NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6123104" data-attributes="member: 6668292">This makes more sense to me (the rest of the post doesn't help me, really). It still leaves me with questions, but it's so much more clear than our "relevant" discussion ever was. Thanks for continuing the discussion; I appreciate it.Though, this makes me doubt that  @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a> was correct when he told me that geographical distance to the goal didn't matter ("The proximity that matters is not geographic proximity, but "story" proximity" -post 906, page 91). It seems like it matters quite a bit:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Jackinthegreen just said "The differences are in geography" (post 1,181, page 119).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Manbearcat said "Both, might be interesting and fun and per chance there may be "ice-cream relevance" that manifests at some point (such as the ice-cream truck song playing on the horizon and the truck coming over a bend). However, neither are * spatially or ** temporally associated" (post 995, page 100).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">In post 1,010 (page 101),  @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=2656" target="_blank">Aenghus</a> said "Whereas the city holds the goal, and the players likely expect to interact with the city to achieve the goal, there's lots of room for meaningful decision making in the average city", placing some amount of importance on the geographical location of the city, which pemerton went on to agree with "Everything in your posts makes sense to me. Particularly the bit that I've quoted" (post 1,027, page 103), which is literally the same length of quote from Aenghus that I quoted here.</li> </ul>All of that pointed to geography making a difference, but I assumed that it didn't when that's what pemerton told me. (This is part of the reason why I have been hesitant to agree with pemerton when he says he understands what Hussar wants; there have been things that aren't lining up, and this might be a big one.) That is, Hussar, if we only take your "buy-in" as "head to the city" (and nothing inside, since you haven't cooperated in that part of the hypothetical), it looks something like this: in the desert encounter, there is no city; in the siege encounter, there is the city. Thus, the siege is fine, since we've bought into interacting with the city.Still, it makes me wonder if wording has to do with this, or if your view on the siege changes if you don't want to interact with the city, but with something inside the city (like a priest in a temple in the city in the desert). But, overall, a lot more clear, in my mind, I think. Thanks again. 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