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: 6118154" data-attributes="member: 6668292">He said the following his feeling about "setting" (back on page 37):(1) "I don't care about setting. Setting, for me, is the least important consideration."(2) "But, as far as caring about setting? Yup, don't care."He said the following about what "setting" is (back on page 37):(1) "No, the Duke is not setting. The Duke is plot. Setting is where the plot happens and nothing more."(2) "Yes, I realize you need some setting. Of course. You cannot have a story without ANY setting. But, again, setting and setting consistency is the lowest priority AFAIC. If it has not been established in play, it is not a fact, only an opinion and subject to change at any time. Again, this is totally my opinion."Looking at this, the city is just setting. It's just the place where the plot happens. Could you draw the plot into the city, like adding a siege, or something? As far as I can tell, sure. But, I'd assume that about the refugees in the desert, too, but it doesn't look like that's the case.So, when Hussar says that nothing too terribly relevant can happen in the desert, and I take this as "impossible" (something he hasn't cleared up yet), his last statement above doesn't make sense to me. So, I think something like this:GM Thinks: "Okay, nothing has been established in play about a siege of the city, so this is subject to change at any time. So, when they cross the desert, I'll have them run into some temple refugees / nomads / mercenaries, and see that friendly priest from a month ago, and give them the chance to interact with them before a siege.Player Says: I use Teleport to get us to the city.GM Thinks: I think the siege would've been better with the desert foreshadowing and refugees, especially since they would've met that friendly priest from a month back. I don't want them just teleporting into the middle of a siege and not knowing what's up, and I would've liked the siege situation more if the refugees and priest had imparted the information about the temple. So, I'll skip the siege.GM Says: You guys have arrived in the city. What do you do?To Hussar, this means that the desert encounters can't be that relevant. To me, it means that, by how he's worded his play style, I can make things relevant or not as I go, as long as it doesn't contradict things. And yet, that's not what I'm getting. I'm getting "the siege complication is fine, but the desert encounter isn't." And that's where I'm lost.To justify his preference? No, that's good enough. To give me an idea of what he's looking for in a game? I'd need more, yes.Also, I haven't seen Hussar want to interact with the city, yet. He said:If the goal is "deal with our goal in the temple", then why are you putting a siege in his way? Why are you interpreting his preference as "deal with the city"?(1) The city isn't his goal.(2) The desert encounter (not the sand) has stuff for him to leverage.(1) I think dealing with the roadblock siege is going to also be a large challenge (potentially a lengthy skill challenge).(2) Also, if hiring six guys took 90 minutes, why would Hussar want to talk to the siege leaders? That'll take days.Of course, we could assume that things fit his style. I'm trying to find out what that is. But, so far, still lost.(1) I've gone so far as change PC backstory, on the rare occasion, without permission, because I thought it'd be a huge hook for that player. It has been every time. I don't mind assuming that I know what hooks them.(2) I don't care if Hussar ignores them, or even never travels to the city, as long as it makes sense in-character. Why would I complain?See my "GM Thinks" at the top of this post. How is that irrelevant? The things would've been very relevant to your PC goals.Not at all. A time pressure can also be added by the nomad / refugee / mercenary encounter, but it's not relevant, and it "can't be too terribly relevant." I'm still seeing this as a contradiction.But this is what the siege is! It's a complication on the way to the temple! This is what's throwing me off. That's why, tens of pages ago, I asked if this was just a "backdrop" thing, and asked the "is it just wording" question. You accept the siege, but it's a complication on the way to your goal, which is not the city (that's just "setting" -the place where the plot takes place). This is why I'm confused.As for the "have fun dealing with complications along the way" was something pemerton originally thrust into this conversation, when he claimed I wasn't separating your PC goals (deal with the thing in the temple) with your player goals (according to him, have fun with those complications along the way... paraphrased, here, hopefully he forgives me). I told him that your player goals aligned with your PC goals, so I didn't think I was doing anything wrong: your player goal seemed to be explicitly dealing with your PC goal, so that games could move forward quickly and stories could be wrapped up. Your player goal didn't seem to be "deal with complications along the way" so much as "keep the story moving quickly, which means dealing with PC goals quickly."So, sorry if the "deal with complications along the way" came up, but that's why I'm dealing with it when posting to pemerton. And, it seems to a degree, you're okay with it (you accept the siege as relevant, even though it could be skipped without any problem), making your own preference a little more hazy to me. 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