Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6117907" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I obviously had questions about them.The players also want to have fun, including dealing with complications along the way, etc. etc. etc.However, I've also asked, twice, if this is a matter of wording. If the players said "I want to get the the temple", and we know the temple is inside the city inside the desert, is the siege inappropriate? More on this below.As an aside, I get the "if the players say they don't want to deal with it, then why are you dealing with it?" line of reasoning. That makes sense to me. But, my questions remain, because I say "okay, you don't want to deal with it. Why not? This way I can know when framing things later." And I get back information that doesn't make sense to me, yet.I don't understand this. I don't think, story-wise, things must be anywhere, the extremely large majority of the time; the only exceptions are story bits that revolve around places (or things reliant on those specific places). Everything else can be resolved anywhere, though obviously there are different feels, outcomes, properties, etc. in different places.That's quite correct. That's exactly what it sounds like he means, ever since his statement that "since you can just Teleport across the desert, nothing in it can be too terribly relevant." This sounds, to me, like him saying, "well, if you could skip those encounters, and it doesn't matter to the story, then they aren't too terribly relevant, are they? Which means that, of course, nothing can be too terribly relevant in the desert. It's impossible, since skipping them is an option and doesn't do much to you."This is true, but it's not at all what I've gotten from the his statements. To that end, Hussar seemed to want to interact with his goal, not the city. He doesn't care about the city (it's only "setting", which he explicitly doesn't care about). The city means nothing to him. If his goal moved out of the city, and his plane-shifting guide divined and found that out, I'm guessing Hussar wouldn't go to the city. Thus, nothing is both "relevant" and "must be in the city", either.Unless I'm misunderstanding. Correct me if I am.This is closer to what I thought Hussar was expressing, but I still took it as "impossible" and not "essential". The "essential" qualifier is true, but, from what I know of Hussar's goal (as a player) of interacting with his PCs goal (the thing inside the city), then the city isn't essential either. Correct?I think the reasoning would be the same as creating the siege.Which is hard for me to know, since, up to this point, I'm having a hard time knowing what my players want. Their logic, thus far, does not make sense to me.I've said this before, and I'll say it again: I think you've shifted the player goal to "interact with the city" rather than "have fun with complications while interacting with my PC's goal, which is in the temple." The city, from this point of view, is just a distraction. Putting a siege there seems like just as much a roadblock as the nomad / refugees / mercenary encounter.Okay, this is why I'm still puzzled then. Hussar seems to explicitly want to deal with his goal. His goal has nothing to do with interacting with the city. You can tie the siege to his goal (rather than just the city), but the desert encounter can be tied in the same way. And yet, the desert encounter is unacceptable, but the siege is okay. This is what doesn't line up for me.Okay, let me run through this:GM: You guys landed 110 miles outside the city with the temple in it. The guide knows the way there, but you have to travel through a desert, first.Players: We go to the city, then, to get to the temple.Is the desert off-limits, because the players didn't explicitly mention it (even though they know they have to cross the desert)? Is the city off-limits, since they explicitly said they're going to the city to get the temple, and never said they want to interact with it? If, instead, the players had said "we cross the desert to get to the temple", is the siege out, but the refugee encounter in?Is it just a matter of wording? If the players say "we go to the temple", does that mean that you rule the refugees and siege out? If they say "we go to the city", but the reason why (the temple) isn't explicitly stated, is it okay to throw the siege in, but not the refugees? If they say "we cross the desert", is the refugee encounter okay, even though they're only crossing to get to their goal? In fact, if they say "we cross the desert" or "we head to the city", is a desert / city encounter expected, since they didn't explicitly say anything about the temple? This is what I mean by wording.To me, this is a form of pacing. This makes sense to me.This makes sense to me.What doesn't make sense to me, so far, is the siege being okay, but the desert encounter not being "relevant" while the siege is (either by your reading of Hussar as "essential" or my reading of Hussar as "impossible to be relevant"). This is what I'm struggling with. The rest of the stuff -why force exploration, why force a desert encounter, why make a siege when they are excited to deal with the temple dungeon, why make us deal with weight and water issues, etc.- I totally get. I just don't get the big difference between the refugees and the siege, yet. 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