Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6124084" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Of course they are.&nbsp; Larger groups are able to decide how to run huge organizations.&nbsp; They do not, in my experience, incorporate the premise that everyone has a veto power.I suspect it is at least equally likely that Hussar now has no buyin for either desert or toil in Genenna, and the GM is at fault for presenting multiple unacceptable approaches.&nbsp; In the initial posts, I thought it was pretty clear that his position was &quot;city now - that is what we are invested in&quot;.&nbsp; Then he became accepting of &quot;siege delays city&quot;, and now, it seems, of &quot;choose between desert or Gehenna delaying city&quot;.&nbsp; I'm unclear what happens if we get a couple of players now invested in each of Gehenna and the Desert, with one invested only in the City.&nbsp;I'm curious how/why you interpret &quot;deter&quot; as &quot;attack on sight&quot;.&nbsp; Howwever, I think all my example has done is back the thread up 50+ pages to &quot;if it is in the desert, it is not possible for it to be relevant&quot;.&nbsp; So we're back to geography - if I move the geographical location of the siege from &quot;immediately outside the city&quot; to &quot;in the desert&quot;, it is no longer acceptable.Im seeing a lot of &quot;I want the one specific thing I am invested in right now&quot;, and not a lot of &quot;jumble up the elements and surprise me&quot;, in much of the discussion.&nbsp; I don't think XYZ from the characters' past showing up for a Grell-killing position, for example, would have gone over that well.But I suspect a lot of difference exists between the polar-appearing positions expressed early on and the actual play at the table - Hussar's recent comments on normally just going along with the GM's plot, even though he's not really invested in it, differ considerably from &quot;any delay of Grellquest or City Arrival is wholly unacceptable&quot;.&nbsp; I'm starting to sense a bit of a linear focus - &quot;once the specific plotline is embarked on, nothing extraneous should interfere until it is resolved&quot; is kind of the vibe I am now sensing from Hussar.&nbsp; Whereas I'm still good with multiple plots intertwining - but there comes a point where the focus is on resolving one plot, and a player so focused logically may not appreciate any distractions from that shorter term goal.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="N'raac, post: 6124084, member: 6681948"] Of course they are. Larger groups are able to decide how to run huge organizations. They do not, in my experience, incorporate the premise that everyone has a veto power. I suspect it is at least equally likely that Hussar now has no buyin for either desert or toil in Genenna, and the GM is at fault for presenting multiple unacceptable approaches. In the initial posts, I thought it was pretty clear that his position was "city now - that is what we are invested in". Then he became accepting of "siege delays city", and now, it seems, of "choose between desert or Gehenna delaying city". I'm unclear what happens if we get a couple of players now invested in each of Gehenna and the Desert, with one invested only in the City. I'm curious how/why you interpret "deter" as "attack on sight". Howwever, I think all my example has done is back the thread up 50+ pages to "if it is in the desert, it is not possible for it to be relevant". So we're back to geography - if I move the geographical location of the siege from "immediately outside the city" to "in the desert", it is no longer acceptable. Im seeing a lot of "I want the one specific thing I am invested in right now", and not a lot of "jumble up the elements and surprise me", in much of the discussion. I don't think XYZ from the characters' past showing up for a Grell-killing position, for example, would have gone over that well. But I suspect a lot of difference exists between the polar-appearing positions expressed early on and the actual play at the table - Hussar's recent comments on normally just going along with the GM's plot, even though he's not really invested in it, differ considerably from "any delay of Grellquest or City Arrival is wholly unacceptable". I'm starting to sense a bit of a linear focus - "once the specific plotline is embarked on, nothing extraneous should interfere until it is resolved" is kind of the vibe I am now sensing from Hussar. Whereas I'm still good with multiple plots intertwining - but there comes a point where the focus is on resolving one plot, and a player so focused logically may not appreciate any distractions from that shorter term goal. [/QUOTE]

Verification