Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6117959" data-attributes="member: 6681948">So why don't we just have the priest refuse to see the players, or not know the ritual they want from him, or add in any of hundreds of reasons that the players' goals in the city are not met?  "Don't waste my time with the desert, I want to be in the city", followed by "don't waste my time with the city, I want to be at the temple", followed by "quit wasting precious game time with these functionaries - I want to talk to the High Priest immediately", ending with "what do you mean, he does not immediately provide what I want?  We came all this way for that ritual and I want it right now".  Assuming we don't think that "We cross the desert to get to the city where we visit the temple to meet the high priest who casts the ritual", resolve by "OK, you are at the temple in the city and the ritual is complete" constitutes a great game, where do we introduce the complications?This seems to be JamesonCourage's question - where is this bright line that demarcatesw "unacceptable contrivance making desert encounter tie to our goals" and "intriguing complication that is closer to the city"?Again, you are changing the goal.  At no time I can see has the goal been "get to the city".  It is "accomplish nebulous, unrevealed-by-player, goal in the city".  The city is no more integral to the goal than the desert is - it is simply the place where the goal can, or the player believes can, be achieved.  It need not be this city - it could be any city where the goal is located.  If it's this priest to cast a ritual, we can move him anywhere - he can be on an island temple in the middle of the sea, halfway up a mountain in a cave or living life as a hermit in the desert.  So why is a city encounter that gets between the players and their objective "clearly and obviously" more relevant than a desert encounter that gets between the players and their objective?Assuming the players have access to that Teleport, then the GM would need to ensure that its use to cross the desert does not prevent any relevant/essential desert elements which are essential to framing the city being lost.  However, it does not seem like Hussar (or any other group assumed by the AP) could simply teleport to the desired location.  As the desired resource was not available to them, there was no need to plan around it being used.  If whatever they wanted from the city was instead lying on the ground when they arrived, their objective would immediately be accomplished, and the desert, city and whatever is in the city rendered irrelevant.  Now everyone should be happy as nothing has frustrated them getting immediately to the one thing they considered relevant.  If the players have a specific goal in mind, then nothing other than that specific goal is essential.  Zap them to their goal and have it immediately achieved.  If they had an infinite number of Wishes, they could probably accomplish their goal with no other encounter being relevant, so should we design the game around the elimination of any complication those infinite wishes could avoid?  Or should we set complications that are challenging, but achievable, in light of the actual resources they do have?  Which, I note again, does not include any means of teleporting directly to the city and avoiding the desert crossing.Because the GM has to prepare for the game, he needs to know what is, and is not, of interest.  Neither JamesonCourage (I believe) nor I can fathom why a city-relevant encounter in the desert is so markedly different from a city-relevant encounter at the city gates, or anywhere else.Coming back to those slaad or ants, the utility of the siege is just as GM determined as the utility of the encounters in the desert. So we don't trust the GM to make negotiations and interactions with the nomads relevant, engaging and/or entertaining, but we do trust him to make negotiations and interactions with the besiegers relevant, engaging and/or entertaining.  Why?  How did the change from "nomads" to "besiegers" cause the GM's skill and ability (or just willingness to provide a good game) to leap so markedly?  Maybe this is just the difference between firing the nomads up to lay a siege to finding the same nomads already engaged in that siege.  Still not seeing that bright line difference.What we, or at least I, cannot fathom is how a complication preventing you from entering the city, or otherwise delaying you doing whatever you came to do in the city, is any less a "complication on the way" than one which delays your arrival at the city.</blockquote>

Verification