Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6118863" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Like  most questions, the answer is "it depends".  In most games, I'd say the transaction is relegated to the mundane and we convert funds into goods.  The more exotic the good, the more likely that it is not treated as a mundane transaction (some games may look to Masterwork, Enchanted or some level of enchantment and some will commoditize all weapons and armor).  In most games (leaving aside Dark Sun corner cases), it would be reasonable, IMO, to expect the armor purchase is a mundane transaction.  Purchasing a war elephant in a temperate forest?  Maybe not so much.  The line would be drawn somewhere.But let's get specific.  Let's return to our city in the desert.  Is this a mundane purchase now?  Metal has to be imported through the desert, which would seem to mean it is more scarce, and more expensive, than in other areas.  Metal armor is hot and bulky so likely not in much demand (whereas scimitars seem pretty easy to find), so is plate armor available on the rack?  Does the demand motivate armorsmiths with the knowledge and skills to make it?  I would have no objections to a GM saying "it's not available" or "it costs way more than Book".  Nor would I have an objection to a PC playing out a search for someone who can provide and/or work the metal into the desired armor.   But then, the player has set "obtain plate mail" as a goal, hasn't he?  If he just brushes the scarcity off with "fine, I can wait until we are back on familiar territory", then he hasn't invested in the armor and we can turn our attention elsewhere.Now, that's the desert region coloring the town.  Assuming an objection to the GM not just letting me trade gold for an AC bonus at the expected ratio, how would that objection change if we add in the siege?  Metal is even tougher to import, demand would be pretty high, and maybe all the skilled workers have been pressed into service - restricted to manufacture of arms and armor for defenders of the city, and no side trade with adventurers/mercenaries.  Even if the city under siege is not in the desert, seems reasonable that access to that armor may be restricted and/or expensive.  Maybe we can play out the search for a black market.  Or maybe the player just accepts that he can't engage in that mundane transaction at this non-mundane time.  After all, that siege would impact every activity in the city, right?So, I'm coming to "it depends", with a strong leaning to "there needs to be an in-game reason why this would not be a mundane transaction".The desert is where the siege was located, so we have established that at least one complication arising between "we set out to traverse the desert" and "we enter the city" is acceptable.  That there may be other complications which may be interesting between "here" and "there" seems much less unlikely to me that it seems to you.  I also note you described the siege as at least a bit contrived, so it appears some level of contrivance is acceptable, provided the results are interesting enough.Within limits.  I recall him referring to "contrived", and all previous uses of the word "contrived" dismissed the suggested encounter or complication.  Had the original scenario featured an extended argument between Hussar and the GM over the effectiveness of the centipede (we'll say 5 minutes - not 106+ pages!), followed by "Fine - the Centipede Express zooms through the wasteland, with the PC's miraculously holding on around sharp twists and up vertical inclines, with none of the beasts within daring to challenge it.  Ahead, you see the city - but it is surrounded by a force of armed men", I question whether Hussar would have been as accepting of that development then as he indicates he is now.You mean, like wrapping the city they want to enter in a siege?  Any complication can be roadblocking.  That does not mean every complication, or any given complication, is roadblocking.Why is the city they want to enter under siege?  Why is it in a desert, instead of conveniently accessible, in the first place?Agreed.  A lot of weight has been placed on the ability to leverage the fiction.  To me, establishing goals and personalities for the NPC's provides the PCs with something to leverage.  Changing those goals and personalities on a whim denies the players the ability to leverage the fiction - it is a roadblocking mechanism, not a means of PC empowerment.  More on this later.It is also one that most annoys many players.  Why are there all these crazy wizards running around creating bizarre dungeons with wierd puzzles?  Are there any "not crazy" wizards?  Are there any ungeons which possess some rational design that I, as a player, can actually interact with, rather than hop from one bizarre encounter to the next?What I see is that, rather than the players being able to learn about the NPC's - what motivates them, perhaps their weaknesses in that regard, how they might be leveraged - that can all be swept away in favour of "allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors" in the interests of " turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character".  Sure, last month, you gained the Baron's trust and gratitude by rescuing his niece, the light of his life and his reason for living, and learned that nothing matters more to him than honour.  But this month, he slits her throat as a sacrifice to dark daemonic powers which he pits against you, because that will be more exciting.  No reason that Baron's love for his niece, or his gratitude, or his honour, should be in any way consistent from game to game, right?For myself, villains who have actual personalities, not just "He's crazy so he does random things - always in the interests of making you lives more difficult" are far more engaging.What I really hate?  PC Halo.  "Oh, my character would never accept the Baron slitting his niece's throat or making a pact with Dark Powers - it violates his sense of all that is good and righteous.  But if Fred's wizard burns down the orphanage with the orphans inside as a sacrifice to the Dark Ones to gain a new 3rd level spell?  Hey, that's totally OK 'cause he's a PC."  "My character has great pride, and the Baron has insulted him - the Baron must die!  But it's OK for Charlie's rogue to make my character look like a laughingstock to the entire town, 'cause he's a PC".  If that behaviour would make an NPC "the enemy", it is not acceptable from a PC either.  My character does not know yours is a PC.  He knows him by his actions in-game.That does not mean PC's are not the protagonists.  It means their status as protagonists does not reduce all around them to cardboard cutouts.</blockquote>

Verification