Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6118637" data-attributes="member: 42582">When the siege was first mentioned, I predicted that, given Hussar's goal was the city, he would not object to the siege as complication. That predication turned out to be correct.I have tried to explain what underlay my prediction. You are replying that you don't understand the inference. That's fine, but from my point of view your inability to follow it is not affecting my confidence in my reasoning. Rather, it's suggesting that there is a relevant factor that is highly salient for me and Hussar that does not stand out to you with the same prominence.As best I can tell, that factor is something around the role of the GM in directing play, and the capacity of the players to engage the fiction directly in pursuit of their goals. A siege at the city (i) follows the players' direction of play ("We want to get through this desert to the city") and (ii) empowers the players to engage the fiction to realise their goal immediately ("Cool, a siege - how does that change our plans for doing stuff in the city?"). Whereas nomads in the desert (i) follows the GM's directioin of play ("As you are crossing the desert you see some nomads") and (ii) does not empower the players to engage the fiction to realise their goal immediately (eg the players can't learn about the city from, or act upon the city via, the nomads unless they have extracted more backstory from the GM - simple geographic proximity to the nomads doesn't give the PCs fictional positioning in relation to the city in the same was as does geographic proximity to the siege).For Hussar (I think) and for me, asking the GM about the nomads to try and find out if they have some connection to the city and telling the GM that, the next time the siege engines hurl a bombardment of rocks the PCs are going to enter the city under cover of the chaso and confusion are nothing like one another, as far as leveraging the fiction to realise player goals is concerned. One is essentially reactive - in Hussar's words, "following the GM's trail of breacrumbs". The other is proactive - the players, rather than the GM, taking the lead in shaping the shared fiction.You may find the distinctions I'm drawing above nonsensical. For me, though, they're utterly crucial distinctions in RPGing, distinguishing the games I want to run or play in from the games I wouldn't touch these days with a 10' pole.If, on the other hand, you accept the significance to others (if not necessarily to yourself) of these distinctions, then you have the full explanation for Hussar's preferences. Because it was precisely on the basis of those distinctions that I was correctly able to predict that he would not have the same hostile response to the siege as to the desert and its contents.</blockquote>

Verification