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: 6118240" data-attributes="member: 6668292">So you do mean "impossible", then. Your next bit that you quoted is why I think you're wrong, but I'll respond to your reply.I've talked about the other benefits of the desert encounter that don't include just foreshadowing. Asking questions from the refugees about your goal in the temple, gaining some useful equipment, hiring mercenaries to help you, speaking to the friendly priest that you've encountered before for helpful spells or companionship or healing, having the right spells prepared when you encounter a city under siege, etc. It's not just foreshadowing.But, no, of course you don't need the siege. Which is why I was surprised that you were okay with pemerton's siege.We've been using the "temple" as the goal inside the city I think ever since Celebrim mentioned a cathedral as the actual goal in the AP tens of pages ago. That's why we're using the temple, and why it's now (and has been) part of the hypthetical. If the city isn't necessary, why are you okay with pemerton's siege?Yeah, brought that one up for a reason. One of those "you heard your father didn't care about you, and abandoned you, as a child, but you just found out that your mother made him leave, even though he wanted to leave his shady past and help raise you" kind of things (that's one example of something I've directly used). And I will inevitably do it again. Though, again, it's rare.But, yeah, it's not for everyone. If it's not kosher for you, I get that; it obviously is for my group. Not that I'd mind you walking out, but you'd be the first. Guess it might happen eventually.Which you can make them interact with it. Again, we just need to change the scope of the desert encounter to make it relevant at all.So, instead of refugees, we get nomads and mercenaries, but they're here to take out the PCs. They've been ordered here by the siege commander's advisor (who, with magic / visions, knew of the PCs... say, via Commune leading to other magic). So, these guys come at you; they attack you, bearing the mark of the army attacking the city. Additionally, the leader has papers on his orders, if you kill him and find it.Here, there's a good reason they're after you, and it's a lot harder to ignore. Mind you, you're still doing this to hook the group. You wouldn't do it for a group that you describe (no complications on the way to the goal), but one for which pemerton seems okay with, I don't see the problem yet. Then again, you seem to give the siege a pass, and I don't fully understand that, yet, either, as it's definitely just a complication on the way to the goal.Correct, so, like I said, you probably wouldn't run them for your group. Or maybe you would. Your acceptance of the siege confuses me.This has been part of the hypothetical for many, many pages as of this point.Here's the problem with it: the goal is also in the desert. Is your goal literally "get to the city"? Or is it "interact with my goal (and I don't care about the rest of the city, since it's just setting and not plot)"? Either way, the city and the desert are just "setting" bits (as described by you), so stuff you don't want to deal with. Or care about.Again, no it wasn't. Not for many, many pages.Yes, it was. So does the refugee / nomad / mercenary encounter.Because, as I said, the temple was added to the hypothetical ever since Celebrim brought up the cathedral as the actual goal in the AP. It's been around in the thread for a very, very long time.But, regardless, let's go with the hypothetical I've been using. Say there is a temple you're trying to get to in a city in a desert after you've been planeshifted. Is a siege okay here, to you? My take, based on your past posts, is no, but I'm curious if that's what you'll say.That is indeed what I'm trying to find out.(1) You can have an opinion, and voice your play style. That's awesome.(2) I can guess a lot of things correctly in my games, but I'm surprised often times. And this is as the GM. Just because I can guess things correctly doesn't mean that I will. The same goes for your guesses, I'm sure.(3) Things can be skipped with impunity, sure. So can the goal, whatever it is. It doesn't matter, then, right?What? Exploring. It means exploring. It's the wandering around, searching, mapping (ick), etc. bits. I don't know if this really, really ironic, or somehow sad on both of our sides.See my "GM Thinks" bit, above. All of that was relevant to the goal.It wouldn't be superfluous if you encountered it. If you did, it would have a very real, direct affect on altering the story. We can just get by with skipping it, too. The same goes for the city; let's carve that bit out, and only leave the goal. Or, heck, let's skip this goal, and just redline you to the next goal. We can do that.Heck, we can leave this goal alone and go interact with something else. We can swap to three new APs in two sessions, and then decide to explore the setting, if the whole group is on board. None of it is mandatory. It can all be skipped. In this way, it's all superfluous. 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