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: 6118193" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I've gone over this recently. It makes sense, to me, for the players to say "we don't know what's in the desert, and we're not here to explore. Let's head to the city."What doesn't make sense to me is a player saying "nothing in the desert can really be that relevant to what I want, and all of it will be very boring, so let's skip all of it." Don't they need to know the context of what they're skipping?Yes, it certainly can be contrived. And, I imagine when you have a very focused play style where you want as many things to be relevant to the PCs as possible, this will happen from time to time.Exploration, to me, does not equal "doing anything in the desert." Exploration has a very different meaning in regards to D&D, as far as I know.Oh, sure. I agree.I'm just curious how pemerton knows what somebody wants to skip, based on this hypothetical. And not just in this one instance (Hussar summons a centipede to skip the desert), but in general. If he says "we head to the city" does that mean a siege is okay, since he said "city" and not temple? Or, if Hussar says "we head to the temple", does that rule a siege out, now? Is this minor wording difference what's determining what's okay at the time?And, if Hussar doesn't want those complications along the way, why is a desert encounter that's relevant to his goals not okay, but a siege just fine? Is it geographical proximity to the goal? According to pemerton, the answer is no. Is the answer yes for Hussar? 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