Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6118381" data-attributes="member: 22779">And, this would be in direct contrast to at least one player's stated wishes for the game.&nbsp; One of the players has flat out stated that he wants nothing to do with exploring the desert.&nbsp; But, now he's being thrown under the bus because the DM feels it will be more interesting to explore the desert.&nbsp; Everyone in the group is interested in achieving the group goals, but, that doesn't matter, because, come anything, the desert MUST be explored.Yah, no thanks.Yes, well, nothing can save games from crap DMing, so, what's your point.&nbsp; If the DM sets up the siege in such a way that it has zero relevance, then that's just poor DMing.&nbsp; If the DM is solely using the siege to roadblock then, sure, that's crap DMing, same as forcing the players to explore the desert.&nbsp;But, exploring the desert where the city is, is not essential to the goal.&nbsp; Yes, we must cross the desert, but, no, we do not have to interact with the desert.&nbsp; You must cross a desert to drive to Las Vegas.&nbsp; But, even if your goal in Las Vegas isn't really specific to Las Vegas itself, you can still pro-actively do all sorts of interesting things in Las Vegas.&nbsp;But, you still have not shown how an encounter that may be skipped with impunity can be anything other than irrelevant.&nbsp; All you've done is move the goal back into the desert and then claimed that the desert is relevant.Got no real problem with that.&nbsp; You want to write it off as color?&nbsp; That's EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN ASKING FOR.&nbsp; &nbsp;And, of course, any subsequent encounters will automatically be &quot;more difficult&quot;.&nbsp; Since the players don't actually know about what they skipped, why would they care?&nbsp; The question has always been, &quot;Why can you skip things sight unseen?&quot;&nbsp; Well, since I won't see them, I don't care.&nbsp; The first time I meet Mr. NPC will be the first time.&nbsp; &nbsp;Well, fair enough.&nbsp; I would never, ever pull a Darth Vader moment on a player without clearing it with him or her first.&nbsp; There's just no way.&nbsp; Heck, I'd walk away from a table where the DM did that to another player.&nbsp; And, this is why I see players who come from tables like this who's character backstories are iron clad with no ambiguity.&nbsp; Their families are all reliably dead, the character is a drifter with no connections to anyone or anything and the PC comes to the table largely a cypher.&nbsp; It's because DM's cannot keep their hands off of their player's characters.&nbsp; So, players respond by making sure that their characters have absolutely nothing the DM can leverage.I've seen this way, way too many times to think that it's a fluke.&nbsp; Player after player that comes to my table acts this way.&nbsp; And, after a brief conversation, the reason is almost always the same - to keep the DM from screwing around with the player's character without the player's explicit permission.I have very few absolutes at my table.&nbsp; Very, very few.&nbsp; But, this one is iron clad.&nbsp; I will not, under any circumstance, make any changes to a player's character in any way, shape or form, without clearing with that player first.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6118381, member: 22779"] And, this would be in direct contrast to at least one player's stated wishes for the game. One of the players has flat out stated that he wants nothing to do with exploring the desert. But, now he's being thrown under the bus because the DM feels it will be more interesting to explore the desert. Everyone in the group is interested in achieving the group goals, but, that doesn't matter, because, come anything, the desert MUST be explored. Yah, no thanks. Yes, well, nothing can save games from crap DMing, so, what's your point. If the DM sets up the siege in such a way that it has zero relevance, then that's just poor DMing. If the DM is solely using the siege to roadblock then, sure, that's crap DMing, same as forcing the players to explore the desert. But, exploring the desert where the city is, is not essential to the goal. Yes, we must cross the desert, but, no, we do not have to interact with the desert. You must cross a desert to drive to Las Vegas. But, even if your goal in Las Vegas isn't really specific to Las Vegas itself, you can still pro-actively do all sorts of interesting things in Las Vegas. But, you still have not shown how an encounter that may be skipped with impunity can be anything other than irrelevant. All you've done is move the goal back into the desert and then claimed that the desert is relevant. Got no real problem with that. You want to write it off as color? That's EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN ASKING FOR. And, of course, any subsequent encounters will automatically be "more difficult". Since the players don't actually know about what they skipped, why would they care? The question has always been, "Why can you skip things sight unseen?" Well, since I won't see them, I don't care. The first time I meet Mr. NPC will be the first time. Well, fair enough. I would never, ever pull a Darth Vader moment on a player without clearing it with him or her first. There's just no way. Heck, I'd walk away from a table where the DM did that to another player. And, this is why I see players who come from tables like this who's character backstories are iron clad with no ambiguity. Their families are all reliably dead, the character is a drifter with no connections to anyone or anything and the PC comes to the table largely a cypher. It's because DM's cannot keep their hands off of their player's characters. So, players respond by making sure that their characters have absolutely nothing the DM can leverage. I've seen this way, way too many times to think that it's a fluke. Player after player that comes to my table acts this way. And, after a brief conversation, the reason is almost always the same - to keep the DM from screwing around with the player's character without the player's explicit permission. I have very few absolutes at my table. Very, very few. But, this one is iron clad. I will not, under any circumstance, make any changes to a player's character in any way, shape or form, without clearing with that player first. [/QUOTE]

Verification