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="Hussar" data-source="post: 6123641" data-attributes="member: 22779">You keep using the word interested, and I'm leery about that.  Invested is a much better word.  If I am not invested in the scenario, then it is generally not very interesting to me.  Two things.  First off, it's not random.  I've explained why it isn't random.  Calling it random isn't really going to help here.  Secondly, if you present 5 scenarios and one of your five players vetos the scenarios each time, you have MUCH larger problems at that table than a veto power.  You've got a table where you have failed to engage the players five times in a row.  ((Note, by "you", I don't mean you specifically N'raac, but the general "you").  The DM has presented 5 scenarios with zero buy in from at least one player.  The DM in this case is so out of touch with the group that the veto is simply demonstrating how bad this DM is, rather than showing anything else.  If players are vetoing scenes frequently, then this is a pretty clear sign to the DM that something needs to change.  Forcing the players to play through these scenes is not fixing the underlying problem.I honestly have no idea why you think this would be common.  I've flat out stated that it isn't.  I cannot think of any other way of stating it.  It is neither common, nor taken lightly.  Again, if it is common, then it's a pretty clear sign that the DM is failing to engage the group.Note, you are mixing a few examples up there.  There was no teleport in the grell example, for one thing.  Would a siege be acceptable?  Well, it does seem pretty out of the blue and it certainly looks like the DM is roadblocking - "I don't want them to hire troopies, so, quick, let's add a siege that sucks up all the available troops in the city."  Not knowing any more information, and if the siege was added after the troops were requested, yeah, I'd probably call shenanigans on the DM.  This is pretty obvious road blocking.Why would you bother?  This is roadblocking by definition.  The whole purpose of the nomad blockade is to harass or kill the party and prevent them from entering the city.  I'd object to this simply on the grounds that the only purpose of this scene is roadblocking.  Geography doesn't enter into it at all.  You've taken away all the bits that the players can actually use and only kept the stuff that frustrates the PC's.  I have no idea where this comes from.  I like adventure paths.  I've run one and played in two others.  I have no problem with AP's.  Actually, if you count the World's Largest Dungeon, I'd say I've run at least two AP's in 3e alone.  Ran a fair chunk of Dragonlance way back when.  Did the GDQ series as well.  So, no, AP play doesn't bother me.Well, if the cost of one option is far, far greater than the benefits, then that's railroading right there.  Sure, you have the option, but, the option is so bad that no one in their right mind is going to do it.  I mean, how long is the desert crossing going to take?  This would be one of the questions that could be asked.  Note, in my example, the party gets to get a lot more detail before making decisions and will make the decision that they actually buy into.  Maybe toiling in Gehena is preferable.  I dunno.  Doesn't really matter.  Maybe the toil is safer than the desert but, eats up more time.  The Gm would determine the offers and counter offers and whatnot during play.  I was mostly spitballing off the top of my head, so, if three months is too unreasonable, then maybe three weeks.  Don't get too tied up in the details.</blockquote>

Verification