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: 6123423" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Well, first, I acknowledged the difference between "relevant to player" and "relevant to character", but then I also noted that you wanted to pursue your character's goal (interact with the temple in the city). So, if your goal as a player was "pursue my character's goal, with few/no interruptions" then it's pretty much the same as your character's goal. As far as I can tell, at least.Second, I tried to make the nomad encounter obviously relevant to PC goals (based on the idea that you were interested in furthering your PC goals). That's why I gave the example of nomads potentially escorting city folk (refugees) some of whom might be wearing the symbol of the religion you're heading to, and then have the city folk shout to you. The mercenaries / nomads were there to give the players something to leverage, in addition to the refugees.But, the nomad / refugee encounter still didn't seem sufficient. Based on a decent number of other posts, it seems like this is because you (as a player) are pursuing your last known character goal (enter the city). So, geographical distance to the city may make a large difference, even if both encounters are relevant to player and PC goals.Yeah, I do think the wording charge really does help me. Thanks for that insight.This is where I was faltering earlier. The players have no interest beforehand in exploring the siege, either, so it seemed the same. However, if you, as a player, are taking your character's goals in steps, it might look like this (subject to change as each step is interacted with and resolved):(1) Enter the city.(2) Enter the temple.(3) Interact with the temple.(4) Accomplish the goal.So, if this is the case, your first step, as the player (who has buy-in to player goals), is "enter the city." This means that you are more likely to accept the siege, as it directly complicates the first step in your goal as a player. It, like a nomad / refugee encounter, might slow you down, but their geographical location is different. So, it's better at the city; it's a complication to your current first step, as a player ("enter the city).So, if you were to enter the city without issue (no siege or nomads), would you say that the next best place for an encounter might be at the temple? If so, then I think that this "buy-in" is very strongly tied to geographical location, but if so, it makes so much more sense to me. Thanks, in advance, for answering. 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