO</a>:Pushing Conflict Early t seems that every module I pick up has the structural integrity of mushy peas. You'll have to take it into your own hands. Front load conflict. The first module I ran . . . had the players join up with a caravan in a town and described days of journey before it got to the point that something happened (other than random encounters, natch). We're talking potentially hours of play before something significant happens. . . A lot of obstacles and opposition in modules is filler. It's there to take up time, to provide a reason for the niche skills of one type of character, or to make the experience seem "real." . . . unless it's something your players will really get a kick out of, just go ahead and invoke the Say Yes or Roll Dice rule. Give maybe a sentence describing how the characters overcame the obstacle and move on.You may not wish to play this way - if so, more strength to your arm! But it's a completely viable way of running an RPG. It may look like the players get 'something for nothing", but the key to this sort of play is there is always more conflict to be had. By skipping to the situations in which the players are invested you don't reduce the challenges the PCs must overcome - you just ensure that they all have the sort of thematic/story heft and relevance that the players are hoping for. (This is an important element of "all awesome, all the time.")Well, a GM who insists on resolving things mechanically which could be handwaved, or who won't permit the desert to be quicky free narrated, is imposing his/her will on a different person in the game. In your example of the time travel machine, the player who conspires with the GM to ensure that the PCs end up on his desired quest is imposing his will on a different person in the game. Whenever two participants want a different outcome within the fiction, one at least will have to accomodate his/her desires to another's will. That's a general feature of RPGing, and not in general objectionable.The different play approaches beig discussed in this thread are about allocating that power to impose one's will in different ways.STR 17 (huge centipede) > 260 lb heavy load x4 for Huge size. So it depends how big the party is, and how laden wth gear.Do both those penalties apply, though? The creature fills 3x3 squares - it's not entirely clear how wide it is, but presumably 5' or more. With hairs etc. Is it ill-suited? The GM can call this either way, in my view.Furthermore, the "stay in the saddle" check ony applies in limited circumstances. Suppose the PCs fall out of the saddle once or twice in such circumstances - they take neglibile damage which the cleric heals. No doubt some groups enjoy playing this stuff out, but I can't agree that it is beyond the pale of free narration.I haven't described an encounter. I referred to story elements - Kas and the niece. I can introduce them into my game if I think that will be fun without requiring the players to start exploring something they're not interested in (like a a desert).As I described it, the niece's escape "consists in the players reacting to a GM-authored consequence of their own decision to have the niece detained, which also forces the players to sharpen their attitude towards the niece. How much do they (and their PCs) care about her necromancy? Answer: enough to kill her, even though this jeopardises their PCs' relationship with the Baron." I don't see how the desert crossing does that. For instance, how does it force Hussar to sharpen his attitude towards the goal in the city? Which of his values (in the niece case, hostiilty to necromancers vs loyalty to the Baron) does it put under pressure? It's a purely procedural consequence.That's what I take Hussar to be getting at with his repeated references to the possibioity of teleporting across the desert. It's a procedural challenge that gives rise to no more than operational considerations ("How do we cross it?"). The siege isn't the most profund dramatic element of all time (nor is the nieces' escape, for that matter, though moreso than the siege) but at least it does have some non-procedural heft - it adds new dimensions to the risks and stakes of engaging with the city. In that respect it's something like discovering that the niece is a necromancer - on its own that doesn't push the players very hard, but they can have an emotional rsponse to it which can be built on subsequently in play; and they can be proactive in respect of it (as when my players chose to have their PCs force the Baron to deal with his nieces' necromancy).</blockquote>

Verification