# The Guards at the Gate Quote



## GSHamster (Jan 3, 2012)

Some of the recent 3E/4E threads have brought up James Wyatt's quote about roleplaying an encounter with guards at the city gate.



> An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun. Tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun. Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren’t fun, so don’t sweat them, and let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun. Long treks through endless corridors in the ancient dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren’t fun. Move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun!




I don't really understand why this quote is so objectionable that it keeps coming up years later. To me it seems like common sense. Time is a relatively scarce resource when gaming, so why not spend it on pivotal encounters, and handwave the mundane?

Once, during the 3E times, I played in a _Living Greyhawk_ game. The first part of this official, published adventure featured us, the heroes, delivering a wagon of tomatoes to a grocer in the city. The entire journey was roleplayed out, including the encounter with the city guards. Nothing interesting happened during that hour. No one made it hard to deliver the tomatoes. There was never any question of the tomatoes not being delivered. It wasted an entire hour of roleplaying time that could have been summed up in a minute with "You deliver the tomatoes to the grocer. The trip takes half a day."

Now, if it's the French Revolution, and your group has just rescued a family of aristocrats from the guillotine, and are smuggling them out of Paris in a cart filled with bolts of the finest French silks, then the encounter with the Jacobite Jacobin guards at the gates of Paris is enormously important, and should be roleplayed to the fullest.

But in the majority of cases, the guards at the gate are unimportant, and a poor use of time. I don't really see why that quote keeps being brought up.


----------



## OnlineDM (Jan 3, 2012)

I gather that a lot of players feel that the sort of activities labeled in the quote as "not fun" actually help with a feeling of simulation, that the game world is realistic. Some have taken this quote as emblematic of the notion that 4e is all about combat, with no role-playing. If you skip over all of the "not fun" parts, what's left? Just a bunch of fights? Where's the role playing?

I'm not saying this is MY perspective, mind you, but it's what I gather some other people feel from reading these threads.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 3, 2012)

But like many of the complainers you seem to ignore the OP's example of a fun roleplaying encounter. You gloss over that part and insist that immersion requires talking to the guards about your cart of tomatoes and any other style must then focus on combat. It seems that way to me anyway.


----------



## hopeless (Jan 3, 2012)

*Curious*

I have to admit I was wondering whether he thought this out properly.

IF his game was all about hack and slash with the meeting with the guards being irrelevant then why mention them at all?

To me those guards represent a potential information source, for example what if the Pcs wanted to know where the nearest healer was, or a temple of whatever god even the local wizards guild and they aren't from this area a simple streetwise wouldn't help if you were in a hurry.

Part of d&d to me is not just atmosphere, its also the personality you might want little more than a few hours to relieve the tension but you might also want something a mite more interesting, maybe something relevant to your character or for your dm a possible new subplot whether it results in them seriously annoying the city guard or developing a new contact that might help them when they really need it even if it just someone they know well enough to be able to ask questions even if its to catch up on whats been going on after all if your players are about to be framed wouldn't a friend warn them or at least try to help if they ask for the chance to prove their innocence when it involves facing their accusers before they have them jailed on trumped up charges?
Perhaps they need the help of someone they might know, you never know who they're related to after all.

Of course they could prefer the above option but then again why not offer them the option, let them decide whether they want to bother with something like this rather than have someone summarily discard something they might actually be interested in.

Let me know if i got the wrong end of the stick, it wouldn't be the first time but this feels wrong.


----------



## D'karr (Jan 3, 2012)

I used to be a Guard at the City Gate...  then I took an arrow to the knee.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 3, 2012)

Because it is symptomatic of many such quotes - that those of us that have the PCs actually need to do something about the guards are having 'bad-wrong-fun'.

It was not just the result of a single quote, but quote after quote, with an attitude that made us feel that we were being disenfranchised. Deal with the guards? Nah, just fight! Traipse through the faerie ring? Nah, just fight! Build a character around skills or spells that are useful outside of combat? Nah, just fight! 

Bah.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Griego (Jan 3, 2012)

Not sure what Wyatt's intention was, but I read that as "get to the fun encounters, combat or otherwise". A steady diet of combat encounters with nothing to break up the monotony is just as bad as an endless number of pointless gate-guard encounters. Ya gotta get some roleplaying in there, just make it interesting and make it meaningful.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 3, 2012)

People don't like being told that their preferences are "unfun", "wrong", "bad", "broken", etc.

That quote states as assumed fact, that such encounters are not fun and should universally be avoided by players and DM's of RPG's.

If he had stated it as his preference, and then went on to explain how to bypass such encounters if it's also your (the readers) preference, I doubt people would have the issues with that quote that keep popping up.

James Wyatt made a relatively common mistake, but one that we should endeavor to avoid, of calling somebody elses preference "badwrongfun".


----------



## jonesy (Jan 3, 2012)

hopeless said:


> Of course they could prefer the above option but then again why not offer them the option, let them decide whether they want to bother with something like this rather than have someone summarily discard something they might actually be interested in.



Sorry, but that sounds really backwards.

You don't need to summarily discard something that you wouldn't need to put in in the first place.

If the players want to talk to the guards, they'll let the DM know.

If they don't, and the guards have nothing to do with the plot, why force it?


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 3, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> I don't really understand why this quote is so objectionable that it keeps coming up years later. To me it seems like common sense. Time is a relatively scarce resource when gaming, so why not spend it on pivotal encounters, and handwave the mundane?





"The devil is in the details?"


"It's the journey not the destination?"


Or maybe, "A young bull and an old bull were up on a hill, looking over a pasture full of cows, and the young bull says . . ."


----------



## jonesy (Jan 3, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> "The devil is in the details?"



The relevant details.



> "It's the journey not the destination?"



Not every journey matters. Otherwise we'd never get to any of the destinations.



> "A young bull and an old bull were up on a hill, looking over a pasture full of cows, and the young bull says . . ."



"Two guards meet you at the gates." That one gets really old really fast.


----------



## Griego (Jan 3, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> "The devil is in the details?"
> 
> 
> "It's the journey not the destination?"
> ...




Yeah, but I would use gate-guard type encounters sparingly, unless I was really, really sure that's what my group was into.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 3, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> "The devil is in the details?"
> 
> 
> "It's the journey not the destination?"
> ...



And the older bull looked down at the cows, then at the younger bull, and told him - 'This is my pasture, go someplace else.' So that younger bull, he hied himself off to find his own cows. It took him months to find his own herd, traveling from Montana to Ottawa. Which proves the old saying, a little bull goes a long way....

The Auld Grump


----------



## Imaro (Jan 3, 2012)

jonesy said:


> Sorry, but that sounds really backwards.
> 
> You don't need to summarily discard something that you wouldn't need to put in in the first place.
> 
> ...




I think hopeless is saying that the players should decide... however that isn't what the quote says. 

The quote says that... an encounter with two city guards isn't fun. It is not saying let players decide whether this will be a fun encoounter but instead to skip it on principle, which IMO is bad advice. I think much better advice would have been how to use this type of setup to pass along information, provide contacts or enemies, etc. would have been much better received.

The funny thing is it's kind of ironic given that the 4e DMG lists different types of players along with their motivations and what will be fun for them... the thing is this setup could easily be the type of encounter the "Actor" type player they list in the DMG would enjoy.


EDIT:  Okay the info I was looking at was in the DMG 2.


----------



## jonesy (Jan 3, 2012)

Imaro said:


> I think much better advice would have been how to use this type of setup to pass along information, provide contacts or enemies, etc. would have been much better received.



That's a different type of encounter. The type I think Wyatt was talking about is the standard one, where the guards inquire who the people entering the city are, what their business there is, yada yada yada.

Unless there is a reason why the guards wouldn't let them through anyway, if the guards aren't plot related, if they are just two guards and not an information source, then having them be an encounter is pointless and wastes everyones time.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 3, 2012)

I wonder if any gate guard encounters can be fun based on some of the above posts? 


I tend to believe that trying to make everything exciting eventually takes the excitement out of everything.  There are more subtle things that can happen at the gate during what might seem to be a mundane encounter that might come into play later in the game: a clue you don't connect right away, some information that isn't of immediate importance, etc.  Furthermore, some so-called mundane encounters can exist merely to mask other surprises.  Of course, if everything that happens in game has to be obviously fun, then that sort of subtlety is unlikely to fit in such games.


----------



## jonesy (Jan 3, 2012)

I just think people are reading way too much into Wyatts comment.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 3, 2012)

jonesy said:


> That's a different type of encounter. The type I think Wyatt was talking about is the standard one, where the guards inquire who the people entering the city are, what their business there is, yada yada yada.
> 
> Unless there is a reason why the guards wouldn't let them through anyway, if the guards aren't plot related, if they are just two guards and not an information source, then having them be an encounter is pointless and wastes everyones time.



Then, again, why bring up the guards at all?

Wyatt did not say 'make every encounter interesting'. He did not say 'feel free to skip encounters that don't interest you'. He said 'an encounter with two guards at the gate is not fun'. The inclusion of a _single word_ would have made all the difference - '*If* an encounter with two guards at a gate isn't fun, tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun.'

He is trying to dictate what is fun and what isn't - that a GM should pull the characters through encounter after encounter, not bothering to have any detail, not to bother with immersion, just have encounters.

And that attitude was maintained throughout the unveiling of 4e. What you do isn't fun. What we do is fun. Do what we do. If you are having fun then it is bad-wrong-fun. Get outta here kid, ya bodda me.... 

And what I have seen of the Encounters program does not seem to fall far from that mark - an encounter, not an adventure, is the purpose of the game.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Reynard (Jan 3, 2012)

jonesy said:


> That's a different type of encounter. The type I think Wyatt was talking about is the standard one, where the guards inquire who the people entering the city are, what their business there is, yada yada yada.
> 
> Unless there is a reason why the guards wouldn't let them through anyway, if the guards aren't plot related, if they are just two guards and not an information source, then having them be an encounter is pointless and wastes everyones time.




So many assumptions, so many rejected preferences, all in that one little statement.

I'll put it succinctly: James Wyatt doesn't know what is fun at my table with my players, and by extension he doesn't know what is not fun at my table. His job as a designed is to enable my fun, not define it or, worse, attempt to inhibit it. It's rude, over reaching and, quite frankly, the very quote that drove a wedge between myself and 4E.

What plot? Or, rather, which one? Is it the plot of the party thief who is trying to join the guild? Greasing guard palms might just be relevant and fun then, no? Or is it the plot of the party fighter who is looking to make some extra cash pulling guard duty between adventures? She might want to talk to the locals and find out how they are treated and how much they make? What about the plot of the party wizard, looking to hire some experienced but cheap muscle but doesn't want to get caught up with thug types? Maybe he'll off a guard double his salary.

And that doesn't even touch the rest of the stuff that James Wyatt has decided is not fun and you should not do, up to an including, in the game of Dungeons and Dragons, exploring the freaking dungeon.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 3, 2012)

jonesy said:


> That's a different type of encounter. The type I think Wyatt was talking about is the standard one, where the guards inquire who the people entering the city are, what their business there is, yada yada yada.




No, IMO, it's not. It's the same encounter but where the DM determined that the PC's are the ones who decide to interact or not to interact with the guards. Whether through this interaction the guards become future contacts and allies, hindrances and antagonists, or fade into the background is emergent in play through the choices of the PC's. and note this in no way precludes the PC's from moving the encounter along by choosing not to fully engage the guards. 



jonesy said:


> Unless there is a reason why the guards wouldn't let them through anyway, if the guards aren't plot related, if they are just two guards and not an information source, then having them be an encounter is pointless and wastes everyones time.




Well first, pre-supposing there is a "plot" is wrong, not everyone plays this way. Second, since none of the PC's actions are pre-determined whether they make friends with the guards or piss them off could come back to either help them or hinder them in the future. Finally it could just be roleplaying an opportunity for everyone to more directly establish their character through interaction with NPC's. So I'm really not understanding this issue where the guards have to be part of some pre-constructed plot or pre-determined by the DM as an information source in order to be useful or relevant to the players and/or the game in general?


----------



## jonesy (Jan 3, 2012)

Reynard said:


> So many assumptions, so many rejected preferences, all in that one little statement.



Hang on now. What are you replying to? Me, or Wyatts quote? I don't know what 'rejected preferences' even means.

If you're replying to what I said do you really think that an encounter that won't result to anything, won't lead to anything, and is predestined to go through without a hitch, is still somehow required?

And I already said, if the players want to talk to the guards, they can let the DM know.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 3, 2012)

I personally feel some people will read what they want to read into a quote then get upset about it.

It's actually something they train you not to do in a lot of customer service oriented jobs- if you start reading something with a preconceived idea about what the other person's intent was that's how you'll see it no matter how they meant it. You just won't see it any other way.

If you read say "How's your day going?" with the idea that the person asking is being sarcastic or hates you or something you'll read it as if the person was making fun of you even though they were honestly just asking how your day was going.

I read the quote as: Spending a lot of time dealing with encounters that don't add anything to the game isn't useful. Don't feel the need to play through them just because you can; Feel free to skip them. 

Others read it as "if you're playing through these encounters you're not having real fun."

Shrug. I generally try to give people the benefit of the doubt as to intent, and usually find most people don't have any kind of hidden meaning to their words.


----------



## jonesy (Jan 3, 2012)

Imaro said:


> No, IMO, it's not. It's the same encounter but where the DM determined that the PC's are the ones who decide to interact or not to interact with the guards.



I'm not following what you're saying. First you say 'no, it's not'. And then you describe how yes, it is a different type then one where the DM determines that the PC's are NOT the ones deciding? What?



> Whether through this interaction the guards become future contacts and allies, hindrances and antagonists, or fade into the background is emergent in play through the choices of the PC's. and note this in no way precludes the PC's from moving the encounter along by choosing not to fully engage the guards.



I haven't disagreed with any of that. Quite the opposite.



> Well first, pre-supposing there is a "plot" is wrong, not everyone plays this way.



Whatever you want to call the interactions that aren't combat.



> Second, since none of the PC's actions are pre-determined whether they make friends with the guards or piss them off could come back to either help them or hinder them in the future. Finally it could just be roleplaying an opportunity for everyone to more directly establish their character through interaction with NPC's. So I'm really not understanding this issue where the guards have to be part of some pre-constructed plot or pre-determined by the DM as an information source in order to be useful or relevant to the players and/or the game in general?



I haven't disagreed with any of that either. I said if.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 3, 2012)

Scribble said:


> I read the quote as: Spending a lot of time dealing with encounters that don't add anything to the game isn't useful. Don't feel the need to play through them just because you can; Feel free to skip them.




Except it doesn't say that. It literally says "These things are not fun; don't bother with them." The people reading in meaning that isn't there are the people apologizing for Wyatt and suggesting that here somehow forgot to add, as the Auld Grump said, the word "if."


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 3, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> He is trying to dictate what is fun and what isn't - that a GM should pull the characters through encounter after encounter, not bothering to have any detail, not to bother with immersion, just have encounters.
> 
> And that attitude was maintained throughout the unveiling of 4e. What you do isn't fun. What we do is fun. Do what we do. If you are having fun then it is bad-wrong-fun. Get outta here kid, ya bodda me....




I remember the marketing/ad blurb around the 4e launch that seems to sum it all up. "Play the game the way WE play the game."


----------



## jonesy (Jan 3, 2012)

So it's just semantics? The whole thing is then pointless unless someone goes and asks Wyatt what it was that he actually meant by it.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 3, 2012)

jonesy said:


> I'm not following what you're saying. First you say 'no, it's not'. And then you describe how yes, it is a different type then one where the DM determines that the PC's are NOT the ones deciding? What?




If you as DM skip the encounter (which it says you should in the quote) you've already determined it's not important or irrelevant... the players on the other hand have not, and haven't been given the opportunity to.




jonesy said:


> I haven't disagreed with any of that. Quite the opposite.
> 
> 
> Whatever you want to call the interactions that aren't combat.
> ...




It's great you agree with so much of what I have posted, however my problem is that none of this is addressed in the quote where, instead we get a general blanket statement, about encounters with guards at the gate being skipped.


----------



## jonesy (Jan 3, 2012)

Imaro said:


> If you as DM skip the encounter (which it says you should in the quote) you've already determined it's not important or irrelevant... the players on the other hand have not, and haven't been given the opportunity to.



Ah. Hmm.

You're talking about a situation where the party arrives to a city and then without giving time for the players to decide what they want to do the DM whisks them over to what he wants them to do? Is that it?


----------



## Imaro (Jan 3, 2012)

jonesy said:


> Ah. Hmm.
> 
> You're talking about a situation where the party arrives to a city and then without giving time for the players to decide what they want to do the DM whisks them over to what he wants them to do? Is that it?




Why are you even asking this? I'm speaking to the situation as presented in the quote that you posted...



			
				Wyatt; said:
			
		

> An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun. *Tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun.* Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren’t fun, so don’t sweat them, and let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun. Long treks through endless corridors in the ancient dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren’t fun.* Move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun!*


----------



## Imaro (Jan 3, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> I wonder if any gate guard encounters can be fun based on some of the above posts?
> 
> 
> I tend to believe that trying to make everything exciting eventually takes the excitement out of everything. There are more subtle things that can happen at the gate during what might seem to be a mundane encounter that might come into play later in the game: a clue you don't connect right away, some information that isn't of immediate importance, etc. Furthermore, some so-called mundane encounters can exist merely to mask other surprises. Of course, if everything that happens in game has to be obviously fun, then that sort of subtlety is unlikely to fit in such games.





No, no no... you have to get to the FUN!!!!  Interaction with NPC's (unless it's a skill challenge or a fight) isn't FUN!!!


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 3, 2012)

Imaro said:


> Why are you even asking this? I'm speaking to the situation as presented in the quote that you posted...






			
				Wyatt said:
			
		

> *Tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun.*






			
				Your Players said:
			
		

> "We want to speak with the guards."




It's that simple.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 3, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> It's that simple.




Not when the DM has been advised and/or instructed that that won't be FUN!!! And to skip it purposefully.


----------



## jonesy (Jan 3, 2012)

Imaro said:


> Why are you even asking this? I'm speaking to the situation as presented in the quote that you posted...



Well first, no, I didn't.

And second, this whole time I thought the problem was the first sentence in the quote. The one about the fun.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 3, 2012)

Reynard said:


> Except it doesn't say that. It literally says "These things are not fun; don't bother with them." The people reading in meaning that isn't there are the people apologizing for Wyatt and suggesting that here somehow forgot to add, as the Auld Grump said, the word "if."





Well, if that's how you feel that's how you feel. Have at ye.

Again reading the whole quote I read it as, don't spend a lot of time with stuff that doesn't add to the game feel free to move on. (Especially in light of the fact that in other areas of the book he talks about encounters that aren't combat.)

We can probably spend countless posts going back and forth about our opinions, but, I'm out- if saying I'm apologizing for Wyatt for some reason makes you feel better go for it!


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 3, 2012)

Imaro said:


> No, no no... you have to get to the FUN!!!!  Interaction with NPC's (unless it's a skill challenge or a fight) isn't FUN!!!




The 4E DMG (you know, one of the actual core books, not a preview book with one passage of throw-away quotes) gives advice on running combats, skill challenges and other encounters.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 3, 2012)

Imaro said:


> Not when the DM has been advised and/or instructed that that won't be FUN!!! And to skip it purposefully.




Maybe those "instructions" were a test for bad DMs.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 3, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The 4E DMG (you know, one of the actual core books, not a preview book with one passage of throw-away quotes) gives advice on running combats, skill challenges and other encounters.




Yet the question posed by the OP was why people had issues with the quote. But if you want to start a thread about the advice in the DMG and whether people had issues with that, feel free to... I might even give my own opinion on it.


----------



## technoextreme (Jan 3, 2012)

Imaro said:


> No, no no... you have to get to the FUN!!!!  Interaction with NPC's (unless it's a skill challenge or a fight) isn't FUN!!!



It isn't.  In the context of a plot driven story interactions that really don't do anything are pretty dumb.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 3, 2012)

technoextreme said:


> It isn't. In the context of a plot driven story interactions that really don't do anything are pretty dumb.




We already covered the fact that everyone isn't running their game as a plot driven story.  This also ignores the fact that it can serve to illustrate the player's characters through interactions with the NPC's.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 3, 2012)

I run pretty... chatty campaigns. Whole sessions without dice rolling and all that (sometimes). Virtually everything has the power of speech, and the will to use it!

Wyatt's quote never bothered me. I think you need to willfully misread it in order to make it offensive, or even poor advice.


----------



## technoextreme (Jan 3, 2012)

Imaro said:


> We already covered the fact that everyone isn't running their game as a plot driven story.  This also ignores the fact that it can serve to illustrate the player's characters through interactions with the NPC's.



Nope.  Even the most basic of dungeon crawls is plot driven.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 3, 2012)

Imaro said:


> Yet the question posed by the OP was why people had issues with the quote. But if you want to start a thread about the advice in the DMG and whether people had issues with that, feel free to... I might even give my own opinion on it.




Sorry, I assumed you had moved into the core books since I don't recall skill challenges being mentioned in the preview being discussed in the OP.

Regardless, if we restrict ourselves to Wyatt's quote, he only mentions Encounters, not Fights and Skill Challenges, so an encounter with the gate guards at the PCs request is not out of the realm of thought. I took his meaning to be not to force a mundane encounter upon the players. I also take anything any game designer says as opinion and guidelines, since the Rule Zero days of first edition.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 3, 2012)

I see two different things at work here:

1. The intent of the quote is pretty much to skip over boring stuff instead of spending hours on it.  The context makes this even more clear.

2. However, when WotC took over D&D, someone decided that the writers didn't need to confuse the players with options.  It is a clear editorial decision even in the 3E DMG (which is, however, still better than what came later in this regard).

We really don't need game texts written to an 8th grade level, like newspapers, in the fear that discussing a few options of how you can do something, and why, will totally paralyze the poor player.  I'm sure, as with 3E Attacks of Opportunities, it will so paralyze occasionally.  

It was particularly glaring in the 4E DMG, when they went to the trouble to talk about different playstyles, but then refused to provide much information on how to support those different playstyles with options.  

(And no, it doesn't need to be written in High Gygaxian, either.  There is a middle ground betwen High Gygaxian and a Reuters news feed.)


----------



## Imaro (Jan 3, 2012)

technoextreme said:


> Nope. Even the most basic of dungeon crawls is plot driven.




Uhm, ok. Well my games are character-driven as opposed to plot-driven... so again, no they don't have to be plot-driven.


----------



## jonesy (Jan 3, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> -snip-



I've been meaning to mention this to you at other times, but perhaps your nick should be "Sane Jerome", or something to that effect.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 3, 2012)

Imaro said:


> Uhm, ok. Well my games are character-driven as opposed to plot-driven... so again, no they don't have to be plot-driven.




A plot cannot drive a game. I think the difference each of you is imagining is whether the plot is driven by the players or the DM. Both of the games mentioned are probably character-driven plots, while Imaro, you are most likely railing against DM-driven plots. It really boils down to semantics and we've been through many long threads talking past each other on the exact meanings.


----------



## OnlineDM (Jan 3, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> We really don't need game texts written to an 8th grade level, like newspapers, in the fear that discussing a few options of how you can do something, and why, will totally paralyze the poor player.




I'm going totally off-topic here, but you raise an interesting point.

I completely agree that a good game book should present options, help the DM think about different ways of handling things, and so on. I'm on your side there.

But a completely separate question in my mind is whether the book should be written at an 8th-grade level. What grade level SHOULD the DMG and PHB be written at?

Honestly, given that a lot of RPGers got into the game around ages 10-12, I would think that the books should be accessible to someone at, say, a 6th-grade reading level. Right?

I just never thought about what "reading level" D&D books were written at before. It feels to me like they should be kept at middle school level if they're going to work for the target audience of new players.

And I say this as someone who got into D&D at age 31, just to be clear!


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 3, 2012)

Scribble said:


> I personally feel some people will read what they want to read into a quote then get upset about it.
> 
> (. . .)
> 
> I generally try to give people the benefit of the doubt as to intent, and usually find most people don't have any kind of hidden meaning to their words.





I see.  Just some people then.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 3, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I see two different things at work here:
> 
> 1. The intent of the quote is pretty much to skip over boring stuff instead of spending hours on it.  The context makes this even more clear.
> 
> ...



See Dick. Dick is a fighter. He fights monsters. Fight Dick, fight!

See Jane. Jane is a wizard. She casts spells. Cast Jane, cast!

This is Puff. Puff is Jane's familiar. Puff does nothing at all. Sleep Puff, sleep!

Dick and Jane have formed a party....

The Auld Grump, gods, I hated those books... I was already reading by the time I started school. Dick & Jane is a big come down when you are already reading Jules Verne....


----------



## jonesy (Jan 3, 2012)

OnlineDM said:


> But a completely separate question in my mind is whether the book should be written at an 8th-grade level. What grade level SHOULD the DMG and PHB be written at?



This isn't necessarily an answer to that, but I think that the players guides should be as accessible and easy to use as possible, while the DM's book should have as many options as possible.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 3, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Sorry, I assumed you had moved into the core books since I don't recall skill challenges being mentioned in the preview being discussed in the OP.




Oh, that was sarcasm and it was specifically pointing out how silly the wording of this quote is in comparison to the stuff in DMG and DMG 2... I even mentioned in a previous post the fact that DMG 2 has a player type that would love this type of situation... the "Actor" player type. 



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Regardless, if we restrict ourselves to Wyatt's quote, he only mentions Encounters, not Fights and Skill Challenges, so an encounter with the gate guards at the PCs request is not out of the realm of thought. I took his meaning to be not to force a mundane encounter upon the players. I also take anything any game designer says as opinion and guidelines, since the Rule Zero days of first edition.




I don't think anyone's arguing you have to follow his advice. The OP asked why people didn't like the quote and that's what I've tried to answer.

See the issue I have with the quote is how badly, IMO, it's worded. IMO, if you skip past the guards, as the DM, then you give both the cue that they shouldn't be interacted with as well as lessening the opportunity the players have to instigate a conversation with the guards becoming an encounter... IMO, it's badly (worded) advice.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 3, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> A plot cannot drive a game. I think the difference each of you is imagining is whether the plot is driven by the players or the DM. Both of the games mentioned are probably character-driven plots, while Imaro, you are most likely railing against DM-driven plots. It really boils down to semantics and we've been through many long threads talking past each other on the exact meanings.




Hey, I'm not the one claiming dungeon crawls are plot driven... 

I'm not really railing against anything, I'm just saying that both styles exist amongst the D&D player base so it shouldn't be assumed that one or the other is the default.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 3, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun. Tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun.




The guards at the gate is a classic roleplay encounter.  It's classic because the PCs are in a situation where they MUST get in, but they absolutely CANNOT afford to use force, because the entire weight of the city's power is focused at that point.  The PCs are there beneath the mighty walls of the city, watchful archers above, heavily armed guardsmen below.  Fighting would likely be suicidal, and certainly doom whatever mission the PCs are on.  Then, the nature of the interaction - whether the guards are corrupt, brutal, honest, jovial, (in)competent - allows the GM to really set the tone of the city in a very immediate, very effective manner.

For that reason, it's an encounter that comes up frequently in adventures, and IME always works very well.  It is, for instance, the very first encounter in the classic _City of Thieves_ Fighting Fantasy gamebook.  It's inherently exciting - and scary!  Much moreso than 5 enemies in an XP-balanced combat encounter.

Thus, to me Wyatt's statement came across as gobsmackingly stupid.  Maybe it was just a brainfart, but it certainly had me wondering what the Hell he was talking about, and where he was coming from, to say such a thing.







_Edit: Behold - the Gate Guard of Port Blacksand!!_


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 3, 2012)

Interesting. 

In my games sometimes PC's get information from skill checks but there needs to be some sort of actual interaction to get those skill checks rolling. If a PC says to me "I need to find out where the black market is and I'm trying to be discreet." I'm gonna ask that player if he wants to RP it or roll it. Depending on the situation in the city at hand it's entirely possible that he's going to get more information out of RPing that interaction than he/she would from just rolling the dice. 

And by more information I mean that they get the base information that they would have from rolling the dice. BUT if they RP the encounter depending on how the conversation goes it's possible that instead of getting the information from shady no-name d00d's it's possible that they chatted up one person (lets say Kaltos the teamster) in particular and started the beginnings of a valuable contact which could come in to play later on. 

Bringing it back to the guard at the gate encounter, those guards are often the first face of the city that the PC's encounter. Now granted if your PC's aren't going to be in the city long then maybe it wont matter. But if they are going to be in the city their first encounter with those guards at the gate has the option to impart a lot of information to the PC's. 

Do the guards make any of the PC's as spell casters? If so how are they addressed? Are they viewed as trouble makers? A particularly friendly/ flirtatious guard may be a valuable contact or source of information later on. An antagonistic guard might be an antagonist later on informing the constable that the PC's look like troublemakers and gave him lip at the entrance. What if the town or city is in need of a healer or healers or extra sword arms? and why? Would the PC's be approached by the guards upon entering the city and how? 

Wyatt's approach (IMHO) works if you're on really limited time like a convention game or RPGA type game, which honestly I see 4E really catering to with it's streamlined and balanced rules for ease of play. On the other hand one of the many arguments that so many 4E proponents have made when someone says something like "You can't RP in 4E." or "4E is a miniatures combat game that minimizes RP" is that the people who DO say that are dead wrong. That you can RP in 4E. And I dont doubt it. D&D is still a role playing game and should be treated as such WHEN ACTUALLY PLAYING. 

Just because there are skill challenges doesn't preclude actual role-playing or eliminate it altogether. Skill Challenges as they are presented lean heavily more toward the GAME end of the RPG spectrum. But as noted in a few articles by Robert J. Schwalb on his blog it doesn't have to be that way. and the way that he chooses to run them is pretty much how I would run them if I were running 4E. 

That intro encounter with the guards can help immersion. It helps build the world. If you're eschewing these types of encounters because they're not fun for you or in lieu of skill challenges (as they are presented in the core book) or going directly from encounter to encounter and you're not playing a RPGA or Convention game, then (and I ask this not to be snarky or deride anyones play style here) but why are you playing D&D? There are a many other types of boardgames or miniature war games that cut right to the chase. Including the WOTC 4E Boardgames, two of which I own and have played and have had fun playing. If time is an issue where actual RP encounters should be ignored wouldnt those types of games be a better more efficient option? 

Again don't mistake what I'm asking or saying as a slam. I'm asking an honest question.


----------



## jonesy (Jan 3, 2012)

ShinHakkaider said:


> That intro encounter with the guards can help immersion. It helps build the world.



It can, and it can. If that's how the DM uses them. And there are many different uses for them. But there are also many other ways to provide immersion. And other ways to build the world.

But that's about arriving somewhere for the first time. And the reaction I got had to do with something else. Maybe I was jumping to conclusions too.

And I'd like to to take a moment here to clarify where I'm coming from..

..see, if it's the same campaign twelve levels later and the DM is still going on about the damn guards at the gate.. and I've been there. Oh boy. That was so much fun.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 3, 2012)

Two questions.

1) Is this quote from the DMG? Or is this from a comment Wyatt made on a webpage? 

2) What's the purpose of this thread? No on is going to be convinced. Those that are offended/se badwrongfun will see it, and those that don't don't, and no middle ground will ever be reached.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 3, 2012)

OnlineDM said:


> But a completely separate question in my mind is whether the book should be written at an 8th-grade level. What grade level SHOULD the DMG and PHB be written at?
> 
> Honestly, given that a lot of RPGers got into the game around ages 10-12, I would think that the books should be accessible to someone at, say, a 6th-grade reading level. Right?




It should vary somewhat, by purpose.  I'd say most of the range needs to be 8th to 12th grade reading level.  The original D&D was written for college and older.  Bright, younger students managed with it just fine, however.  You don't want to deliberately exclude younger kids, but you do want them to aspire to greater understanding.  (And as C.S. Lewis pointed out long ago, we really shouldn't condescend to kids when we write to them.)

Keep in mind that "8th grade" level is already pretty basic, because that is an average.  Any reasonably bright 6th grader is going to be able to at least make do with some 8th grade text.  If you start writing technical materials (i.e. game rules) any more basic than that, you have to dumb it down.  

If they want to put a short section of introductory advice at the 8th grade level, fine.  In that section, say, "Do this.  Then do this other thing.  Try to ham it up a bit.  Give XP.  Repeat."  (Several pages, and more detailed, but you get the idea.)  But the bulk of the advice should be written to a functionally grown person, with appropriate nuance.  If a bright 15 year-old doesn't believe that Dick and Jane might like slightly different things, telling him in newspaper speak that they do is not going to help, anyway.  If he does believe it, he needs more advice than what he gets now.



TheAuldGrump said:


> See Dick. Dick is a fighter. He fights monsters. Fight Dick, fight! ...




Yes, that was pretty much my reaction to some of the text in the 4E DMG, too.  One of these days, when I have some time on my hand, and am feeling sufficiently snarky, I think I will write a marriage advice essay that mimics the style of the 4E DMG advice.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 3, 2012)

jonesy said:


> ...And I'd like to to take a moment here to clarify where I'm coming from..
> 
> ..see, if it's the same campaign twelve levels later and the DM is still going on about the damn guards at the gate.. and I've been there. Oh boy. That was so much fun.




That was pretty much my reaction, too.  Any time I've spoken disparagingly of PCs spending a lot of game time "shopping in town"--that is more or less what I had in mind.  I say that as someone that has had to bite my lip and endure it at times, too, because while I was jaded by the umpteenth shopping trip, I had a relatively new gamer that still thought it was fun.  But there is definitely a limit, like the number of times you can see, say, Gone with the Wind before it transitions from a good flick to pure camp.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 3, 2012)

jonesy said:


> And I'd like to to take a moment here to clarify where I'm coming from..
> 
> ..see, if it's the same campaign twelve levels later and the DM is still going on about the damn guards at the gate.. and I've been there. Oh boy. That was so much fun.




See this I understand. I dont use the guard encounter over and over UNLESS I have a specific information that I need to pass to the PC's via the guards in question and depending on the relationship with them, if any. 

Otherwise then yeah, we can just breeze past that encounter if it's the umpteenth time and serves no real purpose.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 3, 2012)

OnlineDM said:


> But a completely separate question in my mind is whether the book should be written at an 8th-grade level. What grade level SHOULD the DMG and PHB be written at?




Well, 12 year old S'mon had no trouble understanding the 1e AD&D PHB & DMG.  I must have just ignored the bits like the Initiative rules, that literally do not make sense.

35 year old S'mon could not make head nor tail of the 4e D&D PHB & DMG. I was flummoxed.  I found the presentation indecipherable.

I think... I think the chatty, discursive style of the 1e stuff is just inherently much easier for me to engage with than the business-briefing style of the 4e stuff.  I have the same issue with Law textbooks; the supposedly 'simplified' business-briefing presentation approach rapidly becomes completely incomprehensible.


----------



## caudor (Jan 3, 2012)

Imagine, if in the name of what is good-real-fun, the novels you read cut everything but the combat scenes.  A nice read?  Hum, ever tried to read the 4e PHB1?

One of my most memoriable moments in D&D was our party holed up in a creaky barn, simply to rest.  The farmer who invited was friendly but kinda creepy too (one eye held wider than the other).

Then the storm comes, and lighting flashes through the crack in the barn.  Our DM was simply setting up an atmosphere for the early part of the adventure, but we did not know that.  If was fun, scary, and not boring.  I skipped a lot of details that added to the dread.

No combat happened that night, but I sure remember it.


----------



## technoextreme (Jan 4, 2012)

S'mon said:


> Well, 12 year old S'mon had no trouble understanding the 1e AD&D PHB & DMG.  I must have just ignored the bits like the Initiative rules, that literally do not make sense.
> 
> 35 year old S'mon could not make head nor tail of the 4e D&D PHB & DMG. I was flummoxed.  I found the presentation indecipherable.
> 
> I think... I think the chatty, discursive style of the 1e stuff is just inherently much easier for me to engage with than the business-briefing style of the 4e stuff.  I have the same issue with Law textbooks; the supposedly 'simplified' business-briefing presentation approach rapidly becomes completely incomprehensible.



You probably haven't picked those books up in a while.  The older AD&D DMG I had started off with a ing math lesson.  Hell at one point it even states you are an idiot if you play the game a certain way.


> I don't think anyone's arguing you have to follow his advice. The OP asked why people didn't like the quote and that's what I've tried to answer.
> 
> See the issue I have with the quote is how badly, IMO, it's worded. IMO, if you skip past the guards, as the DM, then you give both the cue that they shouldn't be interacted with as well as lessening the opportunity the players have to instigate a conversation with the guards becoming an encounter... IMO, it's badly (worded) advice.



That sounds a lot like railroading.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2012)

jonesy said:


> ..see, if it's the same campaign twelve levels later and the DM is still going on about the damn guards at the gate.. and I've been there. Oh boy. That was so much fun.




Well, there's your problem. After 12 levels, those gate guards should not be responding to you in the same way they did that first time you sulked up to the gate, too cash poor to pay the toll. They should be astonished by or envious of or frightened by or suspicious of these skilled, powerful figures sauntering through the gate, these heroes who have vanquished dragons and slain giants and saved princesses and overthrown tyrants. I'd be bored and call it unfun too if the character I had nursed to Hero status was still treated like a Zero by the guards (and, by extension, the DM).

Of course, assuming I didn't have one of those DMs that scaled everything to my level, I'd burn the frakkin place down. That'd get their attention.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Jan 4, 2012)

Scribble said:


> Again reading the whole quote I read it as, don't spend a lot of time with stuff that doesn't add to the game feel free to move on. (Especially in light of the fact that in other areas of the book he talks about encounters that aren't combat.)




The real point is: I believe that we can all agree that spend time with stuff that doesn't add to the game does no good. The problem with the quote is not that part of the message, but the one where he tells us what experiences add to the game. Personally, I see that talking to the guards at the gate adds much more to my own experiente than killing things and taking their stuff.

In the end of the day, that's my big issue with 4E: lots of different people play D&D for a lot of different reasons, and it's really bad when they tell us that the only playing style worth supporting is the encounter-based/combat-focused one.

Cheers,


----------



## GSHamster (Jan 4, 2012)

caudor said:


> Imagine, if in the name of what is good-real-fun, the novels you read cut everything but the combat scenes.  A nice read?




I'm of the opinion that almost all modern novels and movies need more rigorous editing. That they would be better if they cut a little more, were less indulgent. Especially fantasy novels, which have become inordinately spoiled by the trilogy and series format.

I guess I apply that same view to gaming. You only have so much time to play, so you need to choose what events and scenes to emphasize. 

(And possibly I'm still upset at that cart of tomatoes.)

I read "guards at the gate" as shorthand for encounters where the outcome is not in doubt, which don't really advance the plot, and generally where the purpose they serve does not match the cost in time.

However, I really like the interpretation of some posters here that the guards at the gate are symbolic of the city's atmosphere and personality, and provide a concise introduction to that city for players. It's still an encounter that I would only ever play in detail once, but now I feel that one time is worth the cost.


----------



## Iosue (Jan 4, 2012)

I enjoy the scene in Lord of the Rings where Gandalf and company encounter Hama guarding the doors of Meduseld.  I also enjoyed the slightly different feel of the movie version.  As a Beowulfian, I have great appreciation for the ultimate inspiration of this scene: Beowulf's encounters with the Danish coastguard and Wulfgar before the doors of Heorot, for their nuanced expression of world and character.  As a player and DM, I've played and run encounters like this and will undoubtedly do so in the future. 

I read the Wyatt quote and didn't think anything of it.  As I read it, his point was the DM shouldn't overburden themself with needless minutia.  Sure, he used as an example a kind of encounter I've enjoyed, but he also used the example of encumbrance, something I've happily handwaved.  My take was that these weren't definitive examples of "not fun", but examples of things that might bog things down, depending on the game.

I dunno.  It never struck me as badwrongfun finger-wagging.  There are much stronger examples of that in the 1e and 2e DMGs.


----------



## haakon1 (Jan 4, 2012)

S'mon said:


> The guards at the gate is a classic roleplay encounter.  It's classic because the PCs are in a situation where they MUST get in, but they absolutely CANNOT afford to use force, because the entire weight of the city's power is focused at that point.  The PCs are there beneath the mighty walls of the city, watchful archers above, heavily armed guardsmen below.  Fighting would likely be suicidal, and certainly doom whatever mission the PCs are on.  Then, the nature of the interaction - whether the guards are corrupt, brutal, honest, jovial, (in)competent - allows the GM to really set the tone of the city in a very immediate, very effective manner.




Great post, as usual, which means no XP to spare for you.

To me, the most memorable encounter in D&D -- because it was my first -- was the gate guards at the Keep on the Borderlands asking my name and why I was there -- so I was forced to get in character right away.  The DM's detailed description of the murderholes in the tunnel between the doors and the portcullis at the back has stayed with me for 30 years.  He told me later he got the description from visiting Edinburgh Castle, so when I finally visited there (about 12 years ago, we're Americans), it was really cool to see the real deal, and how well he described it and I saw it in my mind.  Hooked on D&D ever since.

That's a gate guard encounter, Wyatt.


----------



## Tanstaafl_au (Jan 4, 2012)

technoextreme said:


> It isn't.  In the context of a plot driven story interactions that really don't do anything are pretty dumb.




But lots of games use interactions as red herrings and also to allow room for players to create interactions.

On OP: The quote doesn't overly bother me, but I have the perception that WoTC take the easy approach to marketing by saying 'old way unfun, our new way better'. Saw it with minis when that changed additions, and saw it with 4th ed when it started it's advertising trail.


----------



## haakon1 (Jan 4, 2012)

Reynard said:


> Well, there's your problem. After 12 levels, those gate guards should not be responding to you in the same way they did that first time you sulked up to the gate, too cash poor to pay the toll. They should be astonished by or envious of or frightened by or suspicious of these skilled, powerful figures sauntering through the gate, these heroes who have vanquished dragons and slain giants and saved princesses and overthrown tyrants. I'd be bored and call it unfun too if the character I had nursed to Hero status was still treated like a Zero by the guards (and, by extension, the DM).




With you here.  INTERACTIVE NPC's and environment = good DMing, from my DM chair.



Reynard said:


> Of course, assuming I didn't have one of those DMs that scaled everything to my level, I'd burn the frakkin place down. That'd get their attention.




Not with you here.  I don't scale things (a gate guard is typically just a gate guard), but I'd be annoyed at this behavior.


----------



## Tanstaafl_au (Jan 4, 2012)

OnlineDM said:


> I'm going totally off-topic here, but you raise an interesting point.
> 
> I completely agree that a good game book should present options, help the DM think about different ways of handling things, and so on. I'm on your side there.
> 
> ...




IMO The younger you are when you start playing, the less the actual rules bother you. Younger than ten can use the pictures and bolded headings just like I did :0


----------



## jonesy (Jan 4, 2012)

Iosue said:


> I enjoy the scene in Lord of the Rings where Gandalf and company encounter Hama guarding the doors of Meduseld.



How can you mention LotR and not mention the best gate guard team ever? 

The heroes are on their way from a well fought war to meet an infamous enemy leader at his legendary fortress.

What they find instead are shattered gates, and two hobbits happily smoking a pipe.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 4, 2012)

technoextreme said:


> You probably haven't picked those books up in a while.  The older AD&D DMG I had started off with a ing math lesson.




I loved that 3d6 bell curve.  It really helped explain character generation for me.  

It also stood me in good stead when I started doing statistics & probability in Maths class a few years later.  Most bits of Maths I was pretty bad at compared to the rest of the class, but AD&D and the DMG really gave me a leg up in those areas.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 4, 2012)

technoextreme said:


> You probably haven't picked those books up in a while.




I was using them last night to run my 1e AD&D Yggsburgh campaign.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 4, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> However, I really like the interpretation of some posters here that the guards at the gate are symbolic of the city's atmosphere and personality, and provide a concise introduction to that city for players. It's still an encounter that I would only ever play in detail once, but now I feel that one time is worth the cost.




The same encounter played over and over again will be boring, whether combat or non-combat.  Wyatt didn't say that, though.


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 4, 2012)

Tanstaafl_au said:


> But lots of games use interactions as red herrings and also to allow room for players to create interactions.




I find that it's often those sort of moments with the PCs interacting with mundane or even random created off the cuff NPCs that really allows them to develop their characters above and beyond what you might get from strings of combats or with important NPCs. Maybe my players have just been ten flavors of awesomesauce, but when faced with trivial NPCs they really get into character and will just banter with the NPCs and each other for an hour or more at the table iif they feel like it. I've got pages of collected in-game quotes from some of them that I've mined for my storyhour, because they really comprise some of the things that you continue to remember about their characters years later.

One of my favorites was the interaction between one PC and a random street vendor of Baatorian firewine. This repeated over a few games as the PC would go back to this nameless osyluth brewer and harang him for selling watered down tasteless garbage. Each time the fiend would take offense and up the amount of razorvine that went into the next batch.

The PC was half-fey and immune to poison and literally could not get drunk off of the stuff. Long story short it ended with a confused, pissed off osyluth and the last batch having a bale of razorvine, and some other random NPC gnome getting incinerated after drinking a glass of the stuff (after watching this random, poor looking PC with no shoes and a sword guzzling the stuff like it was water). The banter between the PC and that osyluth, and the other PCs reactions to it all was priceless, and the entirety of it was unscripted, off the cuff RP with NPCs no more important than those un-fun gateguards.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 4, 2012)

All, in all, that quote is an example of why game designers should not be the ones writing ad copy.

Plus, I hated the idea of those books - it would have been better to do them as articles in Dragon, but _noOOo...._ Let us instead charge as much for the advertisements as we did for the 3e books....

The Auld Grump


----------



## S'mon (Jan 4, 2012)

S'mon said:


> The guards at the gate is a classic roleplay encounter.




I count 3 "Guards at the Gate" encounters I've DM'd in the last 3 weeks:

1. In my 4e Loudwater campaign, the PCs at entrance to the Citadel of Adakmi (from Dungeon #155 _Heathen_) with the rotting corpses of 40 _Hand of Naarash_ cultists hanging from the walls, and nervous, trigger-happy Adakmi crossbowmen aiming down at the PCs from the walls as they explain: "We're here to help, we're the _Hand_... ...the _Burning Hand_ Adventurers!"

2. In my 1e Yggsburgh campaign, first approach to Yggsburgh with a bunch of dead and wounded brigands strapped to their horses, and an obnoxious guardsman dealt with by a handy _charm person_.

3. Also in Yggsburgh campaign, a wounded PC carrying the incapacitated body of another PC, trying to get back in through the gate to find a healing temple, and the guards demanding to know what happened, considering they just saw those two PCs going out of the gate an hour previously.

All of those encounters were ultimately successful, but poor play could have resulted in TPK - and the players knew it.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 4, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> All, in all, that quote is an example of why game designers should not be the ones writing ad copy.
> 
> Plus, I hated the idea of those books - it would have been better to do them as articles in Dragon, but _noOOo...._ Let us instead charge as much for the advertisements as we did for the 3e books....
> 
> The Auld Grump




The quote is from _the DMG_, not the previews!


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 4, 2012)

S'mon said:


> The quote is from _the DMG_, not the previews!



Sorry, you are of course correct - my brain had latched on to the _other_ infamous Wyatt quote. (Which I read literally a day after my players _had_ gone 'traipsing through a faerie ring to interact with the little people'.) Raises my blood pressure. Throughout this thread my brain was attributing the quote to those preview books. 

I did read the 4e DMG, which seemed very much a mix of good advice that was never built upon and advice that ran counter to my experience. I'm sure that there was some actual good advice, most likely a majority, but the exceptions stuck in my mind. Almost all of it dealing with encounters.... But by that point I was already turned off by 4e, so I will admit to bias.

Seems like Wyatt _was_ the go to guy for bad-wrong-fun quotes though.

The Auld Grump


----------



## LurkAway (Jan 4, 2012)

I wanted to XP S'mon but have to spread it.

I suggest that we stop arguing about the OP and have fun adding our own captions to this image. For example, something like:



S'mon said:


>



_Ya, ya, nothing to see here folks. Move on to the fun already._


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2012)

haakon1 said:


> Not with you here.  I don't scale things (a gate guard is typically just a gate guard), but I'd be annoyed at this behavior.




I was being intentionally hyperbolic to underscore the importance of the game world responding to the PCs. That isn't to say that the PCs should be the center of the world, but their actions often impact many people around them and the setting should reflect this.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 4, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I did read the 4e DMG, which seemed very much a mix of good advice that was never built upon and advice that ran counter to my experience.




The good generic GMing advice was copy/pasted from 3.5e Dungeon Mastering for Dummies.  The bad advice was 4e-specific.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 4, 2012)

S'mon said:


> The good generic GMing advice was copy/pasted from 3.5e Dungeon Mastering for Dummies.  The bad advice was 4e-specific.



Ow. Just, ow. 

How was the Essentials books in that regard? (Despite being a PFRPG GM I wanted Essentials to do well....)

The Auld Grump


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2012)

S'mon said:
			
		

> The good generic GMing advice was copy/pasted from 3.5e Dungeon Mastering for Dummies.  The bad advice was 4e-specific.




Joking aside, I wonder what the 4E D&D for dummies says, or whatever counts for the Essentials DMG. Was this line of advice just Wyatt's or does it hold throughout the line?


----------



## Wiseblood (Jan 4, 2012)

Encounters with James Wyatt quotes aren't fun so I skipped them.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 4, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> I don't really understand why this quote is so objectionable that it keeps coming up years later. To me it seems like common sense. Time is a relatively scarce resource when gaming, so why not spend it on pivotal encounters, and handwave the mundane?



Well, I can understand it if you look at the first two sentences in isolation. Taken in context with his other examples I tend to agree:


> An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun. Tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun. Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren’t fun, so don’t sweat them, and let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun. Long treks through endless corridors in the ancient dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren’t fun. Move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun!



The problem is simply that a guard encounter is not a very good example of something that should be skipped (always). Isn't it telling that it's called an *encounter*?

In my experience players are usually quite grateful for the change of pace that encounters with mundane npcs bring about. Dealing with city guards, merchants, innkeepers, farmers or urchins can be fun to roleplay even if (or precisely because) there's nothing important at stake.
It's also an excellent means to provide some setting background and feedback regarding the pcs' adventurous exploits.

Of course you can overdo it and an entire session spent going shopping and talking about the weather will be boring.

The rest of the examples are better, imho. Taken with a pinch of salt, the advice is good.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2012)

Jhaelen said:


> The rest of the examples are better, imho. Taken with a pinch of salt, the advice is good.




Well, the second example is a little better because it includes the modifier "usually" -- which is still off the mark, I think, but closer to what should have been "might not be" or something similar. The last bit just blows my mind -- in D&D, exploring the dungeon isn't fun? Really?

In the end, how any group plays their game doesn't really matter (unless I happen to end up at the table with them) but how the information is presented by the authors/designers, does. Wyatt making an effort to badwrongfun certain playstyles is endemic of lots of things about 4E that are, IMO, wrongheaded and the reason it is -- again, IMO -- a terrible version of D&D.

Granted, I have not looked at a 4E book since the initial set (exception: the monster vault, as I flipped through the book after getting the tokens) so maybe the game, and the game's "attitude" has changed.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 4, 2012)

Reynard said:


> Joking aside, I wonder what the 4E D&D for dummies says, or whatever counts for the Essentials DMG. Was this line of advice just Wyatt's or does it hold throughout the line?




I wasn't actually joking - get hold of a copy of the 3.5e Dummies book and you'll see what I mean.  It is literally copied word-for-word.  And like I said, that is the part of the 4e DMG that is good, sensible advice.

I don't have the Essentials DM's Kit so I don't know how it compares.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 4, 2012)

Jhaelen said:


> Well, I can understand it if you look at the first two sentences in isolation. Taken in context with his other examples I tend to agree:
> 
> >>An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun. Tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun. Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren’t fun, so don’t sweat them, and let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun. Long treks through endless corridors in the ancient dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren’t fun. Move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun! <<
> 
> ...




The only reasonable bit IMO is the third sentence: "Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren’t fun, so don’t sweat them, and let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun".  It's reasonable because (a) food supplies and encumbrance are not inherently exciting and (b) it's equivocated with 'niggling' and 'usually', leaving open the possibility of times when they may be important/dramatic.
Whereas both city gate guards, and trekking through Moria-typed ruined dwarven fortresses, are classic elements of D&D, and using them as unequivocal _Not Fun_ was really poor advice IMO.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 4, 2012)

Reynard said:


> Was this line of advice just Wyatt's or does it hold throughout the line?




The DMG2 advice is much more nuanced, a lot of it is generic - good - stuff by Robin Laws, who I doubt plays 4e D&D.  My only big criticism of the DMG2 advice is that its advice on campaign structure only allows for linear pre-plotted campaigns, like a published Adventure Path.  This is a poor approach to individual campaign design IMO because the GM has already 'written the story' and, even though his players may be happy, the GM may suffer from boredom and burn-out - he's already seen the campaign, so there's nothing new/exciting from running it.  That's what happened to Wyatt's 'Greenbriar Chasm' campaign - many months planning it in Dungeon Magazine from levels 1-30, with the 'good stuff' planned for Paragon Tier, then he burned out on it after 2 levels, got bored and stopped running it.  IMO that's a huge danger with that approach.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 4, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> But like many of the complainers you seem to ignore the OP's example of a fun roleplaying encounter. You gloss over that part and insist that immersion requires talking to the guards about your cart of tomatoes and any other style must then focus on combat. It seems that way to me anyway.



This is not a fair reply.

The "complainers" are responding to James' quote, not to additional information that isn't part of the quote.  And the additional information changes the merit of the quote into something the quote alone does not hold.  

And, as others have pointed out, the unmodified quote is a very accurate bullet point for very real shortcomings that 4E has *for meeting many people's personal expectations for quality gaming.*


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 4, 2012)

BryonD said:


> This is not a fair reply.
> 
> The "complainers" are responding to James' quote, not to additional information that isn't part of the quote.  And the additional information changes the merit of the quote into something the quote alone does not hold.




If you take my quote out of context, sure. And I did not say "the complainers" I said "many of the complainers." My point was that the focus of outrage was placed on a single comment and that some of the people complaining are adding details that do not exist. People in this very thread complain that Wyatt is telling them to skip all NPC interactions and get onto the combat or skill challenges. The word Wyatt uses in his text is Encounter, not Combat. So people are glossing over what he actually said to complain that 4E is all about fighting and skill challenges when those are not the totality of encounter types listed in the 4E DMG.



BryonD said:


> And, as others have pointed out, the unmodified quote is a very accurate bullet point for very real shortcomings that 4E has *for meeting many people's personal expectations for quality gaming.*




Yet people have no problem with pre-4E encounters, like encountering gate guards. But call it an Encounter in 4E and suddenly it's bad? I don't have my 4E DMG in front of me, but I recall it discussing Encounters as Combat, Skill Challenges, Interactions, and Exploration.

I have no issue with anyone's personal expectations. But, as you point out, the quote should be left *unmodified* - not turned into the mantra of "James Wyatt says only combat is fun."


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 4, 2012)

_"There's a court jester floating in the air behind me?  Oh, and I'm now supposed to turn around and LOOK, so that you can sneak past me, is that it?  Just how stupid do you think I am, sir?"_


----------



## delericho (Jan 4, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> I don't really understand why this quote is so objectionable that it keeps coming up years later. To me it seems like common sense. Time is a relatively scarce resource when gaming, so why not spend it on pivotal encounters, and handwave the mundane?




There are a couple of reasons.

The first, and probably the reason why it attracts quite so much vitriol, is that some people were simply pre-disposed to dislike 4e. When they encountered something that they could object to, they then objected to it in the strongest possible terms.

However, the second reason is that that quote is simply _badly written_ advice at best, or _bad advice_ at worst. The advice it's trying to get across, "skip things that aren't fun", is good advice, but it _doesn't say that_. The quote singles out specific types of encounters are declares them *not fun*. At The Auld Grump says, the simple addition of the word "if" would make a huge difference to that quote, but it is missing.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 4, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> If you take my quote out of context, sure. And I did not say "the complainers" I said "many of the complainers." My point was that the focus of outrage was placed on a single comment and that some of the people complaining are adding details that do not exist. People in this very thread complain that Wyatt is telling them to skip all NPC interactions and get onto the combat or skill challenges. The word Wyatt uses in his text is Encounter, not Combat. So people are glossing over what he actually said to complain that 4E is all about fighting and skill challenges when those are not the totality of encounter types listed in the 4E DMG.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You do realize Wyatt calls the guard situation an "encounter" in the quote and then continues to say it should be skipped to get to the fun. So I'm not sure your railing aganst people assuming what he means by "encounter" is actually justified. IMO, the issue is Wyatt's assumption of what is fun (since from the wording of his quote he doesn't think all encounters are necessarily fun), and his assumption that his preferences are applicable to everyone. Honestly I think this is one of those things that falls under preferred playstyle, and should have been stated as to make it's subjectivity clear.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2012)

S'mon said:


> That's what happened to Wyatt's 'Greenbriar Chasm' campaign - many months planning it in Dungeon Magazine from levels 1-30, with the 'good stuff' planned for Paragon Tier, then he burned out on it after 2 levels, got bored and stopped running it.  IMO that's a huge danger with that approach.




And someone pays this guy to hand out advice to us unwashed masses? Amazing.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jan 4, 2012)

Anecdote from one of my campaigns in recent years, (I was DM):

The party had just traveled to a city and were headed in through one of the gates. The city was essentially Lawful Evil, and was in the middle of a "difficult situation," so the gate guards were attentive and a bit strict. This was all part of the adventure plot the party was coming into.

The guards were giving everyone a thorough check before letting anyone come and go through their gate. I didn't intend this "encounter" to play out as anything more than just a demonstration of the tension of the city.

Now, one of the party was a "dervish"-style knife-fighter, with robes over his chainmail, and a wrap around his face and head. I knew this was the character's look, as we were about two dozen game sessions into the campaign. As far as I knew, this was just a look/dress style thing, nothing more.

When the gate guards told the fighter to show his face before entering the city, the fighter refused. Turns out, the face wrap was a religious thing, and he couldn't show his face to infidels. I, as the DM, didn't know this, and the other Players didn't know this. <sigh>

Now, as I'm sure many of you have already thought of, there are many ways of overcoming this encounter. Social skills, bribery, magic, finding another way into the city, etc. What did the party come up with? The masked fighter opted to just camp outside of the city while the rest of the party went in.

Holy crap! So that Player ended up basically sitting out part of the adventure, (most of a whole game session), because we played through an encounter with the city guards.

So, although I like playing out a "non-exciting" scene if it sets a mood or sets up an adventure, but this kind of thing teaches me that every such scene gives the Players a chance to totally screw up an adventure. I've also seen adventures break down based on the initial role play encounter with the quest giver. If the DM doesn't play the NPC just right, someone takes offense or gives offense and the whole thing falls apart.

Also, from what I've seen, the people who most like to play through the "non-exciting" scenes tend to be the ones most likely to skew that scene into more problem than it was intended to be. They stretch what could have been a 5-minute encounter out to an hour-long drama that cripples the rest of the game session.

Bullgrit


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 4, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> I don't really understand why this quote is so objectionable that it keeps coming up years later. To me it seems like common sense. Time is a relatively scarce resource when gaming, so why not spend it on pivotal encounters, and handwave the mundane?




Some people are smart enough to know what they do and do not find fun. 
YMMV.


----------



## delericho (Jan 4, 2012)

Reynard said:


> And someone pays this guy to hand out advice to us unwashed masses? Amazing.




Actually, even that's pretty useful, in a salutory "here's what _not_ to do" kind of a way.


----------



## Weregrognard (Jan 4, 2012)

D'karr said:


> I used to be a Guard at the City Gate...  then I took an arrow to the knee.




I took a kitchen knife to the foot last night.  True story.  I'm home w/ a  stitched & bandaged foot 

----

I think what is key here is to go with the player's wishes.  If they find it fun to interact with the world then as the DM you should oblige.  If they just want to get back to the dungeon then do that.

I was reading some of Gary Gygax's threads on here and Dragonsfoot and he mentioned something similar in regards to identifying magic items  (can't remember where the quote is.)  When the players just wanted to gloss over parts in town, he would just charge the appropriate gp and move on.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2012)

Bullgrit said:


> So, although I like playing out a "non-exciting" scene if it sets a mood or sets up an adventure, but this kind of thing teaches me that every such scene gives the Players a chance to totally screw up an adventure. I've also seen adventures break down based on the initial role play encounter with the quest giver. If the DM doesn't play the NPC just right, someone takes offense or gives offense and the whole thing falls apart.
> 
> Also, from what I've seen, the people who most like to play through the "non-exciting" scenes tend to be the ones most likely to skew that scene into more problem than it was intended to be. They stretch what could have been a 5-minute encounter out to an hour-long drama that cripples the rest of the game session.
> 
> Bullgrit




So don't *give* them adventures -- makie them go looking. They'll be more invested in the outcome and won't try so hardto screw it up.


----------



## Aeolius (Jan 4, 2012)

The one that always irked me was:
   "D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." - James Wyatt, "Races and Classes" (pg. 34)


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 4, 2012)

> Long treks through endless corridors in the ancient dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren’t fun. Move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun!




This is the most offensive part of the quote to me.

REALLY?!? 



> _*Axe of the Dwarvish Lords*_
> _*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Adventure[/FONT]*_
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By Skip Williams [/FONT]​[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This high-level adventure in the tradition of The Rod of Seven Parts and Return to the Tomb of Horrors involves the most powerful artifact of the Dwarven Clans! Players and Dungeon Masters love the detail and scope of AD&D super adventures, and this latest offering will not disappoint the most demanding fan. Features a wealth of background information, plenty of maps and DM advice, and a massive dungeon-crawl through an abandoned dwarven stronghold that will keep player groups busy for weeks to come. For 13th- to 15th-level player characters.[/FONT]​




from: Dungeons & Dragons


Yeah, Wyatt, that probably SUCKS.



I think the reason that this quote (in full as in the OP) and the "faerie ring" quote get so much flak is that they seem to be denying the rich history of the game, while at the same time pushing for more of an encounter (combat mainly) driven style.

It's as though the people designing and selling D&D now have never played (or are somehow unaware of) some of the most classic adventures and tropes of the game. I know that's not the case, though. Instead, they are denying these components in an attempt to slaughter even more "sacred cows" as they might call them, but rather than "killing sacred cows" they're making a fantasy rpg that need not be beholden to the focus of prior editions. (EDIT: not all the people designing D&D, necessarily, but those who make statements such as the quotes we're discussing).

Sorry, but D&D (the game, not any group or person's required experience) includes dungeon crawls, and "dungeon crawls" are not tactical skirmish tournaments.


----------



## kitsune9 (Jan 4, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> I don't really understand why this quote is so objectionable that it keeps coming up years later. To me it seems like common sense. Time is a relatively scarce resource when gaming, so why not spend it on pivotal encounters, and handwave the mundane?
> 
> But in the majority of cases, the guards at the gate are unimportant, and a poor use of time. I don't really see why that quote keeps being brought up.




It depends upon the goal of the game itself, but I agree that if the goal is to have one combat after another and then followed by one skill challenge after another, it can feel tedious or that players are just slogging through. Every once in a while, it's good just to deal with some mundane aspects for a few minutes at a time because it lends to the realism of being in that world. However, when time is very precious and you only have two hours to play, then I would only devote to a few sentences of flavor text and that's it.

I personally wouldn't deal with these except just creating flavor text to be read and that's it. However, if my players want to stop somewhere and haggle for a few minutes with the local merchant, I won't mind so long as it doesn't get out of hand.


----------



## the Jester (Jan 4, 2012)

The problem with the guards at the gate quote lies in its absolute nature. It implies that a game session where nothing happens is somehow not fun. For some groups this is true; for others, a session without anything other than roleplaying, a session with no combat, no dice rolling, no treasure gained, can be the be-all and end-all of fun.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jan 4, 2012)

> Long treks through endless corridors in the ancient dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren’t fun. Move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun!



Without knowing the full context of this quote, to me it's not saying dungeon crawls are not fun. It's saying traveling down that 10-mile long corridor deep into the mountain *with nothing there but the continuing corridor* is not fun.

I had a DM who would mention every freakin' 10 feet of the passages we went down. "You go 10 feet, 20 feet, 30 feet, 40 feet, then you come to a cross-corridor," with a little pause after each. He always did this, sometimes for a 100 feet of nothing but continuing tunnel. One time he was doing it and we were all tired of it, so after he said, "40 feet, 50 feet," we interrupted him and told him to just tell us how far we go till we come to something.

"Oh, okay," he said. "You walk down the tunnel for two hours, and then you come to the cave mouth overlooking a cliff."

<facepalm>

We turned around and trekked the two hour hike back to the dungeon.

Bullgrit


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 4, 2012)

Bullgrit said:


> Without knowing the full context of this quote, to me it's not saying dungeon crawls are not fun. It's saying traveling down that 10-mile long corridor deep into the mountain *with nothing there but the continuing corridor* is not fun.
> 
> I had a DM who would mention every freakin' 10 feet of the passages we went down. "You go 10 feet, 20 feet, 30 feet, 40 feet, then you come to a cross-corridor," with a little pause after each. He always did this, sometimes for a 100 feet of nothing but continuing tunnel. One time he was doing it and we were all tired of it, so after he said, "40 feet, 50 feet," we interrupted him and told him to just tell us how far we go till we come to something.
> 
> ...




Cross corridors are decision points. You would rather that they be glossed over?

The every 10 feet of straight corridor is a bit much. Describing what lies ahead depending on how far you can see should be enough. Perhaps the pauses were there to give the players an opportunity to stop, search, or whatever?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jan 4, 2012)

the Jester said:


> The problem with the guards at the gate quote lies in its absolute nature. It implies that a game session where nothing happens is somehow not fun. For some groups this is true; for others, a session without anything other than roleplaying, a session with no combat, no dice rolling, no treasure gained, can be the be-all and end-all of fun.



This is pretty true. It doesn't need to dominate in my group or anything, but occasionally it's nice.

At one point, the party had been beaten down, separated, and retreated across the continent and reformed. This took the place over about four sessions. Eventually after hiding out and later being ambushed (and nearly party wiped), the master magician of one of the PCs arrived (relief filled the players), and we ended the session.

The next session, he paid for ship passage back home. Along the way, the PCs just hung out and had some fun. The apprentice magician PC used an invisibility-type spell to watch the ocean water from inside the ship. Later, three of the PCs ganged up on the nerdy sage PC, messing around with him until his hammock broke (he was already a little seasick). The master magician wasn't pleased, and gave them a quick lecture (he had to pay for the damage they caused).

When the PCs arrived at the first big port city, however, he pulled them off to the side, and gave them each some coin. He told them to go make trouble. They were a little confused by this. The master magician, a little over 60 years old, reminded that that while they were servants of the prince, they were still shy of 20 years old themselves. He told them that while he had responsibilities, men of their age should be going out and experiencing life; drinking ale, meeting women (and running from their fathers), and breaking hammocks.

The party definitely took him up on his advice. The session was spent nearly entirely in town (with the shorter part of it making some innocent trouble on the ship). The PCs went out and talked with PCs, stole a few small things, tricked shopkeeps, met women, and saw the sights the town had to offer. It is fondly looked after by those who took part in it (especially by the magician apprentice's player, who connected least with characters out of that group). The session ended with them leaving town, and the next session continued with them arriving back to the castle, continuing their duties as the prince's servants.

So, a "tl;dr" version might be something like: "Yeah, it's nice to have a session every once in a while where things are nice, simple, and mundane. Not every session needs to be that way; in fact, no session needs to be that way. However, it's very nice to have moments like this now and again. The mundane can really help cement the campaign."

Anyways, just a story I thought I'd share. Didn't mean to take up too much of your time (to whoever does read this). As always, play what you like


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 4, 2012)

Bullgrit said:


> Without knowing the full context of this quote, to me it's not saying dungeon crawls are not fun. It's saying traveling down that 10-mile long corridor deep into the mountain *with nothing there but the continuing corridor* is not fun.
> 
> I had a DM who would mention every freakin' 10 feet of the passages we went down. "You go 10 feet, 20 feet, 30 feet, 40 feet, then you come to a cross-corridor," with a little pause after each. He always did this, sometimes for a 100 feet of nothing but continuing tunnel. One time he was doing it and we were all tired of it, so after he said, "40 feet, 50 feet," we interrupted him and told him to just tell us how far we go till we come to something.
> 
> ...




Wow that sucks. What a horrible DM.


However, I don't think your point is a strong one. This is like taking "encounters with dragons aren't fun" to mean that every time you have an encounter, it will be a dragon, and only a dragon, and you'll have 10 of them per day, every day.


OF COURSE taking any element to an extreme isn't fun. Monty Haul campaigns can grow tiresome (but you don't hear people saying treasure isn't fun). Super high difficulty, all the time, campaigns aren't very fun for your average group (though for your hardcore group, maybe). Superr low difficulty, all the time, campaigns aren't very fun for most groups (maybe for a group that primarily gets together to socialize). 


But he didn't say "extreme elements aren't fun because things need to be done in moderation". In fact, the quote seems to suggest the _opposite_ (that we need MORE ENCOUNTERS and less of everything else). It suggests a style of "GET TO THE ENCOUNTER!!! GET TO THE FUN!"


The retort to "_Long treks through endless corridors in the ancient dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren’t fun_." is "_Yeah, I agree, because a two hour long journey done in 10' increments wasn't fun_."?

If so, then "_combat encounters aren't fun_." Because combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, rest, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat. Isn't fun.


As has been stated, it's the extremity of the statement, but beyond that, it's ignoring a more exploratory (some might say sandboxy) style of play that D&D has always done quite well. There is no reason 4e can't do this just as well as any other edition, but the quote posits that this isn't the _right_ way to play.


Also, experienced dms will give the advice that "empty rooms _matter._" This is more than just empty rooms, it includes an attack from lvl 1 brigands when the players are lvl 10, or a moment describing the music playing in the bar to set atmosphere, or perhaps even a 2 hour journey into a mountain tunnel (where there is maybe 5 minutes of description of the incredible depth to which they've travelled, the lack of light, the feelings of heaviness above them, etc.


----------



## LurkAway (Jan 4, 2012)

_"Whoa, that is NOT true! I AM fun. I can do a song and dance, I can tell jokes, and I throw great dinner parties."_


----------



## OnlineDM (Jan 4, 2012)

Aberzanzorax said:


> If so, then "_combat encounters aren't fun_." Because combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, rest, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat. Isn't fun.




I personally agree with you here, but I thought it was worth pointing out that for some players an endless string of combats interspersed with the occasional rest IS fun. It boggles my mind, too, but the players in one of my campaigns fall into this group. They patiently humor me as I try to involve them in the world and the story and motivations and so on, but they really just want to kill bad guys.

So, while I'd say this isn't the NORM, I'd also say that telling people "an endless string of combats isn't fun" is not all that different from saying, "an encounter with two gate guards isn't fun." These things ARE fun for some players.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 4, 2012)

*Empty rooms matter.*

More on empty rooms mattering (and innocuous encounters with guards, etc. etc).


Here's a story from my gaming group. We had an exellent DM who loved using minis, tiles, and set pieces for encounters. The problem that occurred was that we knew it was an encounter when he pulled out those pieces. We were metagaming.

We weren't TRYING to metagame (especially at first), but then it became so obvious that an encounter was coming that we began to do it unconsciously because we'd been trained to do so.

Set pieces come out, roll for initiative, cast protective spells.



But then a great thing happened...He had gotten a very cool bridge setpiece...it was BEGGING for an encounter. He'd shown it to us opon arrival and we were all looking forward to a bridge encounter.

He put the bridge out...the wizard and priest cast some buff spells, we changed our marching order, the thief hid, etc.

....and there was no encounter. 


I'm sure anyone reading this knew that was the inevitable conclusion to the setup I've provided. (Later we crossed another bridge and got our encounter, btw.). But the point is that he helped us to remember we were metagaming by changing his style.

Experienced dms know that if every cracking branch in the forest is a bandit sneaking up on the players' camp, the players will act accordingly. If there are occasional cracked branches from, say, a deer, a rabbit, or a moose, there is a chance for a meal, a snack, or being mauled by a moose (some things are better left alone).

The same is true of guards...if every encounter with the guards is "plot driven" the players will metagame. "Oh, the guards say we have to surrender. Ok, we surrender." (Or what have you.)


The other important component of empty rooms is adding flavor and a sense of security. It's done in horror movies all the time...the excitement level (or fun level in gaming) must wax and wane...it must juxtapose normalcy with terror, including the "empty room" when a character walks down to the basement alone, the creepy music crescendoes, and...there's nothing there.


Two last important elements of empty rooms is that they need to be 1. interesting and 2. treated for what they are. I'll use a thanksgiving dinner analogy for this. Encounters may be the main dish...the roast turkey, if you will. But no one wants JUST turkey on thanksgiving. There are usually numerous side dishes. Overdoing the best thing without interspersing other interesting (even if they're not AS interesting) flavors results in a bland and boring experience. You don't pile your plate high with one side and just a hint of turkey either, of course, but you neither do you leave the sides untouched.

Insofar as they need to be interesting: Empty rooms/side dishes can't just be "slop". No one wants overcooked broccoli or burnt stuffing. No one wants to walk into a room and it's truly just "you see an empty room...noting else, just an empty room." An empty room can be thick with dust (or have been recently swept), it can be damp and dank and smelly, or scented like fresh loam. Most empty rooms can provide interesting details about the world. E.G. with "city guard" encounters as the "empty room", we've seen numerous examples in this thread of things people can learn about the city (especially its feel). You don't just do the same city guard encounter every single time, no matter the city the players go to, the level they are, etc etc...you spice it up.


So, I'll agree with Wyatt that "boring encounters are boring" if that's what he's trying to say. But I don't agree that "encounters with city guards aren't fun". 


*We don't need advice that certain "empty room" encounters aren't fun...we need advice on how to make "empty room" encounters fun.* If only there were some sort of guide for dungeon masters to teach us this.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 4, 2012)

OnlineDM said:


> So, while I'd say this isn't the NORM, I'd also say that telling people "an endless string of combats isn't fun" is not all that different from saying, "an encounter with two gate guards isn't fun." These things ARE fun for some players.




Oh, I agree. And for some people doing the 10' by 10' by 10' crawl down a straight corridor is fun as well.

My point there was that if you take things to an extreme, only the greatest outilier groups will continue to enjoy the experience. Some will like my 10 dragons a day, per day theme....most won't. 

Saying ANYTHING isn't fun categorically can get you into trouble...because someone might really dig it.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jan 4, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> Cross corridors are decision points. You would rather that they be glossed over?



Yes, cross corridors are the something we wanted to get to by skipping the "10 feet, 20 feet, 30 feet...." The DM could just say, "You go 40 feet and come to a cross corridor." Or, "You go 60 feet and find a door in the west wall."

Bullgrit


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 4, 2012)

Bullgrit said:
			
		

> Holy crap! So that Player ended up basically sitting out part of the adventure, (most of a whole game session), because we played through an encounter with the city guards.




Y'know, there was a similar situation in the last 4e game I played. I was a swordmage, who <3's her sword (as every good swordmage should), but the DM had an encounter-with-the-guards-at-the-gate that ordered us to surrender our weapons.

Well, WHAT THE FRIG.

We tried a few things to get around it (ultimately, the bit of a swordmage's swordbond where they can restore it from a shard helped out), but it took some active metagaming to get there. The DM was trying to gently guide us to the planned encounter, and my character was in danger of sitting it out because of a part of her design. It wasn't until I realized that the DM was flustered not having me around that I, as a player, said, "Oh. Well, let's fix this, since I don't want to sit it out."

So, really, the problem with the fighter not willing to show their face was a problem in player communication. It sounds like a cool hook, and an interesting complication, but not an un-solvable problem. The DM needs to volunteer solutions that don't violate the player's character (like bribery, intimidation, forged papers, an on-the-spot conversion, whatever), and the player needs to be willing to try these, in order to get on with the game. People work together to have fun. The character doesn't NEED to sit outside like a punished dog for daring to have a creative character hook. 



			
				Bullgrit said:
			
		

> I had a DM who would mention every freakin' 10 feet of the passages we went down.




That doesn't mean that exploring endless passageways isn't fun. That just means your DM was paying too much attention to things that the group didn't care about.

But the quote doesn't say, "You can feel free to gloss over the details your group doesn't care about" (even if that might be what it was intended to say). It says that trekking through endless passages is not fun, period. 

It implies that trekking through endless passages, or talking to guards, is something that every group everywhere in the history of D&D will always find tedious and un-interesting, so every DM should skip it, and get on to "the fun" (which is presumably a skill challenge or a minis skirmish encounter).

It is clearly, obviously, gobsmackingly *wrong to say that*.

I don't doubt that the intent was to explicitly tell DMs that they don't have to bother with things that their group is uninterested in (which can be useful advice!). But for whatever reason, it doesn't actually say that. So the "problem" that folks have with that quote (and at least one other infamous Wyatt quote) is what it actually says, the concrete substance of which it is made, the actual words that make up the thoughts conveyed on the page.

There are basically two options you can fall into. Either the quote is horribly written. OR the quote is actively trying to dissuade people from RP and exploration by claiming that no one actually has fun with these things. 

Either of those is fairly firm grounds to have a "problem" with the quote. 

Now, you might not share that problem. You might not take issue with a single badly written paragraph in the DMG (every DMG ever has probably had loads of these!). Or you might agree that RP and exploration are boring and that you want to get on to the orc killin' ASAP. Which is all fine and good and dandy. AFAICT, no one thinks you are WRONG to be OK with it.

Clearly, though, some people think that most _everyone_ should be OK with it. Thus, this thread. Because some people are not OK with it, and those people are not insane aliens from an outer dimension, or pre-teens with a hate-on. Those people are intelligent, reasonable, well-educated, _peers_, who have good reasons for thinking the way they do, even if you personally disagree. 

I mean, sometimes these threads can seem like I'm entering a room full of people under the influence of some sort of mild autism or sociopathy (or, as they are more commonly known, People On The Internet). Yes, other people have different feelings from you. No, your feelings are not the only feelings that anyone should have about this. It is not this hard for most folks to understand that some people don't like some things that you love, and that you don't like some things that other people love, and that doesn't mean that anyone is *wrong*. It just means that people are different, and that's actually awesome.

No one is wrong to have a problem with this quote. No one is wrong NOT to have a problem with this quote. I myself fall into the "Well, that's a horribly written piece of advice, and it's unfortunate that it's there, but whatever, the DMG is a lousy tool for learning the game, anyway," camp. 

I guess I feel we can all get a lot farther in life if we assume the person on the other side of the intertubes is actually a reasonable human being instead of assuming that they're an extremist goofball with an axe to grind. 

Not that some folks _aren't_ extremist goofballs with an axe to grind, just that those folks existing doesn't automatically invalidate everything anyone says in criticism or support of something. 

Anyway, babbling now.


----------



## Jasperak (Jan 5, 2012)

If anyone knows, where is Wyatt's quote referenced from?

EDIT: nevermind, answered above, but does lead me to a new question. Is there a central repository one can find all of these quotes and links to videos for someone that wants to study WOTC's marketing campaign for the 4th edition rollout and subsequent fall out from certain business decisions that some of their customers didn't like? Is there maybe a timeline for WOTC's decisions and the market's reactions? I am interested in looking at WOTC's entire marketing program since sold to Hasbro.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jan 5, 2012)

Would anyone like to rewrite that to make it more inclusive of other playstyles?  Guess I can try...

As a Dungeon Master, you need to focus on the fun!  If your group loves flower picking but hates fighting orcs, bypass the orc camps and skip to the meadows!  Groups that hate tracking rations and water won't enjoy a survival game!  Groups that love big dramatic fights will love fighting dragons!  If you're not having fun doing it, don't do it! Focus on the fun!


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 5, 2012)

Reynard said:


> The last bit just blows my mind -- in D&D, exploring the dungeon isn't fun? Really?



That's not what he's saying.



Aberzanzorax said:


> Sorry, but D&D (the game, not any group or person's required experience) includes dungeon crawls, and "dungeon crawls" are not tactical skirmish tournaments.



Well, that's sort of correct. It seems to be the focus of "Old-school D&D", but I'm unsure how many actually play(ed) D&D like that. And that's what's important (to me at least).



Bullgrit said:


> Without knowing the full context of this quote, to me it's not saying dungeon crawls are not fun. It's saying traveling down that 10-mile long corridor deep into the mountain *with nothing there but the continuing corridor* is not fun.



Exactly!
I don't know why everyone criticizing Wyatt based on this quote feels they must misrepresent the point he's trying to make. To me it's obvious he's referring to endless, pointless and boring exploration of empty corridors.

Am I the only one who played through a bunch of adventures featuring a labyrinth at some point? I cannot recall a non-boring example for this except the 4e approach of representing it as a skill challenge essentially glossing over the details.

Examples of perfectly boring and/or annoying labyrinths in offiical D&D modules include:
- Dragons of <?> (1e Dragonlance; dwarven underground city featuring geomorphs)
- Needle (2e; forcefield maze)
- The Standing Stone (3e; burial mound)

In all of these adventures one of two things happened:
- Everyone except the player doing the mapping zoned out.
- The DM got bored and eventually decided to skip the frigging thing.

We've also played a free Earthdawn adventure (Kaer someting or other) where we spent four session mapping an entirely empty Kaer without having a single encounter. I was almost ready to start attacking my party members at that point to finally get it over with!

THIS is the kind of thing Wyatt's talking about!


Bullgrit said:


> Yes, cross corridors are the something we wanted to get to by skipping the "10 feet, 20 feet, 30 feet...." The DM could just say, "You go 40 feet and come to a cross corridor." Or, "You go 60 feet and find a door in the west wall."



Even cross corridors are boring and don't really represent a meaningful choice unless there are some noticable hints where they might lead to, be it tracks, smells, different wall styles, etc.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> That doesn't mean that exploring endless passageways isn't fun. That just means your DM was paying too much attention to things that the group didn't care about.



Eh. I don't know any group that enjoys mapping endless mazes of corridors for hours.

I remember I enjoyed mapping all of the dungeons in the Bard's Tale video game series, but those featured regular random encounters, traps and riddles, AND those are single-player games. as mentioned above, mapping may be fun for a single player, but never for the group as a whole.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 5, 2012)

No, actually, that is _exactly_ what he was saying - that is the problem with direct quotes from printed materials - it is pretty easy to check.

Further, it is what he said, and said, and said - more than once, more than twice.

Personally, I think that Mr. Wyatt meant exactly what he wrote. He has had numerous chances to make corrections, and has not done so.

It is what it says on the can. Over and over Mr. Wyatt's message was 'play it _my_ way.'





Tell me truthfully, does this uniform make me look fat?

The Auld Grump


----------



## LurkAway (Jan 5, 2012)

_"Hello. Welcome to Fun™__ Encounter #17. My name is Svard Skullgnasher, the guard at the gate today. I'm not sure I like you very much. Would you like to roll Bluff, Intimidate or Diplomacy?"_


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 5, 2012)

I am the guard at the gate - you _will_ stop to talk to me!

The Auld Grump


----------



## D'karr (Jan 5, 2012)

Listen here oldie, stop waving your hand in front of my face! These look exactly like the droids we're looking for.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 5, 2012)

Really? No one? Fine, I'll do it...






_I used to be an adventurer like you..._


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 5, 2012)

Pull my finger.

*EDIT* Oh ye gods, now I actually want to have a guard to that with a halfling.... 

The Auld Grump


----------



## jonesy (Jan 5, 2012)

Based on this thread I think there might be a market for a book called '10001 Fun Gate Guard Encounters'.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Jan 5, 2012)

_Only *you* can prevent forest fires._


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 5, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> No, actually, that is _exactly_ what he was saying - that is the problem with direct quotes from printed materials - it is pretty easy to check.
> 
> Further, it is what he said, and said, and said - more than once, more than twice.
> 
> ...




It's easy to take the unreasonable things he wrote, figure that "hey that's unreasonable" and put a spin on it "he MUST have meant something more reasonable".


But the words on the page are the words on the page. And, to paraphrase ya, Auld, they're repeated...repeatedly.


I find it funny that there are leaps to defend what he said as not what he meant....but none of those leaps have ever been from him.



I also want to make something clear, as someone who think the messages he has sent with this quote and the faerie rings quote are problematic:

I do have an issue with the quotes, and I think they're telling about what *Wyatt* envisioned for 4e (and maybe prior editions of the game as well). But I DON'T think that 4e must be all about combat encounters. I DON'T think his quotes are true of 4e (guard encounters, dungeon crawls, and traipsing through faerie rings can ALL be fun in 4e). 


I wonder if people defending the quotes are defending 4e, rather than what is written on the page. Let me concede that _the system of 4e doesn't need the defense_.


Some of the writing in the first 4e DMG, and some of the presentations of 4e (especially Keep on the Shadowfell) ARE guilty of this perspective (that of "get to the fun = encounter"). In a sense, there is a vulnerability of 4e because that's some of the spin it was given.

So, while some of the designers of 4e tell us the game is more about encounters than some of us have come to know the game in prior editions, it is my belief that those designers probably viewed the game that way in prior editions as well.


I actually believed these quotes about 4e for a time. I'm grateful to @pemerton for pointing out that it's not the system that is flawed (by focusing on encounters only), it's some of the advice about the system that is. (At least that's the message I took away from him. He's certainly free to correct me, and I don't want to put words in his mouth).


----------



## pemerton (Jan 5, 2012)

I think Wyatt is giving advice on pacing for a situation (encounter, challenge) focused game. He is saying, in effect - If your game is about situations (and 4e is such a game) then don't faff around on other stuff.

As the OP said, if the guards at the gate _are_ a situation, then you don't gloss over it. You run a skill challenge, or a combat, or whatever.

The spirit of the quote, and of 4e (as I read the books) is, _no exploration for exploration's sake_.

My personal view is that the sort of exploration Wyatt is poo-pooing in his quote is exploration which is used by players to add colour to a game in which they otherwise have little capacity to affect the content of the game. (There may also be some players who really enjoy exploration for exploration's sake. My own hypothesis is that they are a minority - I think most want to engage the game in a more meaty fashion than that. Admittedly, in making this judgement I can only draw on my own experience.)

In a game in which players have the capacity to add not just colour but plot - in virtue of the way their PCs engage the situations with which the GM confronts them - then the sort of "colour scene" that Wyatt is criticising becomes redundant.

I think there is some weak advice in the 4e rulebooks - the advice on running skill challenges, for example, pales in comparison to that in mechanically comparable systems like Maelstrom Storytelling and HeroWars/Quest. And the best advice on how to use story elements in encounters if found in the pre-release Worlds and Monsters - the DMG talks only about tactical elements, not story elements. But Wyatt's advice I don't consider weak advice. In my view it's pretty solid advice on how to run a situation-focused, non-exploratory RPG. Don't faff around. Don't make your players faff around. Cut to the chase.

Here is similar advice from one of the Burning Wheel designers, in the context of using Burning Wheel to run classic D&D modules:

*Pushing Conflict Early*
Also, it seems that every module I pick up has the structural integrity of mushy peas. You'll have to take it into your own hands. Front load conflict. The first module I ran . . . had the players join up with a caravan in a town and described days of journey before it got to the point that something happened (other than random encounters, natch). We're talking potentially hours of play before something significant  happens. . .

If your module starts with pages of journey and exposition before anything happens, give the players a few sentences of synopsis and fast forward to the good stuff.

At the same time, use this opportunity to foreshadow the big stuff that will be coming down the road at them later.

*Ignore Filler*
A lot of obstacles and opposition in modules is filler. It's there to take up time, to provide a reason for the niche skills of one type of character, or to make the experience seem "real." It's ok to leave a few of these in for old time's sake, but mostly, unless
it's something your players will really get a kick out of, just go ahead and invoke the Say Yes or Roll Dice rule. Give maybe a sentence describing how the characters overcame the obstacle and move on.​
I don't think this is very controversial advice on how to run a tight game for Burning Wheel, and as I said recently on another thread (I can't remember which one) I'm surprised that the essentially identical advice from Wyatt still causes such outrage.

EDIT: It was here and here on the recent WotC layoffs thread.


----------



## jonesy (Jan 5, 2012)

No. You can't come in. This is a fun town and you don't look like fun loving people.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 5, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I don't think this is very controversial advice on how to run a tight game for Burning Wheel, and as I said recently on another thread (I can't remember which one) I'm surprised that the essentially identical advice from Wyatt still causes such outrage.





That may be a great way to run Burning Wheel, (another game admittedly I'm not a huge fan of) but for D&D? Is the implication now, with you bringing that quote in to bolster your argument) that ALL RPG's be run in this manner of skip EVERYTHING that isn't pertinent to kicking someone's teeth in (i.e THE GOOD STUFF)? 

Can both sides just agree that Wyatt and (I'm assuming here) Luke Crane's  (correction - it's Thor Olavsrud) play styles are very different from some of our own? and as such the expression of that play style as "THIS IS HOW THE GAME SHOULD BE PLAYED!" was (and still is) a bit of a turn off for some of us? 

I'm not a fan of hardcoding RP into game rules. Elements of the game that encourage or leave room for possible PRing I'm fine with. anything more than that pushes me away. At that point it stops becoming actual RPing and becomes just another game mechanic. It's one of the reasons that even as someone who's not a fan of 4E, I've never expressed the fact that it's not conducive to RPing because that's left up to the individuals at the table and their GM.

And in this case both Wyatt and Crane are saying that my particular play style is WRONG. They're not saying that if you and your players enjoy the set up of meeting and interacting with people in the caravan you should do that, but if you and your players dont find that sort of thing fun then keep it moving. They're saying flat out that it's not fun. It's not better than any of the posters here getting on a fellow poster for the way they play the game saying it's BADWRONGFUN. 

There's no disputing about what was actually said either (I know that's not what youre doing, but there are others here who are...). It's right there in the text.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 5, 2012)

Michael Something said:
			
		

> Would anyone like to rewrite that to make it more inclusive of other playstyles? Guess I can try...
> 
> As a Dungeon Master, you need to focus on the fun! If your group loves flower picking but hates fighting orcs, bypass the orc camps and skip to the meadows! Groups that hate tracking rations and water won't enjoy a survival game! Groups that love big dramatic fights will love fighting dragons! If you're not having fun doing it, don't do it! Focus on the fun!




Still sounds a little manic (almost like a toy commercial), but it certainly doesn't sound WRONG anymore. 



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> As the OP said, if the guards at the gate are a situation, then you don't gloss over it. You run a skill challenge, or a combat, or whatever.




Of course, not every DM runs a game that is a constant string of goal-focused challenges. And many don't pre-determine if guards at the gate are a "situation" or not. And new DMs need to be aware of both of these methods of playing, since it's something they might enjoy, too. It's pretty bad advice just to categorically say these things are not fun, period. 



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I think most want to engage the game in a more meaty fashion than that




Personally, I think it's a failure of a game system when exploration ISN'T meaty. Endless corridors of dungeon SHOULD be interesting in a game called Dungeons & Dragons. 



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Don't faff around. Don't make your players faff around. Cut to the chase.




The DM isn't the sole arbiter of what "faffing around" is, and if the players at the table derive endless volumes of enjoyment from doing things involving little direct confrontation, it is really awful advice to tell a DM to ignore that part of the game. 

"The Chase" is different for different groups, and while ignoring stuff you don't enjoy is good advice, Wyatt can't tell me what my group enjoys and what it doesn't. He tries to. That's a problem. Because in a game as diverse as D&D, he is BOUND to be dead wrong.


----------



## D'karr (Jan 5, 2012)

Please don't tell anyone about my armor fetish...   I could lose my teaching job.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 5, 2012)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Is the implication now, with you bringing that quote in to bolster your argument) that ALL RPG's be run in this manner of skip EVERYTHING that isn't pertinent to kicking someone's teeth in (i.e THE GOOD STUFF)?




This is where I take issue. *You* assume that skipping the boring stuff means "combat, combat, combat" and that's not what Wyatt's quote says, nor has anyone in this thread siding with the advice said this.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 5, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> No, actually, that is _exactly_ what he was saying - that is the problem with *direct quotes from printed materials* - it is pretty easy to check.
> 
> It is what it says on the can. Over and over Mr. Wyatt's message was 'play it _my_ way.'




I just checked the direct quote. He never says "play it my way." Please heed your own advice.


----------



## LurkAway (Jan 5, 2012)

_"Ya, ya, nothing to see here folks. Nothing fun or challenging about me, no siree. After I took that arrow to the leg, even my wife divorced me -- she said I stopped being 'meaningful'. Hmph! Mark my words, one day you're feeling all high and mighty and the world caters to you, and the next day you're standing around for exploration purposes only."_


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 5, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> This is where I take issue. *You* assume that skipping the boring stuff means "combat, combat, combat" and that's not what Wyatt's quote says, nor has anyone in this thread siding with the advice said this.




You can take issue with it all that you wish. 

Now did you take exception to everything else that I posted as well? Or are you just looking to nitpick instead of addressing the greater issue here? Which is basically James Wyatt clearly stating that "If you do X you should skip X and get right to Y." Despite the fact that there are those of us who as players and GM's who enjoy doing X.


----------



## jonesy (Jan 5, 2012)

_You mean like this? Ok. I guess the finger point does make me look more menacing. Thanks for the advice. Now what was this thing about a missing princess? Not in this town, there isn't._


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 5, 2012)

_What, this?  I call this my Achilles Wrist.  I told my armorer to cover me head to toe in chainmail except for one small spot right here, just to give my opponents something to aim for.  Makes fighting much more exciting for me._


----------



## D'karr (Jan 5, 2012)

I never had a problem with that quote simply because I chose not to take it out of its context.  The DMG has a lot of advise. Any of it when taken out of context can seem absurd.  However when taken in context it doesn't seem absurd at all.  

Like somebody said before, I read things starting with the idea that whoever wrote them is a somewhat reasonable person. I don't tend to start reading looking for absurdities. Specially when the rest of the sections of that chapter have information that puts that quote in context.

I think the best advise they could have given DMs is "don't bore your players, or waste their precious time."  That entire chapter does not say that in exactly those words but all of the advise in it can be summed up in those nine words.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 5, 2012)

_You there! You must talk with me! I need to talk to someone! No one has talked to me since 2008! I am so very lonely._


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 5, 2012)

_*I find your lack of faith in gate guard encounters Disturbing...*_


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 5, 2012)

_Yeah right! There's someone swinging from the rooftops on a rope. Sure... Whatever..._

_What do you think I am? A 0-level NPC!?!_

_If I had a copper for everytime I heard that one I'd be the Lord of this town!_


----------



## Janx (Jan 5, 2012)

Reynard said:


> Except it doesn't say that. It literally says "These things are not fun; don't bother with them." The people reading in meaning that isn't there are the people apologizing for Wyatt and suggesting that here somehow forgot to add, as the Auld Grump said, the word "if."




The point is, you need to cut the speaker some slack and see the wisdom in his statement and not the literal choice of wording.

Frak that the author is talking about gate guards and talking to them is unfun.  That's just HIS example.

the POINT is that he recommends not wasting time with encounters that don't actually have anything of merit happen.

You are each smart individuals.  The application of the idea to your unique campaign is what you are supposed to be doing.  James Wyatt is not responsible for inserting IFs and lawyer speak to qualify every godsdamned thing he says. 

You the readert hold that responsibility.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 5, 2012)

ShinHakkaider said:


> You can take issue with it all that you wish.
> 
> Now did you take exception to everything else that I posted as well? Or are you just looking to nitpick instead of addressing the greater issue here? Which is basically James Wyatt clearly stating that "If you do X you should skip X and get right to Y." Despite the fact that there are those of us who as players and GM's who enjoy doing X.




But, much like people are saying Wyatt should have done in his quote, you should type what you mean. If you don't _actually_ mean that it always about skipping the boring stuff to get to the "butt-kicking" then, no, I don't take exception to what you've said.

I do believe the quote is being taken out of context with the whole of the advice given in the DMG. It's only bad advice, IMO, if you nitpick his examples of things that aren't fun.


----------



## the Jester (Jan 5, 2012)

Janx said:


> The point is, you need to cut the speaker some slack and see the wisdom in his statement and not the literal choice of wording.




Do we? Or should the writer perhaps write in less absolute terms when describing what is fun in D&D, especially given that different groups get the fun in different ways?

If Wyatt didn't have a history of didactically declaring certain elements of the game UNFUN, it would be much easier to cut him some slack, but it's much harder to do when he has restated his position several times without backing away from its absolutist nature.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 5, 2012)

Is that a litlle folk swinging from your spear or are you just happy to see me?


----------



## Janx (Jan 5, 2012)

ShinHakkaider said:


> You can take issue with it all that you wish.
> 
> Now did you take exception to everything else that I posted as well? Or are you just looking to nitpick instead of addressing the greater issue here? Which is basically James Wyatt clearly stating that "If you do X you should skip X and get right to Y." Despite the fact that there are those of us who as players and GM's who enjoy doing X.




You're halfway there.

He said "X is unfun.  Don't waste time doing X, skip to Y"

X you like doing X, then the statement has no bearing for you.

If you find a value of X that is unfun, then don't wast time doing X.

You have to remember tha X is a variable.  

when X = talking to gate guards, that's fun for you.  no problem
when X = talking to a tomato farmer about tomatoes, that's not fun for me.  So I will follow his advice and skip it.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 5, 2012)

the Jester said:


> Do we? Or should the writer perhaps write in less absolute terms when describing what is fun in D&D, especially given that different groups get the fun in different ways?
> 
> If Wyatt didn't have a history of didactically declaring certain elements of the game UNFUN, it would be much easier to cut him some slack, but it's much harder to do when he has restated his position several times without backing away from its absolutist nature.




Then we are all intelligent enough to take his ideas with a big grain of salt. The founder of the game had strong opinions on the 'right' way to play the game too. I took his advice, Wyatt's, and anyone else's and applied my own group's likes and dislikes to them.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 5, 2012)

_

_
_Just because you're Adventurers, don't think you don't have to follow the laws of this town. Especially the one about ogling the female residents... _

_That is absolutely not allowed in THIS town!_


----------



## Imaro (Jan 5, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Then we are all intelligent enough to take his ideas with a big grain of salt. The founder of the game had strong opinions on the 'right' way to play the game too. I took his advice, Wyatt's, and anyone else's and applied my own group's likes and dislikes to them.




Our intellect has no bearing on whether the quote was worded badly and/or whether it was bad advice. It also in no way precludes people from calling him out on it if they feel it was in fact bad advice or worded badly.

EDIT: Especially since the premise of the thread is centered around why this quote rubs people the wrong way.


----------



## the Jester (Jan 5, 2012)

The problem is, saying "X is unfun, skip X, and fill in the value for x that works for you" is _not_ listening to the wisdom of Wyatt's words because he isn't acknowledging that X is a variable.

I mean, I could write, "When you run a D&D game, you should skip all the stuff where npcs tell the pcs their names. All that talking with npcs is not fun! Skip to the fun part, get to the encounter!" That doesn't make it good advice, and it doesn't mean that the primary point of my statement is "Skip to the fun part"; the primary point is, "Interacting with npcs isn't fun." Which is something I'd wager a vast majority of D&D players disagree with.

James Wyatt has a very specific playstyle that he often pimps. He's not pimping "the playstyle you find fun," he's pimping the playstyle _he_ finds fun. That's why people take issue with him on these things (IMHO).


----------



## Janx (Jan 5, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Then we are all intelligent enough to take his ideas with a big grain of salt. The founder of the game had strong opinions on the 'right' way to play the game too. I took his advice, Wyatt's, and anyone else's and applied my own group's likes and dislikes to them.




Obviously, I agree with this, but to back up a little to Jester's valid point about the way Wyatt phrases things.

That's life.  People do talk in absolute terms as if their way was the only way.

It's blunt.  It's at times undiplomatic.  That doesn't mean they don't have a point.  As often, people who speak with few qualifiers really do cut to the point.

But like some dude on page 1 said about customer service training.  Read the message and get the user's point.  Seperate it from their presentation.  What is the point they are making.

James Wyatt is saying, don't waste an hour of game time to deliver some tomatoes and talk to the gate guard when NONE of that had any impact.

I suspect the difference in value for that statement is when the DM inflicts a meaningless encounter on you (you MUST haggle with the shop owner to buy your supplies, you MUST go through the dialog with the gate guard to enter the city despite the fact that the default situation implies you will ultimately be granted access).

Skip those scenes.  Talk past them.
"You buy your supplies from Bob the shop keep.  Give the the total of the cost and the items you bought."
"You get to the gate and the guard asks the typical questions, and then lets you through"

Wyatt's advice is to the DM to not waste time.  If the PCs want to stop and ask Bob questions, or talk to the gate guard about anybody else passing through, the scene control passes to the players.


----------



## pauljathome (Jan 5, 2012)

Janx said:


> The point is, you need to cut the speaker some slack and see the wisdom in his statement and not the literal choice of wording.
> .




He is a professional writing in the prime work aimed at GMs. One can presume that he chose his words carefully. I don't know the WOTC process but I also will presume that at least one or 2 other people looked at his words prior to them being published (if WOTC didn't review every word in the PHB and DMG several times then they're idiots).

As the AuldGrump pointed out the addition of a single word ("if") would have changed that quote immensely.

Pretty much every defence of his quote that I've seen here implicitly assumes that he meant to put that "if" in that quote and are reading it as if that word was present.

I basically see two alternatives.

1) He (and the reviewers of his prose) DID mean what they said. They purposefully did NOT put in the word "if"
2) He (and the reviewers of his prose) badly worded that paragraph so as to significantly obfusate the intended meaning. Ie, they were basically incompetent

Now, we all make mistakes and its hard to read the actual words when you know what they "mean". But that is exactly the kind of mistake that I'd expect reviewers to catch (and yes, I've both reviewed documents and had documents that I write be reviewed)

I tend to agree with Auld Grump due to memories of the roll out and believe that it was deliberate. But I could be convinced it was incompetence. I've always liked the quote "never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence". 

But it pretty much is one or the other. Either Wyatt MEANT BadWrongFun or he and WOTC chose sufficiently bad prose that I believe that calling them incompetent is justified.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 5, 2012)

Janx said:


> The point is, you need to cut the speaker some slack and see the wisdom in his statement and not the literal choice of wording.
> 
> Frak that the author is talking about gate guards and talking to them is unfun.  That's just HIS example.
> 
> ...




Then in a text that's meant for experienced and NEW players alike he should have been clear and concise in what he MEANT to say and not leave it up to interpretation. As the 'SPEAKER' in this case for a reference book, it's not our job as readers to extrapolate and try to figure out what he actually meant. It's not a piece of literature, IT'S GORRAM REFERENCE BOOK. Be clear. Say what you mean.

In that context, from that approach I see him saying that "X is not fun" as you shouldn't do X. Not as "some people prefer to do X and some people prefer not to do X. Personally I dont like doing X so I skip it". He's saying X isn't fun. DEFINITIVE. Skip it. DEFINITIVE. 

It's not lawyer speak, it's basic communication. Especially in a reference book. Get the point across in away that people will CLEARLY understand what the hell you're saying.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 5, 2012)

Janx said:
			
		

> James Wyatt is not responsible for inserting IFs and lawyer speak to qualify every godsdamned thing he says.




Actually, in his capacity as the writer of the DMG, he *is*, precisely, responsible for everything he says. 

Him. Personally. He _wrote it_. If he didn't want to be responsible for everything he wrote, he _shouldn't write books_. 

Of course, he's not the one saying he shouldn't be held responsible for what he says. He's not really taking a stand one way or the other. There are plenty of other folks apologizing for him, though, saying that, no, it's not him who said these things, it's _all these other people_ who are _deliberately misinterpreting_ him. 

Well, no. It's entirely possible to have a problem with his quote based either on the fact that it's really bad writing, or based on the fact that it actually says some very questionable things. It's also entirely possible NOT to have a problem with it, if you don't care about his bad writing, or agree with his questionable things. 



			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> much like people are saying Wyatt should have done in his quote, you should type what you mean




The author of the DMG should probably be held to considerably higher standards than some random d00d on a message board.


----------



## Janx (Jan 5, 2012)

ShinHakkaider said:


> He's saying X isn't fun. DEFINITIVE. Skip it. DEFINITIVE.




So let's take him literally.

wyatt thinks basic gate guard scenes and supply shopping scenes are not fun and are a waste of time.

I hope we all can agree that Wyatt said that, and that it is probably his preference to not spend much time on those activities.

I agree with him.

I do not want to sit around while the GM makes each player role-play his shopping for supplies before we head out to the dungeon.

I do not want to sit around while the GM makes us answer the gate guard's questions when ultimately he will let us through and nothing else will have happened from it.

I do expect that anybody who agrees with Wyatt will also accept that SOME shopping scenes do need roleplaying out and SOME gate guard scenes do need to be roleplayed out.

Note, I am pretty sure Wyatt is talking about generic gate guard challenges, generic shopping trips, and generic travels to places that nothing of import happens.  These are activities where the outcome is certain and spending time on them is where he advises skipping them.

I'm also pretty sure that Wyatt isn't saying the only fun encounters are combat.  Traps are fun.  Roleplaying meaningful discussions is fun.  Chases are fun.  Complex problems are fun.

Burning realtime for mundane activities where the outcome is certain and can be summed up is not fun for me.  Not fun for Wyatt.  Not fun for most people.

That last statement is what I take from Wyatt's intent.  Seperate it from the specifics of "talking to gate guards".  

If you are GMing for me, in a 4 hour block (because I work about 80 hours a week and thats about how much time I can spare and still have room for my family and chores), do YOU really think YOU can justify WASTING my time.

this isn't about me being a jerk and never being in your campaign.  For each player, their time is as limited as mine is.  As a GM, do you really have a RIGHT to waste my time?  Do you think it would be COURTEOUS to respect my time?  Isn't the GM's time just as valuable and worthy of respect?

Therefore, if time is FINITE, out of all the elements in the game, why would you prioritize mundane activities where the outcome is certain as something to spend TIME on as compared to the other encounters that have uncertain outcomes?

The term fun is just an expression of value.  If you prioritize all the types of encounters in the game, you could expect differing lists from each player.  But I should hope that "Spending time on Mundane Activities where the outcome is certain" is not on the top of anybody's list.

I suspect there is not an RPG in existence (please do not prove me wrong) about mundane people doing mundane things.  Every one I've heard of is about PCs doing exceptional things like fighting, casting spells, solving big problems, sneaking and stealing, and talking important NPCs into doing what you want.

Not a one of them has as an emphasis, buying carrrots, delivering tomatoes to the market and getting a good price for them, or getting past the TSA checkpoint with correct ID and no contraband in your luggage.  None of them detail the random 2 people you get seated next to on the airplane and have to talk to on your 3 hour flight.

Because RPGs are about the interesting stuff.  Not the mundane stuff.

So minimize the time spent on mundane things where the outcome is certain.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 5, 2012)

Janx said:


> Stuff...




I've addressed alot of this in my earlier post. 

And I did so without politely telling someone that the way that they play was stupid and a waste of time. Yes I know that you didn't say that but and I quote: 



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> Read the message and get the user's point. Separate it from their presentation. What is the point they are making.




So thanks for that. Let's feel free to ignore each other from here on in yes? GRRRRRRRRRRRREAT....


----------



## Janx (Jan 5, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Actually, in his capacity as the writer of the DMG, he *is*, precisely, responsible for everything he says.
> 
> Him. Personally. He _wrote it_. If he didn't want to be responsible for everything he wrote, he _shouldn't write books_.
> 
> ...




The other dude used the word "Incompetent".  I think that's a pretty harsh assessment.  A man flying a plane who doesn't actually know how to fly is incompetent.  A man who knows how to assemble sentences in a way that makes sense to others and conveys his meaning and intent, yet still offends some subset of the audience does not define incompetence.

A mistake, surely.  

Having been paid for writing and editing proposals for business worth considerably more than what James Wyatt go paid for his words, I can see how the mistake can happen.

We can try to hold the WotC crew to some high standard of communication, but seriously, these guys get paid less than teachers.

If we're lucky, there are english or journalism majors involved in the editing process.

And none of that means any experts in communicating and phrasing of intent were involved.

So Wyatt wrote a piece that expressed his opinion on certain game elements. And his editor saw no typos or grammar errors.  And the tone seemed OK to him.  Probably because he also agreed with Wyatt's point.

Thus, it got published.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 5, 2012)

Janx said:


> If you are GMing for me, in a 4 hour block (because I work about 80 hours a week and thats about how much time I can spare and still have room for my family and chores), do YOU really think YOU can justify WASTING my time.
> 
> this isn't about me being a jerk and never being in your campaign.  For each player, their time is as limited as mine is.  As a GM, do you really have a RIGHT to waste my time?  Do you think it would be COURTEOUS to respect my time?  Isn't the GM's time just as valuable and worthy of respect?
> 
> Therefore, if time is FINITE, out of all the elements in the game, why would you prioritize mundane activities where the outcome is certain as something to spend TIME on as compared to the other encounters that have uncertain outcomes?




I certainly hope you are paying that GM, because otherwise you are the one being discourteous, making demands on someone who has, with almost 100% certainty, more than those 4 hours he or she is also going to be at the table, trying to have a good time.

You may be better off with a CRPG or MMO if you expect to be catered to in such a manner and to such a degree.


----------



## Janx (Jan 5, 2012)

ShinHakkaider said:


> I've addressed alot of this in my earlier post.
> 
> And I did so without politely telling someone that the way that they play was stupid and a waste of time. Yes I know that you didn't say that but and I quote:
> 
> ...




I read page 1.  Your post was on page 4.  I did not ignore your post as I did not know your post existed.

And it was a nice post.

To answer that post's final question, why not play a boardgame?
I play D&D because the GM acts as a parser to my described actions that a mere boardgame cannot hope to handle.

Take your example of the guard.  Your example is NOT a waste of time.  You made the guard encounter impart meaningful information through roleplay.

A less saavy GM just has the guards there as a nuisance time wasting encounter to show the city has a gate and it is guarded by guards.  That information could have been conveyed in one sentence with the next getting to the PCs destination.

So, if an encounter is a waste of time, the GM has 2 suggestions: skip it or make it have value.


----------



## Janx (Jan 5, 2012)

Reynard said:


> I certainly hope you are paying that GM, because otherwise you are the one being discourteous, making demands on someone who has, with almost 100% certainty, more than those 4 hours he or she is also going to be at the table, trying to have a good time.
> 
> You may be better off with a CRPG or MMO if you expect to be catered to in such a manner and to such a degree.




Remember though, we're not just talking about me and my special needs.

It's also YOU as a player or as a DM (and I said as much in my post).

Why the smurf would you want to spend those 4 hours shopping for adventuring supplies from the PH as roleplayed, versus 10 minutes to look up prices, subtract the gold, and get to the dungeon or talking to the Duke about his trade agreement?


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 5, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> But, much like people are saying Wyatt should have done in his quote, you should type what you mean. If you don't _actually_ mean that it always about skipping the boring stuff to get to the "butt-kicking" then, no, I don't take exception to what you've said.
> 
> I do believe the quote is being taken out of context with the whole of the advice given in the DMG. It's only bad advice, IMO, if you nitpick his examples of things that aren't fun.






			
				 4E DMG page 21 said:
			
		

> Encounters are the exciting part of the D&D game.
> They have tension and urgency about them and a chance of failure. They involve lots of die-rolling (often in the form of attack rolls) and strategic thinking. They give almost every kind of player something to enjoy.




That's the definition of Encounters from the 4E DM's guide. I'm hoping that provides enough context in terms of what I'm talking about. 

Now if someone can point me to the page number of Wyatt's initial comment so we can also discuss that in it's proper "context" as well.

EDIT: Never mind found it. It's on page 105 where he defines FUN. 



			
				 4E DMG page 105 said:
			
		

> Fun is one element you shouldn’t vary. Every encounter in an adventure should be fun. As much as
> possible, fast-forward through the parts of an adventure that aren’t fun. An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun. Tell the players they get through
> the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun. Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren’t fun, so don’t sweat them, and
> let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun.
> ...




So there you go the full quote in context. That coupled with the books definition of Encounters makes much more sense and pretty much what some people have been saying all along. Everything between defined encounters is not fun. Encounters (as defined) are fun. Skip the stuff in between and get to the encounters (=fun). 

This also gives me a little bit of insight as to why the delve format was the preferred format coming into 4E. All encounters, no perceived fat.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 5, 2012)

Janx said:
			
		

> Why the smurf would you want to spend those 4 hours shopping for adventuring supplies from the PH as roleplayed, versus 10 minutes to look up prices, subtract the gold, and get to the dungeon or talking to the Duke about his trade agreement?




Ah, here we are, where these threads always end up: at the extreme, improbable, worst case scenario stage. After all, who could argue against four wasted hours, especially after a 5 hour drive, in the snow, up hill, both ways.

Not one person has suggested wasting everyone's time for four hours. All that has been said is that Wyatt is demonstrably wrong, and giving terrible advice to new GMs.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 5, 2012)

Janx said:


> Remember though, we're not just talking about me and my special needs.
> 
> It's also YOU as a player or as a DM (and I said as much in my post).
> 
> Why the smurf would you want to spend those 4 hours shopping for adventuring supplies from the PH as roleplayed, versus 10 minutes to look up prices, subtract the gold, and get to the dungeon or talking to the Duke about his trade agreement?




A former girlfriend of mine was in a Chivalry&Sorcery game with me.  The game was set up in such a way that several of the sessions ended up being one-on-one with the GM covering individual pursuits.  She spent a whole 6 hour session _shopping_ in-character.  The GM was bemused because he had a variety of more action-oriented situations available, but she was interested in pursuing this one.

I asked her why; she said she did it because she was having fun doing it.


----------



## Janx (Jan 5, 2012)

ShinHakkaider said:


> So there you go the full quote in context. That coupled with the books definition of Encounters makes much more sense and pretty much what some people have been saying all along. Everything between defined encounters is not fun. Encounters (as defined) are fun. Skip the stuff in between and get to the encounters (=fun).
> 
> This also gives me a little bit of insight as to why the delve format was the preferred format coming into 4E. All encounters, no perceived fat.




And I can accept some variance in what folks percieve as fat.

Not every gate guard scene is fat.  Not every shopping trip is fat.

But surely, some situations can be summed up in a sentence, rather than expounded on as a drawn out roleplaying encounter where nothing was at stake, and the outcome was certain (I am going to buy that 50' of rope at PH cost).

As a case in point, I used to break up a quest to dungeon X into the travel part, before the actual dungeon part.  This meant I had an entire session devoted to the random encounters along the way.  Usually this meant going day by day, checking their guard rotation, and determining when the monster would be discovered and who was on guard.

This whole exercise got them some XP, spent some of their resources (healing, HP, spells), and didn't really advance the plot, other than they ultimately get to the dungeon in potentially worse shape than they started.

That style of play isn't invalid.  But was it really fun?  I could have said, "you arrive at Dungeon X four days later." and gotten to the part where the players make real decisions about how to explore the dungeon.

Rather than less critical decisions about how they guard their camp along the road, to avoid being robbed or attacked by wolves in the middle of the night.

Now there could be a way to skim the travel, yet still introduce an encounter in the middle.  My point though is, why make the entire trip take an entire session, when the real objective is to explore Dungeon X.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jan 5, 2012)

Reynard said:
			
		

> All that has been said is that Wyatt is demonstrably wrong, and giving terrible advice to new GMs.



I have no care about D&D4 or James Wyatt, so I'm not defending either. But I think saying it's terrible advice is an overstatement.

How's this simple edit:







> Fun is one element you shouldn’t vary. Every [minute] in an adventure should be fun. As much as possible, fast-forward through the parts of an adventure that aren’t fun. [If your group thinks] an encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun, tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun. [If your group thinks] niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren’t fun, don’t sweat them, and let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun. [If your group thinks] long treks through endless corridors in the ancient dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren’t fun, move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun!



Better?

Bullgrit


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 5, 2012)

ShinHakkaider said:


> That may be a great way to run Burning Wheel, (another game admittedly I'm not a huge fan of) but for D&D? Is the implication now, with you bringing that quote in to bolster your argument) that ALL RPG's be run in this manner of skip EVERYTHING that isn't pertinent to kicking someone's teeth in (i.e THE GOOD STUFF)?




I don't think pemerton is saying "ALL RPG's" be run in that manner.



pemerton said:


> I think Wyatt is giving advice on pacing *for a situation (encounter, challenge) focused game.* He is saying, in effect - If your game is about situations (and 4e is such a game) then don't faff around on other stuff.




(emphasis mine)



ShinHakkaider said:


> Can both sides just agree that Wyatt and (I'm assuming here) Luke Crane's  (correction - it's Thor Olavsrud) play styles are very different from some of our own? and as such the expression of that play style as "THIS IS HOW THE GAME SHOULD BE PLAYED!" was (and still is) a bit of a turn off for some of us?




When you write a game, you should also tell people how it should be played.  You design a game to produce a certain play experience; telling people how to get that, instead of leaving it up to them to figure out for themselves, is important.  (Unless figuring it out for themselves is part of the game, I guess.)

Though I agree that Wyatt's text is problematic.

If I were to write that over again for 4E, I'd do something like this:

*Scene Framing*

One of your jobs as DM is to keep the action moving.  You want to put the PCs in situations where their players can make important decisions.  Scenes where the players are not making choices that relate to their PCs or the Quests they've shown an interest in will drag.  Fast-forward past the scenes where the players have no meaningful choices to make.

When you get to a scene that provides meaningful choices, jump right into it.  Get excited.  Describe the scene using all five senses.  Describe the dangers the characters face.  Once you've done that, sit back and let the players make their decisions and react to them.

How do you know which scenes to fast-forward through?  A good scene is one that:

Includes challenges (both violent and non-violent) for the PCs to overcome
Reflects or explores features of the PCs (choice of class, race, paragon path, epic destiny, feats, powers, and role-playing characterization)
Leads to the conclusion of a Quest the PCs are interested in
Consider fast-forwarding past scenes that don't hit these points.

One more thing to remember.  Every so often, set up a scene where the players have few choices to make.  Use this scene to show how the PCs have changed the game world, for better or for worse.  A good time to do this is during an Extended Rest, a natural stopping point in the game.  If the PCs are resting in an inn, have an NPC approach them and offer his admiration (or disgust!) in the PC's deeds.​


----------



## Reynard (Jan 5, 2012)

Bullgrit said:


> But I think saying it's terrible advice is an overstatement.




I don't. As it is written it is telling new DMs to not include certain things in their games because they are not fun.



> How's this simple edit:Better?
> 
> Bullgrit




Much. See what just a few words can do?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 5, 2012)

Janx said:
			
		

> But surely, some situations can be summed up in a sentence, rather than expounded on as a drawn out roleplaying encounter where nothing was at stake, and the outcome was certain (I am going to buy that 50' of rope at PH cost).




Yeah, no one is really disputing the fact that not every scene is worth spending time on. 

The conversation is mostly about James Wyatt's way of articulating that thought, which, depending on your level of charity, is either really badly written, or actually says that the scenes that aren't worth spending time on are the scenes that are not "encounters" with "attack rolls." Some people think that the statement is a problem, for either or both reasons. Other people don't think the statement is a problem, and are shocked (shocked!) that not every rational-thinking person agrees with them.


----------



## Janx (Jan 5, 2012)

Nagol said:


> A former girlfriend of mine was in a Chivalry&Sorcery game with me.  The game was set up in such a way that several of the sessions ended up being one-on-one with the GM covering individual pursuits.  She spent a whole 6 hour session _shopping_ in-character.  The GM was bemused because he had a variety of more action-oriented situations available, but she was interested in pursuing this one.
> 
> I asked her why; she said she did it because she was having fun doing it.




I guess that counter's [MENTION=467]Reynard[/MENTION]'s point that my example was exagerated.  Though my example was exagerated.

Notice, however, a couple of points from Nagol, that do not contradict my prior statements.

The PLAYER chose to RP shopping.  She took Scene Control and did what she wanted.  I'm OK with that (barring if she did that at a mult-player session at the expense of other players).

That's not the same as a GM requiring each purchase to be roleplayed.  Which could easily take 30 minutes to an hour PER shop.  Why the smurf do you think men HATE shopping with their women?  Because it takes so darn long at each shop.  And if you are not buying something, you are stuck waiting for the shopper to finish.

A GM should be wary of FORCING players to roleplay shopping for mundane things.

A Player should be considerate of others when they try to roleplay shopping.  Because invariably, it leaves a bunch of PCs stuck on the side.

The effect of these activities, is that they are cumulative.  How much game time is spent on drawing out activities that have a certain outcome.  Could they be skipped, so you can get to the good stuff.

I don't have a recommendation for Nagol's shopper example.  At least it was a solo session.  Was it fun for the GM?  Is she going to do that every game, even when other players are present and wanting to get to some specific goal?

The value I get from skipping the waste of time activities is that my group can get about 6 combat encounters, plus RP, trap, other encounters done in a 4-6 hour time frame.  We run combat fast using best practices.  We glosss over activities that aren't pertinent to the party's main goal or the PCs personal goals.

As a result, the game runs faster and we get more done in a session.


----------



## Janx (Jan 5, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Yeah, no one is really disputing the fact that not every scene is worth spending time on.
> 
> The conversation is mostly about James Wyatt's way of articulating that thought, which, depending on your level of charity, is either really badly written, or actually says that the scenes that aren't worth spending time on are the scenes that are not "encounters" with "attack rolls." Some people think that the statement is a problem, for either or both reasons. Other people don't think the statement is a problem, and are shocked (shocked!) that not every rational-thinking person agrees with them.




There's another factor at play.

As the creator of a product, the creator has a vision on its use.  Some evidence exists that indicates Creators define what products a Consumer needs, not the other way around.

Thus, the customer is NOT always right. (nor is the Creator, which is why their product fails).

But ultimately, every great product is made by the Creator's vision, not the customer's.

We are D&D's customer.  We did not know we wanted it until Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson invented it.

People did not want an Apple technology until Apple made it.



Wyatt is speaking for the creator, saying "this is how this product should be used"

There are always going to be consumers who see the product, see the directions, and disagree and even take it a different direction, thus becoming a Creator themselves.

the point is, he is within his rights to declare the right way to use his product (as an agent of WotC) in a definitive voice.

And he's right.  His way is going to get you the results he describes.

Obviously, there are other ways to use his product that may turn out fine.

It's not necessarily his job to talk about those other ways.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jan 5, 2012)

Reynard said:
			
		

> See what just a few words can do?



Oh, I know. I'm an editor.

Bullgrit


----------



## haakon1 (Jan 5, 2012)

Jhaelen said:


> Examples of perfectly boring and/or annoying labyrinths in offiical D&D modules include:
> - The Standing Stone (3e; burial mound)




The Standing Stones was a great, atmospheric Celtic-inspired adventure.  It fits very, very well with what I like to do in D&D.

I did it as a player, and later ran it as a DM (with a different group).  The fight at the end of the labyrinth with Saithnar was one of the highlights of the campaign I DM'd.  I have bards singing about it -- and addendum to the existing Saithnasmal ballad in the module -- and making the PC leader/fighter famous.

Anyhow, in both cases, we didn't play out mapping the labyrinth, but moved on swiftly to the traps and encounters.  It didn't take all that long, and I don't think anyone was bored.


----------



## broghammerj (Jan 5, 2012)

S'mon said:


>




I was thinking:

"I want you for the Dark Queen's Army"  or

"Finger of death or my trusty spear.  You choose."


----------



## Imaro (Jan 5, 2012)

Janx said:


> There's another factor at play.
> 
> As the creator of a product, the creator has a vision on its use. Some evidence exists that indicates Creators define what products a Consumer needs, not the other way around.
> 
> ...





So the stance has basically changed from... "That's not what he really meant." to... "He has every right to state how the game should be played even if you don't agree." Uhhh, ok.

Well whichever the case I don't see why, it's in any way, a mystery that this quote and others by Wyatt rub some people the wrong way.


----------



## haakon1 (Jan 5, 2012)

_I am NOT a minion.  I'm Old School, before Wyatt invented freaking minions!_


----------



## the Jester (Jan 5, 2012)

Janx said:


> So minimize the time spent on mundane things where the outcome is certain.




What if your group enjoys roleplaying such scenes?


----------



## GSHamster (Jan 5, 2012)

Hmm. I just realized that I used "Jacobite" where I should have used "Jacobin".


----------



## Janx (Jan 5, 2012)

Imaro said:


> So the stance has basically changed from... "That's not what he really meant." to... "He has every right to state how the game should be played even if you don't agree." Uhhh, ok.
> 
> Well whichever the case I don't see why, it's in any way, a mystery that this quote and others by Wyatt rub some people the wrong way.




Technically, the Freedom of Speech covers his right to say it.

People like Steve Jobs establish the precendent of overbearingly stating how things should be and having plenty of customers lining up to buy his product that they didn't know they wanted until his company made it.

As to his what he really meant.  I'm sure he meant what he said.
And that he liked the way he said it.

I don't know if he meant for some readers to get cheesed off by the way he said it.  I suspect most people do not intend to make some people mad when they make statements.  They probably assume that most people get their point and are surprised and then annoyed by the people who take umbrage.

I don't think he meant it to be offensive to anybody, let alone people who value things he said were unfun.  So saying he "meant what he said" has to be constrained to what he actually intended, rather than what offense the reader took.

I'm certain I extracted value from his statement as it influences my design considerations.

I think my interpretation is in line with what he said, rather than being some lesson by objection.


----------



## the Jester (Jan 5, 2012)

Janx said:


> Why the smurf would you want to spend those 4 hours shopping for adventuring supplies from the PH as roleplayed, versus 10 minutes to look up prices, subtract the gold, and get to the dungeon or talking to the Duke about his trade agreement?




Believe it or not, even though yours may not, some groups enjoy playing those scenes out. The joy of roleplaying games includes, you know, the joy of roleplaying.


----------



## haakon1 (Jan 5, 2012)

Janx said:


> Why the smurf would you want to spend those 4 hours shopping for adventuring supplies from the PH as roleplayed, versus 10 minutes to look up prices, subtract the gold, and get to the dungeon or talking to the Duke about his trade agreement?




Some play for the storytelling or the roleplaying.  For both types of gamers, the setting and the NPC's are a large part of what the game is about.  So, for example, buying a horse can be an interesting encounter, not a boring one, if the players and DM want to make it interesting.

(BTW, "War Horse" has two scenes of merely buying a horse, but it's probably going to win Best Picture this year.)


----------



## the Jester (Jan 5, 2012)

Janx said:


> And I can accept some variance in what folks percieve as fat.
> 
> Not every gate guard scene is fat.  Not every shopping trip is fat.
> 
> But surely, some situations can be summed up in a sentence, rather than expounded on as a drawn out roleplaying encounter where nothing was at stake, and the outcome was certain (I am going to buy that 50' of rope at PH cost).




Sure they can. But what if your group enjoys roleplaying those situations out? I have had groups like that- where they would play out the whole process of going from store to store for different types of goods and love the crap out of it. 

No, it's not for every group. But why would you try to talk groups that enjoy it from playing that way?



Janx said:


> As a case in point, I used to break up a quest to dungeon X into the travel part, before the actual dungeon part.  This meant I had an entire session devoted to the random encounters along the way.  Usually this meant going day by day, checking their guard rotation, and determining when the monster would be discovered and who was on guard.
> 
> This whole exercise got them some XP, spent some of their resources (healing, HP, spells), and didn't really advance the plot, other than they ultimately get to the dungeon in potentially worse shape than they started.
> 
> ...




The real reason to make the trip take an entire session is because the group enjoys it. Perhaps they like how a full session of travel makes the wilderness feel dangerous; perhaps it helps them build their image of how remote the dungeon is, or helps them to 'feel' the world better. Perhaps they don't care where they are or what they are doing so much as how rich the immersion is. Bottom line, it's all about playstyle preference. Advice that suggests discarding most of the stuff that some playstyles really enjoy is bad advice _for those playstyles._


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 5, 2012)

pauljathome said:


> Pretty much every defence of his quote that I've seen here implicitly assumes that he meant to put that "if" in that quote and are reading it as if that word was present.




Not my defense. My defense is that Wyatt, like many other RPG publishers, inserted his opinion into the 4E DMG. When reading opinion and applying its message to yourself, you have to examine what parts of the advice work for you. So, you can easily insert "combat" in the place of Wyatt's opinion on "gate guards" and still end up with useful advice.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> The author of the DMG should probably be held to considerably higher standards than some random d00d on a message board.




I respectfully disagree. He is human and people on message board should resist the urge to stoop below that level.







"Hey, you! Am I too late late to audtion for the role of gate guard to the Neighborhood of Make-Believe?"


----------



## Janx (Jan 5, 2012)

the Jester said:


> What if your group enjoys roleplaying such scenes?




If those scenes are fun for you, then keep doing them.

It's not a terrible logical stretch to ignore what disagreed activity Wyatt says is Unfun, but accept the idea of not wasting time on Unfun things.  Find out what is Unfun to your group and spend less time on it.

If any kind of scenes are unfun, don't spend so much time on them, making them drag out.

Let's say your group really likes roleplaying and talking in character through everything.  They don't like fiddly tactical combat so much.

As a GM, I'd be prepared with lots of talkative NPCs and motiviations and all that stuff.

I'd minimize how many NPCs resort to violence, instead, relying on threat of force and dialog so you can roleplay out of a combat (we've got you out numbered Duke Devious!  Surrender!")

If I did have combats, I'd keep them simpler.  The bad guys would not get all fancy with tactics and terrain and reinforcements and outsmarting the PCs through rules knowledge.

Because I'd recognize that the players do NOT want that kind of encounter.  That's unfun to them.

That does not seem to be a huge deviation from Wyatt's core advice.


----------



## broghammerj (Jan 5, 2012)

I think there is something deeper in this quote rather than Wyatt's simple words of what is fun and unfun and the surrounding debate around it.

To me it is the frame of reference from which we view the words.  Unfortunately, 4E was marketed so heavliy as this new game is so "super-cool" and better than your current game, that many can't help but feel disenfranchised by it.

This quote represents the very essence of the marketing issue.  Although, I think 4E is a great game for what it is designed for, I don't think it's what I consider DnD.  When I am told my 3E game is bad just like gate guard encounters are bad, I just don't feel all warm and fuzzy inside.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 5, 2012)

Janx said:


> Technically, the Freedom of Speech covers his right to say it.




Never argued it didn't.



Janx said:


> People like Steve Jobs establish the precendent of overbearingly stating how things should be and having plenty of customers lining up to buy his product that they didn't know they wanted until his company made it.




That's great, but it can also backfire...



Janx said:


> As to his what he really meant. I'm sure he meant what he said.
> And that he liked the way he said it.




Then why not take it at face value as opposed to trying to argue what he meant or how others should interpret his meaning?



Janx said:


> I don't know if he meant for some readers to get cheesed off by the way he said it. I suspect most people do not intend to make some people mad when they make statements. They probably assume that most people get their point and are surprised and then annoyed by the people who take umbrage.




This is irrelevant, people did and the OP asked why.



Janx said:


> I don't think he meant it to be offensive to anybody, let alone people who value things he said were unfun. So saying he "meant what he said" has to be constrained to what he actually intended, rather than what offense the reader took.




This flies in the face of the argument that he is telling people how the game should be played. Which one is it? The simple fact is that I'm sure Wyatt is aware of other playstyles, and this in turn means that he is also aware that in promoting one particular playstyle for D&D over others he would in fact be offending or at least bugging the players of D&D who enjoyed the playstyles he is putting down in his examples. 



Janx said:


> I'm certain I extracted value from his statement as it influences my design considerations.




By your posts... you also seem to enjoy his particular playstyle... so I'm not surprised.



Janx said:


> I think my interpretation is in line with what he said, rather than being some lesson by objection.




Again...
By your posts... you also seem to enjoy his particular playstyle... so I'm not surprised.


----------



## GSHamster (Jan 5, 2012)

the Jester said:


> Believe it or not, even though yours may not, some groups enjoy playing those scenes out. The joy of roleplaying games includes, you know, the joy of roleplaying.




But the ultimate end of this line of thinking is that no one can offer any advice because some group somewhere might find the advised-against behavior fun.

You should not run Monty Haul campaigns ... some groups enjoy getting tons of treasure.
You allow each character to shine ... some groups might like playing Superhero and henchman.
You should make sure characters are compatible ... some groups like infighting and group PvP.
You should have more than just combat encounters ... some groups might really enjoy just blasting through monsters.
You should make each enounter meaningful ... some groups like wandering around and shooting the breeze with Joe Random.
Give the PCs interesting, non-magic item rewards like land grants ... some groups hate anything that does not increase their characters' combat prowess.

To me it seems that when you are trying to teach someone to DM, you need to take a stand on some issues.  Certain rules tend to lead to better games for most players. Leaving a new DM to flounder because everything is relative does her no favors.

I suppose you could hedge every single thing you write with caveats to avoid people taking offence, but it leads to less forceful, wishy-washy advice, in my opinion.


----------



## haakon1 (Jan 5, 2012)

Janx said:


> People like Steve Jobs establish the precendent of overbearingly stating how things should be and having plenty of customers lining up to buy his product that they didn't know they wanted until his company made it.
> 
> As to his what he really meant.  I'm sure he meant what he said.
> And that he liked the way he said it.




Steve Jobs was arrogant and sometimes obnoxious to the people who worked for him, or with him.  That doesn't mean that aspect of his personality is something all other business people should strive to imitate -- it has a lot to do with why Apple nearly collapsed and he was fired as CEO the first time around.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 5, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> But the ultimate end of this line of thinking is that no one can offer any advice because some group somewhere might find the advised-against behavior fun.
> 
> You should not run Monty Haul campaigns ... some groups enjoy getting tons of treasure.
> You allow each character to shine ... some groups might like playing Superhero and henchman.
> ...





IMO, the quote by Wyatt is akin to categorizing an "Actor" type player as a negative for DM's because Wyatt doesn't appreciate them in his particular playstyle. Perhaps instead of trying to force a new DM into a particular playstyle, Wyatt should be discussing the pros and cons of said playstyles, just like with the different player motivations in DMG 2. Then let the DM and group decide what style is fun for them.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 5, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> But the ultimate end of this line of thinking is that no one can offer any advice because some group somewhere might find the advised-against behavior fun.




No. It means you don't tell people what fun is.  And more importantly, you don't tell them what isn't fun. Instead, you show them all the *possibilities* in the game. That's what RPGs are all about: possibilities. Possibilities make the genre and form unique, setting it aside (and above, IMO) board games and card games and video/computer games.

In the end, it's neither here nor there to me. 4E might have turned out to be the Best Game Ever, but Wyatt, in the DMG on the section on fun, made me dislike the game immensely. Gate guards aren't fun? Resource management isn't fun? Dungeon exploration isn't fun? Encounters are the only fun, and they are really only fun when there are lots of die rolls (usually to hit rolls)?

You know what's not fun? 4E, as described by James Wyatt.

I hope that answers the OP's question. *That* is why the selected quote rankles so many.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 5, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> I respectfully disagree. He is human and people on message board should resist the urge to stoop below that level.



He is human, but there are a few other things that separate the standards of content for a DMG over the standards of content for a fan-site message board.

Among them:
1) James Wyatt was presumably hired in part because he displayed a certain level of knowledge and skill with D&D that is unusual. That makes his advice much stronger than some random fan-site's. 

2) James Wyatt was presumably paid to write the DMG to the best of his ability. Most posters aren't paid for their opinions.

3) The DMG is a core document of a game system. A message board post is not.

4) A D&D book goes through several layers of editing and vetting. A message board post does not.

...I'm a little shocked that I need to explain the tremendous gulf separating the DMG from a message board post, and why we should expect more of the former than of the latter, honestly. I mean, if Wyatt came on ENWorld and posted that paragraph, I think he'd mostly get apathy (and maybe some spirited debate). The DMG, though, is a whole 'nother ball game.



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> Wyatt is speaking for the creator, saying "this is how this product should be used"




He doesn't get to set those rules. He provides a toolset for fun, and it's not up to him what we do with it. If he's a good presenter of these rules, he will acknowledge that he doesn't know how the product should be used -- he can only provide the platform. We provide the fun. 

The public gets to say how we will use this product. And if we use it to talk to guards, go through faerie rings, and explore catacombs, he doesn't have a Fun Police that can enforce his preferred use of the product. Part of what is great about D&D is that every game is an immensely personal experience, unique to that group, in that moment, experiencing it. That's part of what makes D&D The Best Game (IMO). 



			
				GSHamster said:
			
		

> But the ultimate end of this line of thinking is that no one can offer any advice because some group somewhere might find the advised-against behavior fun.




Enter the recent buzz about 5e: a game with modular rules, where any group can set a multitude of dials for whatever they really want from the game, without worrying about what James Wyatt (or anyone else) thinks they SHOULD be doing. 

Also, I should point out, that no one is suggesting taking this thought to its ultimate end. Rather, what is being suggested is that Wyatt (or any DMG writer) would be better served _explicitly mentioning_ the variables, in this instance, since he is talking from a position of authority. 

Finally, it is not Wyatt's (or anyone's) place to tell anybody what they have fun doing, any more than it is my place to tell you what your opinion on the Occupy movement is. Fun is a subjective experience, not an objective one, and no one has any authority to tell you how to feel about it. It is _yours_ to have, not his to give.

What he CAN do is help create an environment that fosters as much fun as possible. But he does that by creating a platform, not by dictating a result. He can't MAKE me have fun, and he can't STOP me from having fun, so he shouldn't pretend or imagine or _even dream_ that this is possible, for him to do, to anyone.

It is like a tween trying to understand love. No, dear, you can't MAKE her fall in love with you. That is HERS to do, or not. You can be more lovable, perhaps, but it is still not your choice, it is hers. This is what living in a world with other autonomous human beings means. You can't control their emotions and choices.


----------



## pauljathome (Jan 5, 2012)

the Jester said:


> Sure they can. But what if your group enjoys roleplaying those situations out? I have had groups like that- where they would play out the whole process of going from store to store for different types of goods and love the crap out of it.
> 
> No, it's not for every group. But why would you try to talk groups that enjoy it from playing that way?




I just remembered that Feng Shui has a section where it explicitly advises the GM to cut short roleplaying of shopping in order to get to the adventure (by which is meant the beating on people).

And I have absolutely no problem with that.

The difference is that Feng Shui is NOT intending to be a generic game. The explicitly stated goal of Feng Shui is to simulate Hong Kong Action movies.

So, in that context, the advice is very good advice *. 

D&D started its life as pretty much a dungeon crawling engine. But, by the time 4th edition came out, it had altered to being a game used for a great many different styles of games.

So, Wyatts advice appears to be trying to move D&D from its then current state of suporting a great many types of campaigns to supporting a reduced subset of campaigns where combat more strongly dominates play.

And that is why people got upset.

For a generic engine its bad advice. For a more specific engine its good advice.

* Feng Shui is actually a strong enough engine that it can ALSO easily support role playing heavy campaigns. I am running one such now. But that is not its primary focus and to run such a campaign I have to ignore lots of the advice in the rule book. NOT the rules, just some of the advice.


----------



## Janx (Jan 5, 2012)

the Jester said:


> Sure they can. But what if your group enjoys roleplaying those situations out? I have had groups like that- where they would play out the whole process of going from store to store for different types of goods and love the crap out of it.
> 
> No, it's not for every group. But why would you try to talk groups that enjoy it from playing that way?




See my just prior response to your other 1 liner for that answer.  Short of its, then keep doing it.

I can't speak to Wyatt's actual mindset.  I ain't him.

I suspect that he felt his approach was solid and right and most importantly, it worked for him.  Therefore, if you do it his way, you would get similar results.

It's like my best practices for faster combat.  People whine about slow combat all the time.  I've collated a set of best practices (from a variety of sources).  They work.

You can follow these best practices and get the results, or bitch about how you don't like them and that your game is still slow.

As an advice giver, do I owe you something for the fact that you disagree with my advice and thus my advice is incompatible with your environment?

Especially advice written without advance detail of your environment.

Pay me to do Discovery on your group, and I'll write you advice that is directly applicable to your group's preferences.



the Jester said:


> The real reason to make the trip take an entire session is because the group enjoys it. Perhaps they like how a full session of travel makes the wilderness feel dangerous; perhaps it helps them build their image of how remote the dungeon is, or helps them to 'feel' the world better. Perhaps they don't care where they are or what they are doing so much as how rich the immersion is. Bottom line, it's all about playstyle preference. Advice that suggests discarding most of the stuff that some playstyles really enjoy is bad advice _for those playstyles._




I suspect Wyatt assumed that most players do not enjoy wasting time.  And that he though he had identified good examples of wasting time.

He could have worded it differently.

But he was also trying to deliberately focus your mind on some specific activities that he found to be poorly run by GMs and thus were a waste of time.

For a group that got great value out of those scenes, it's horrible advice.

For a GM who put that in there as filler and didn't really think much on it, his choice of words made them REALLY consider taking it out.

With my example of the travel session, I KNEW that I was only putting it in there as filler. I did not enjoy running it, as it wasn't particularly interesting to me.  Therefore, associating that content with "waste of time" was a valuable advice.

Let me give a totally different example.  Cem Kaner, a leader in software quality assurance once personally taught me "Any test that doesn't find a bug, is a waste of time."

Testers would sputter when I would tell them this.

That statement was so outrageous that their mind rebelled at it.

It then forces them to think, and debate.  And consider, of all the tests you want to run, and the limited time you have, what is the best use of your time?

From Cem, the reasoning behind that statement is that any bug a customer sees is bad (of varying degrees).  Any bug you find and can fix or document is good.  Every complex software, regardless of how much you test, will have a bug.  There is no such thing as perfection.

Therefore, if you only have time for 10 tests of 20 features, would you rather pick tests that will probably find a bug, or tests that will probably suceed?


Any feature you do not test and it has a bug is a loss.
Any feature you do not test and it does not have a bug is a win.
Any feature you test and it works is a waste of time.
Any feature you test and it finds a bug is a win.

In a perfect world, you will hit type 4 every time.  Obviously, you cannot do that.  You want to avoid type 1, as that is the worst.

And certainly, running a test that passes (type 3) is more valuable than not being 100% sure that an untested feature is OK (type 2).

But you have limited resources (time), so you should aim for #4, knowing that you'll also get #3 as a side effect.  Rather than assuming all things are equal and getting a lower set of #4 and a lot of #3.

Bind this concept back to D&D.

Any scene that is not fun/valuable/desirable is a waste of time.

As a GM, you cannot please every player on every scene.  

But you can know each player's scene type prioritization preference.  And shoot for more of that.  Let's pretend D&D only consists of the following scenes:


Mundane Travel w/ encounters
Mundane shopping
Mundane NPC interactions (the boring gate guard)
Social Manipulation of NPCs
Getting Information from NPCs
Solving Problems
Traps
Combat

While many have indicated that their group likes scenes 1-3, do they really prefer them over the other types?


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 5, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> But the ultimate end of this line of thinking is that no one can offer any advice because some group somewhere might find the advised-against behavior fun.
> 
> ...
> 
> I suppose you could hedge every single thing you write with caveats to avoid people taking offence, but it leads to less forceful, wishy-washy advice, in my opinion.




1. A little nuance can go a long way.  Bullgrit had the right of it earlier.

2. If you are going to write forceful advice for a certain style of doing things, when other styles are not only valid, but well within the range of what your widget can do, then you need to provide multiple, separate, different versions of that advice, and call them out by style.  

A little nuance in that second one will still be good, too.

I don't think Wyatt was the only offender here, either.  Robin Laws writing never fails to grate on me this way.  But mainly, it's been a problem with WotC products from the beginning.  It's editorial voice or management or something.  I'm not sure.  It was somewhat hidden in 3E, because Monte dilutes the forcefulness of his remarks in his writing style, and the 3E "voice" had multiple personalities, sometimes conflicting.  They weren't as clearly called out as they could be, but it diluted the force of any single message.

Gygax got away with a lot of this because he had a forceful voice that was in itself advocating different things.  Who else can tell you to stay official, but assertively do things your own way?  Entertain your players, but firmly keep them in their place?


----------



## Nagol (Jan 5, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> But the ultimate end of this line of thinking is that no one can offer any advice because some group somewhere might find the advised-against behavior fun.
> 
> You should not run Monty Haul campaigns ... some groups enjoy getting tons of treasure.
> <snip>




And so they shouldn't.  What they should say is "Monty Haul campaigns are prone to suffer from the following undesirable effects..."  It's up to the group to decide if such an effect wil affect them and/or what counter-measures to put in place.


----------



## Janx (Jan 5, 2012)

haakon1 said:


> Steve Jobs was arrogant and sometimes obnoxious to the people who worked for him, or with him.  That doesn't mean that aspect of his personality is something all other business people should strive to imitate -- it has a lot to do with why Apple nearly collapsed and he was fired as CEO the first time around.




I don't disagree.

My point though is, a Creator having these bad traits still does not invalidate the desirability of their work or neutralize their success.  Steve Jobs being an example of a jerk who you still want his product.

wyatt's writing has not fully hurt the value of D&D or 4e.  It may have not helped it as much as it could have had it been better worded.

As a side note to Kamikaze and some other guy who said Wyatt doesn't get to say  how to use the product, the consumer does:
Huh?

Every manufactured produce of any complexity comes with directions, written by the manufacturer's agent (in this case Wyatt).
The consumer is certainly free (within some legal reason) to find alternate uses or means of operation.  Saying Wyatt can't write the directions on how to play D&D in the bloody manual on how to play D&D defies logical sense.


this whole concept isn't even new.  I've never read a 4e book.  I don't play 4e.  But the Cut to the Chase concept is not new.

The fact that it was incorporated into a guide for DMGs makes sense.  Some GMs do make too much ado about useless scenes that eat into the good stuff.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 5, 2012)

*Pull my finger...*


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 5, 2012)

I have one question then I think that maybe I should walk away from the thread because people here aren't even trying to reach a anything even remotely resembling a middle ground. Just people talking past each other and constructing straw men and moving the goal posts in order to win the thread. 

With Wyatt declaring what the definition of "fun" is for 4E D&D and how the game should be played. Is that alone enough for someone to be turned off by the system and write the entire thing off as something they'd just as soon not be bothered with?

No lengthy explanations (there have been enough of those in this thread), just YES or NO.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 5, 2012)

ShinHakkaider said:


> With Wyatt declaring what the definition of "fun" is for 4E D&D and how the game should be played. Is that alone enough for someone to be turned off by the system and write the entire thing off as something they'd just as soon not be bothered with?




For me, no.  Anyone else?  Each individual has to make those kind of calls for themselves.


----------



## Janx (Jan 5, 2012)

ShinHakkaider said:


> I have one question then I think that maybe I should walk away from the thread because people here aren't even trying to reach a anything even remotely resembling a middle ground. Just people talking past each other and constructing straw men and moving the goal posts in order to win the thread.




I don't know about that.  I think I took a good attempt to answer jester's question within the context of Wyatt's advice that supports jester's preferred means of play.

And moving the goal posts MAY be an attempt to reach a middle ground.  it certainly may be an attempt by a person to consider an alternate viewpoint compared to their original starting position.  Failure to change your argument would be a sign of failure of a discussion.  because saying the exact same thing means you haven't even listened or adjusted to facts that disprove your own position.



ShinHakkaider said:


> With Wyatt declaring what the definition of "fun" is for 4E D&D and how the game should be played. Is that alone enough for someone to be turned off by the system and write the entire thing off as something they'd just as soon not be bothered with?




Given that I never read a 4e document, my impression of 4e is colored by technical descriptions of the mechanics being contrary to what I prefer in 3e.

Nor would I take offense at any game's directions and description of its recommended usage pattern and how that would be fun.



ShinHakkaider said:


> No lengthy explanations (there have been enough of those in this thread), just YES or NO.




No.


----------



## haakon1 (Jan 5, 2012)

ShinHakkaider said:


> With Wyatt declaring what the definition of "fun" is for 4E D&D and how the game should be played. Is that alone enough for someone to be turned off by the system and write the entire thing off as something they'd just as soon not be bothered with?
> 
> No lengthy explanations (there have been enough of those in this thread), just YES or NO.




Yes.  (The question being whether it's enough for "someone".  There are many someones, and someone would probably walk away from 4e for this reason.)

No, if you're asking whether MY opinion of 4e is changed by this quote.  For me, it's part of a pattern of perceived "disrespect" for the traditions of the game and for Old School players that's _part _ of why I don't like 4e.  This quote would be about 0.00001% of why I don't like it.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 5, 2012)

haakon1 said:


> _I am NOT a minion.  I'm Old School, before Wyatt invented freaking minions!_




LOL.  _Skill 8 Stamina 7_, as I recall.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 5, 2012)

Janx said:


> I don't think he meant it to be offensive to anybody, let alone people who value things he said were unfun.  So saying he "meant what he said" has to be constrained to what he actually intended, rather than what offense the reader took.




With the "dwarven fortress" example, he appeared to me to have in mind the Moria sequence in Lord of the Rings.  He's saying it was Not Fun until the Orcs appeared.  Some may well agree, but it seems a strangely controversial statement to put in a DMG.  Gygax didn't have any similar proscriptive statements on content that I can recall - he warned against Monty Haul and against Killer Dungeons, but nothing about certain sorts of adventure being Not Fun to play.


----------



## haakon1 (Jan 5, 2012)

Reynard said:


> 4E might have turned out to be the Best Game Ever, but Wyatt, in the DMG on the section on fun, made me dislike the game immensely. Gate guards aren't fun? Resource management isn't fun? Dungeon exploration isn't fun? Encounters are the only fun, and they are really only fun when there are lots of die rolls (usually to hit rolls)?
> 
> You know what's not fun? 4E, as described by James Wyatt.




You know, the reason I never played online D&D is that someone showed me the game.  Seeing that you healed for "just standing around" and could carry as many swords as you want, I realized the MMO version had removed resource management from the game.  That just seemed totally wrong to me, so I didn't want to play.

The limited resource management in 4e (endless Magic Missiles and nearly endless self-powered heals) does annoy me and just feel "off", but I never quite realized that was my issue with those rules.

I really DO enjoy resource management in the earlier versions of the game, particularly 3.5e, where there are few more spells (stat bonus) than in earlier editions, but magic is still a strictly limited resource.

Of course, I never worried about the '15 minute adventuring day' syndrome that 4e was so adamant about curing.  (In 4e, we do two encounters and call it a day.  In earlier editions, we did as many as needed to, or until we felt pretty low on spells (especially healing) and HP's.)


----------



## S'mon (Jan 5, 2012)

ShinHakkaider said:


> With Wyatt declaring what the definition of "fun" is for 4E D&D and how the game should be played. Is that alone enough for someone to be turned off by the system and write the entire thing off as something they'd just as soon not be bothered with?
> 
> No lengthy explanations (there have been enough of those in this thread), just YES or NO.




It didn't utimately stop me playing 4e, no.


----------



## GSHamster (Jan 5, 2012)

S'mon said:


> With the "dwarven fortress" example, he appeared to me to have in mind the Moria sequence in Lord of the Rings.  He's saying it was Not Fun until the Orcs appeared.  Some may well agree, but it seems a strangely controversial statement to put in a DMG.  Gygax didn't have any similar proscriptive statements on content that I can recall - he warned against Monty Haul and against Killer Dungeons, but nothing about certain adventurers being Not Fun to play.




I would regard the Moria sequence as precisely _supporting_ his case.  Take the movie version, for example, and count the minutes between the doorway and the appearance of the monsters. Then count the minutes spent on the monsters.  Then compare that to the amount of "real" time each activity would have taken.

The walking through Moria would be highly compressed, shifting hours into a few minutes, while the fight scene would be uncompressed or even stretched out.

Rigorous editing, with just enough of the first part to get the point across. Skipping the boring stuff while spending time on the good stuff.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 5, 2012)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> No lengthy explanations (there have been enough of those in this thread), just YES or NO.




Yes. 

Because, really, any reason is enough to dismiss 4e, even if it makes no sense.

Because, really, 4e isn't something anyone HAS to do.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 6, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> I would regard the Moria sequence as precisely _supporting_ his case.  Take the movie version, for example, and count the minutes between the doorway and the appearance of the monsters. Then count the minutes spent on the monsters.  Then compare that to the amount of "real" time each activity would have taken.
> 
> The walking through Moria would be highly compressed, shifting hours into a few minutes, while the fight scene would be uncompressed or even stretched out.
> 
> Rigorous editing, with just enough of the first part to get the point across. Skipping the boring stuff while spending time on the good stuff.




Well, I was thinking of the book.  I think Peter Jackson probably agrees with Wyatt.


----------



## D'karr (Jan 6, 2012)

ShinHakkaider said:


> With Wyatt declaring what the definition of "fun" is for 4E D&D and how the game should be played. Is that alone enough for someone to be turned off by the system and write the entire thing off as something they'd just as soon not be bothered with?




The issue is that Wyatt didn't declare a definition of "fun".  Fun is relative and personal, and if you look at the quote in question he is giving some example of things that *he* considers not "fun" *within the context of everything that he has already discussed*.  If you take the quote into the context of the entire chapter and all the other things he's said in it you don't come about with "He's telling me that what I like is not fun."

When looking at the entirety of the book, and all the quotes that have to deal with "fun" you start to see that his quote has the meaning of don't bore your players.  If something is boring to your players then move it along.

The entire chapter is called *Adventures*.  He uses an incremental mode as he is going over all the information about creating and using adventures.  In the section of Fixing Problems he specifically refers to fun again.  In here he tells the DM to not have the players "hunting" for the fun, it's frustrating.  When things start grinding to a halt, spice them up. In other words don't keep the players in the dark, give them the information that they need to keep moving along.  He even specifically says "You don't need to use a combat encounter, but don't hesitate to spring some kind of unexpected occurrence on the characters."  He is specifically telling the DM to keep the game moving.  Nothing kills the mood of a session worse than boredom at the table.  Encounters that are not significant/important to the players are boring.

In the section Building an Adventure he mentions to remember the motives that bring players to the table.  And to use those to help everyone have more fun.  He is referring to the things the players like and were discussed in the first chapter of the book, the Player Motivations in the section The Players.  In the section about Good Structure he once again mentions the player hooks and motivations.  Then he goes on to define the Challenges.  Here he says that a good adventure provides varied challenges and that those challenges can emphasize attack, defense, skill use, problem solving, investigation and roleplaying.  At no point does he say the only thing you can use are combat encounters.  And in all this, he is continually saying to keep the motivations of the players as your guidepost.

On the section of Poor Structure he mentions to try to keep the action, the story and the pace moving.  Don't keep the players clueless.

The next section is about Quests.  Here he specifically mentions that the DM can also use Conflicting Quests that directly tie to the players/characters goals and that the freedom of choices here can present great opportunities for roleplaying and character development.  Right below that it mentions that the DM should encourage the players to come up with their own quests tied to their individual goals.  He uses the most ignored phase in this whole discussion, "Remember to say yes as often as possible!"  The entire chapter, heck the book, is about creating an exciting experience for the players.

At the beginning of the section Encounter Mix, where the quote in question appears, he goes on again and elaborates that there should be variety in an adventure. Adventures should have both combat and non-combat encounters, and easy and difficult encounters.  And that these encounters should have "situations that appeal to the player's different personalities and motivations. The variation creates an exciting rhythm."  He is once again bringing the players to the game and their motivations as a basis for the excitement.

What he has been saying all along is to use interesting and exciting encounters for your players.  When you take that into account the quote falls into its proper context.

"Fun is one element that shouldn't vary.  Every encounter in an adventure should be fun.  _As much as possible, fast-forward through the parts of an adventure that aren't fun._"

The italicized part there is what is being missed.  With all the references he has already made to keeping the goals of the players in mind and their motivations, the variations of encounters, etc.  He is simply saying if something is not significant, important, or of interest to the players, then move it along.  Don't bore your players.  Keep the game exciting, and keep it moving.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 6, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> But the ultimate end of this line of thinking is that no one can offer any advice because some group somewhere might find the advised-against behavior fun.
> 
> You should not run Monty Haul campaigns ... some groups enjoy getting tons of treasure.
> You allow each character to shine ... some groups might like playing Superhero and henchman.
> ...




(To be fair, I used some snippage (feel free to click on the original quote for full info)....I want to respond to what I quoted.)


How about giving DMing advice about (part 1) assessing what your group likes and then (part 2) delivering it?

Don't tell ME what is "fun" and "not-fun"...help me develop a toolbox of DM abilities/skills/resources/motifs/etc.... and then give me info on how to gauge a given group (i.e. my group) so that I can THEN make it fun.



That's a helpful DMG paragraph/chapter....assess your group and cater to them. 


The quote presented (and the above quote retorting the complaints _in extremis_) doesn't tell me what to do...and doesn't tell me what not to do well for specific groups. 


The quotes tell me how to run a very generic game in shotgun style.

The quotes do NOT tell me how to tailor a game for a given group in a way they might enjoy it. 

The quotes hint that maybe certain gaming styles are wrong, and never good for anyone (even if it might be the pinnacle of fun for them).


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 6, 2012)

Reynard said:


> You know what's not fun? 4E, as described by James Wyatt.
> 
> I hope that answers the OP's question. *That* is why the selected quote rankles so many.




<some snippage>

Agreed.

I said it earlier, but this is more succinct. 4e Wasn't fun for me when I viewed it from this perspective. 

When I learned it wasn't just this limited view, I got to like it somewhat (not my game/edition of choice, but I have fun with it).


----------



## Hussar (Jan 6, 2012)

Ok, I apologize, I only read the first four pages of this.  

The whole problem in a nutshell is because the quote in the OP ignores the first line of the actual quote of the section, which is:



			
				4e DMG page 105 said:
			
		

> (underline mine)
> 
> Fun is one element you shouldn't vary.  Every encounter in an adventure should be fun. As much as possible, fast forward through the parts of an adventure that aren't fun.  An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn't fun...




He's not saying that two guards can't be fun.  He's saying that pointless encounters aren't fun.  If you want the gate guards to be fun, then have some meat there.  The guards are encountered for a reason.  That might be just to provide local color.  Cool.  But, don't screw around - get to the fun.

Is this really bad advice for a new DM?


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 6, 2012)

Janx said:


> There's another factor at play.
> 
> As the creator of a product, the creator has a vision on its use. Some evidence exists that indicates Creators define what products a Consumer needs, not the other way around.
> 
> Thus, the customer is NOT always right. (nor is the Creator, which is why their product fails).




<some snips>


Okay.

Sure.

BUT!



I'll certainly agree if this were a NEW product...but it isn't (or shouldn't be, in the way I'm using the word "new").

This is an "edition" of an existing game.



Feel free to say whatever you want about a new game to sell it however you want. "Fantasy gaming isn't fun....let's get into sci-fi space!"



But this is edition number four of Dungeons and Dragons. Most people expect to see a new edition of a product to have resemblance fo prior editions (the x year ford model versus the y year ford model of the same car). There is some concern and discrimination that 4e "isn't D&D (to me)". 

My overall point here is that a "creator" is someone who makes a product.  Wyatt is not a creator of D&D...but is a creator of 4e D&D, in part. Maybe a "restorer"?  

He can have license with his own game...but this isn't his game...it has history, it has tropes that he is specifically denying as fun, despite their inclusion (and marketing as adventures...see my prior posts in this thread). Wyatt says that a major chunk of D&D isn't fun...a major chunk THAT HAS BEEN SOLD BY HIS EMPLOYER, WOTC, AS FUN...isn't fun.

W.T.H.?


----------



## D'karr (Jan 6, 2012)

Aberzanzorax said:


> How about giving DMing advice about (part 1) assessing what your group likes and then (part 2) delivering it?
> 
> Don't tell ME what is "fun" and "not-fun"...help me develop a toolbox of DM abilities/skills/resources/motifs/etc.... and then give me info on how to gauge a given group (i.e. my group) so that I can THEN make it fun.
> 
> That's a helpful DMG paragraph/chapter....assess your group and cater to them.




To be fair the game does go to great lengths to provide exactly what you have asked for.  The DMG is very methodical in doing just that.  That is the reason that I don't view the quote as a problem.  Because the "evidence" of every chapter up to there basically puts that quote in context.

Give your players an exciting time based on each of their motivations, and those things that are not exciting fast-forward through them or skip them.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 6, 2012)

Hussar said:


> He's not saying that two guards can't be fun.



Actually, yes he does.  He says exactly that.



> He's saying that pointless encounters aren't fun.



And he provides two guards at the gate as an example of a defacto not fun encounter.



> Is this really bad advice for a new DM?



Yes.  It is terrible advice.  
It is much better to make some mistakes and learn from them than to start building boundaries from day 1.

There are whole masses of good to outstanding DMs who grew up running two guards at the gate encounters.  The old way worked.  I predict that this advice, if taken fully to heart, would detract from the overall quality of DMing skills.


All that said, I do think what you claim he said IS what he MEANT to say.  But saying he didn't say exactly what he DID say is silly.  And writing it off as poor choice of words just cuts it down to "Why the heck didn't HE notice how poorly it was said?" and "Why didn't ANYONE else at WotC notice before it wet out the door?"

And if the literal face value didn't have such synergy with the fundamental changes of 4E and the things that many people find so lacking in it, then it wouldn't be nearly as big a deal.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 6, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Ok, I apologize, I only read the first four pages of this.
> 
> The whole problem in a nutshell is because the quote in the OP ignores the first line of the actual quote of the section, which is:
> 
> ...




Even with your quote he is saying exactly that adventures should have nothing but fun in them, and that doesn't include gate guards. It's quite explicit right there in the text.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 6, 2012)

Hussar said:


> He's not saying that two guards can't be fun. He's saying that pointless encounters aren't fun. If you want the gate guards to be fun, then have some meat there. The guards are encountered for a reason. That might be just to provide local color. Cool. But, don't screw around - get to the fun.
> 
> Is this really bad advice for a new DM?




How exactly is a pointless encounter defined? 

Yet another room full of mooks designed to chew up game time and provide XP fodder? I would say yes to that. Actually that is the perfect example. Oh wait, thats the fun that we are supposed to get to, right? 

If you have to define fun for the audience then your game has failed.


----------



## broghammerj (Jan 6, 2012)

ShinHakkaider said:


> I have one question then I think that maybe I should walk away from the thread because people here aren't even trying to reach a anything even remotely resembling a middle ground. Just people talking past each other and constructing straw men and moving the goal posts in order to win the thread.
> 
> With Wyatt declaring what the definition of "fun" is for 4E D&D and how the game should be played. Is that alone enough for someone to be turned off by the system and write the entire thing off as something they'd just as soon not be bothered with?
> 
> No lengthy explanations (there have been enough of those in this thread), just YES or NO.




Short answer: "No"

Long answer:  If you try to "win" a thread you have already lost because it is a conversation and not an argument.

The point is Wyatt's statement exemplifies some of the problems people have with the design, development, marketing, and mentality of 4E.  That statement is just a small representation of the rift that has developed with the DnD community.  The tip of the iceberg to the edition wars is represented in that very simple statement.


----------



## Jasperak (Jan 6, 2012)

ShinHakkaider said:


> With Wyatt declaring what the definition of "fun" is for 4E D&D and how the game should be played. Is that alone enough for someone to be turned off by the system and write the entire thing off as something they'd just as soon not be bothered with?
> 
> No lengthy explanations (there have been enough of those in this thread), just YES or NO.




Yes. 

If the Dungeon Master's Guide suggests what will be fun in the game, and those suggestions do not match with what I find fun, then I would expect to be much less likely to enjoy the game.

[sblock]
Hypotheticals aside, I played 4e for around three months when it first came out. *His definition of "fun" as quoted matched my experience with 4e*--zipping along to each new hour long tactical combat encounter separated by quite a few d20 rolls that eventually pointed to the next fun encounter area. The game did not emphasize what I find fun about RPGs; I did not like my immediate feeling that the game was more based around tactical and encounter concerns. And numerous d20 rolls in non-combat challenges.

After more than 20 years, I still find value in fairy rings and wandering encounter tables and maybe even roleplaying my character trying to by a mule for an expected two month hex crawl.[/sblock]


----------



## SteveC (Jan 6, 2012)

Hussar said:


> He's not saying that two guards can't be fun.  He's saying that pointless encounters aren't fun.  If you want the gate guards to be fun, then have some meat there.  The guards are encountered for a reason.  That might be just to provide local color.  Cool.  But, don't screw around - get to the fun.
> 
> Is this really bad advice for a new DM?



I think your answer is spot on, and I'll say: it's great advice to give to a new GM. Put things in your game because they're interesting or fun, not because they "ought" to be there. We gloss over a lot in a typical game session: when was the last time you tracked when your character had to use the bathroom for instance? I think it's excellent advice for a new GM to concentrate their efforts on things that will make for a better game. If the town guards are interesting in their own right, bring them on, but if you're just putting them there for an attempt at "realism," I can definitely take a pass on that.

When someone is starting to play an RPG, they have no idea how things should be paced, and I've seen more than a few games fizzle because too  much time was spent on things that no one really cared about.

Now I'm all about roleplaying that guard encounter out, but only if it's interesting.

So, no, in my opinion, it's not bad advice to give to a new GM. As they gain experience, they'll certainly pick up on the packing that's right for them and they're players, but to start with? Get to what you find interesting.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 6, 2012)

As I believe has been posted....multiple times..._of course_ giving DM's advice to skip the boring stuff is useful advice.

HOWEVER, Wyatt directly says to skip some specific things that not everyone finds boring. 

Which means what Wyatt wrote isn't that advice. The words he actually wrote say that talking to guards and exploring caverns and detailing equipment are almost categorically un-fun things that no one in your game will want to do, and that the encounter (with its attack rolls) is the fun thing that everyone wants to do. 

It's not exactly unreasonable to have a problem with those words, even if you're being generous and saying that what he MEANT to say was "skip the things you think are boring."


----------



## pauljathome (Jan 6, 2012)

ShinHakkaider said:


> With Wyatt declaring what the definition of "fun" is for 4E D&D and how the game should be played. Is that alone enough for someone to be turned off by the system and write the entire thing off as something they'd just as soon not be bothered with?
> 
> No lengthy explanations (there have been enough of those in this thread), just YES or NO.




For D&D, no it is not enough.

For a random game being created by somebody unknown to me, yes it would be enough.

The quote makes it significantly less likely that the game will be to my personal tastes. It also somewhat predisposes me to read the game in a way that is more likely to find flaws. Like absolutely all humans I have prejudices and they'll affect my enjoyment and interpretation of things in often subtle and unnoticed ways.

D&D is (or, at least, was) the giant standard in the industry and as a result I'm going to spend more effort trying to see what it really is as opposed to what the creators claim that it is.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jan 6, 2012)

OnlineDM said:


> I gather that a lot of players feel that the sort of activities labeled in the quote as "not fun" actually help with a feeling of simulation, that the game world is realistic. Some have taken this quote as emblematic of the notion that 4e is all about combat, with no role-playing. If you skip over all of the "not fun" parts, what's left? Just a bunch of fights? Where's the role playing?
> 
> I'm not saying this is MY perspective, mind you, but it's what I gather some other people feel from reading these threads.




Ah - the 'I don't want to understand this so I'll take it to a ludicrous extreme' internet meme.  No wonder I ignored so many people back when this quote was making its rounds.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 6, 2012)

Holy Bovine said:


> Ah - the 'I don't want to understand this so I'll take it to a ludicrous extreme' internet meme.  No wonder I ignored so many people back when this quote was making its rounds.





The problem is you can either take the quote explicitly or you can assume some intent other than what was explicitly stated.  Taking it explicitly means he said that it was badwrongfun to enjoy gate guard encounters.  Assuming some intent, other than explicit intent, seems to be where the argument arises.  You obviously assume some other intent and think it means something that suits your style of play and condemn others who either take it explicitly or assume it doesn't support their style of play.  I'm not sure your dismissive false quote helps either argument.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 6, 2012)

Again, context is everything.  The quote comes from the end of a two page essay on designing the encounter mix.  Let's look at the opening of the section shall we?  See if that sheds any light:



			
				4e PHB P104 Encounter Mix said:
			
		

> When you're building an adventure, try to vary the encounters you include, including combat and non-combat challenges, easy and difficult encounters, a variety of settings and monsters and situations that appeal to your players' different personalities and motivations.  This variation creates an exciting rhythm.   Adventures that lack this sort of variety can become a tiresome grind.




Right there, that puts the whole thing into perspectives.  The two guards at the gate in the example aren't a challenge, thus, we skip over them.  Everyone who is up in arms over the quote is ignoring that fact.  If the guards were a challenge in some way, appealing to the players motivations (detailed at length earlier) then you would of course include it.

But, it's much easier, of course, to take a single line or two out of a an entire section and ignore context because that makes for better quips on message boards.  :/


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 6, 2012)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The two guards at the gate in the example aren't a challenge, thus, we skip over them.




That's bad advice, though. There's plenty of fun to be had when there's not a challenge involved. Some players love nothing more than in-character "faffing about." 

Also, you only read four pages, but [MENTION=9213]ShinHakkaider[/MENTION] already went over the overall context a few pages back. So we've had this discussion. 







_YOU! Guy who hasn't read the thread! Lurk Moar!_


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 6, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Again, context is everything.  The quote comes from the end of a two page essay on designing the encounter mix.  Let's look at the opening of the section shall we?  See if that sheds any light:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Except that some folks enjoy RPing encounters simply for what they are without them needing to be "challenges" per se.  I think that's part of what you're still not grasping, Hussar.  Something can be an RP encounter simply to set tone, mood, the stage, to pass information along without it requiring some sort of "challenge."  From what I am reading from those who take the quote as onerous, this is what is lost in that directive of playstyle.  The context you provide doesn't change that position.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jan 6, 2012)

Janx said:


> Let's pretend D&D only consists of the following scenes:
> 
> 
> Mundane Travel w/ encounters
> ...



For many groups, I think it depends on when. Yesterday (my weekly session), my players did a few things. The session spent about an equal amount of time in two areas.

One was while they were in town for three days. They spent the time talking to shop owners, setting themselves up to make some money in the meantime. They spent time telling me what they would be doing (one PC used the Evasion skill to tumble around), how they were augmenting it with their other skills (instead of just saying "I got a 20 on my check" he included Move Silently to shadow people without getting noticed to amuse on-lookers, Climb to climb up the shop and backflip off [with permission on the understanding that he'd then direct people into the shop], etc.), and interactions with on-lookers.

This PC directly competed (across the street) from another PC who was juggling, who also described how he was using skill to augment himself (Martial Prowess to juggle knives and drawing them very quickly and sheathing them very quickly, Evasion to backflip between knife throws, Jump to hop onto and off of empty wooden boxes while juggling the knives, etc.), and his interactions with citizens.

Another PC went into a tavern and tried to get in good with the tavern owner (role-play conversation, then the Empathy skill). He felt it went okay, then tried to convince him to let him play in his tavern/inn for a free room (role-play, then Negotiation skill), and didn't get the room, but got some free drinks instead. The next day he asked for a free room if he played all day, and the guy agreed, as long as the bard brought business in. The bard spent the day trying to convince the townspeople to go to the inn/tavern tonight, where he'd be playing, and everyone would have a good time (role-play, then Leadership and Negotiation checks). When people did show up, he rolled his Perform (telling me how he was using the skills [storytelling, harp, flute], and what he was singing about), and then got his room for free, as promised. The player also tried to chat up a woman (Empathy skill) before leaving the next day.

I have six players, but I'll stop at three (well, one stayed outside, but he did sum up what he was doing in the meantime, including watching the horses and the bodies they were hiding [the party has a necromancer]). While these activities involved some die rolls (the players wanted to make these actions succeed as reliable as possible), none of it was necessary. It was just them having fun. And they did have fun.

Sure, later on they tracked down a former mentor in the woods (mostly role-play [literally no rolls other than a Spot and Listen when he first approached]), got some advice and help, then tracked down an enemy and killed him (finding more clues to who he's working for). And yes, they're now looking for a man they don't know (that the clue indicated) who also serves "The Master" (who they think they've identified as Hadraccan, a long-dead mage's apprentice). While this basically took up the other half of the session, the mood was less jovial than the town mood was (though the necromancer took a perverse joy in killing his major enemy and reanimating him).

My players get different types of enjoyment out of different things when they role-play. The first part is interacting with the world in a mundane but meaningful way. This lets them know what the world is like, how their character fits into it, what their reaction or mindset is, etc. It's carefree, fun, and simple. There's also a lot of fun and enjoyment to be had with my group in laying the beatdown on some bad guys. Or looking for clues on who to go to next. Or intrigue. Or investigation. Or interactions with old friends or enemies. Or "advancing the story" of whatever they're currently pursuing.

Really, often times it's simply just looking for ways to advance character motivations (it's a sandbox). But, my players can have a lot of fun in a lot of different ways. I don't think labeling "the mundane events that are a waste of time" as "unfun" is particularly wise in the DMG (or in general).

To answer your question ("While many have indicated that their group likes scenes 1-3, do they really prefer them over the other types?"), I'd say that sometimes yes, and sometimes no. Sometimes, they want to explore their character's motivations in ways that are lighthearted. Simple. Mundane. Real. It helps connect them to their characters, to get into their heads, to learn something about them. And I think that's totally fine.

Trumpeting non-challenging mundane events as "unfun" or "a waste of time" is extremely dismissive and objectively wrong for many groups. It is not advice worthy of being in the DMG, in my opinion. As always, play what you like


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 6, 2012)




----------



## S'mon (Jan 6, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Wyatt: An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn't fun.
> Hussar: He's not saying that two guards can't be fun...




LOL


----------



## Reynard (Jan 6, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Right there, that puts the whole thing into perspectives.  The two guards at the gate in the example aren't a challenge, thus, we skip over them.  *Everyone who is up in arms over the quote is ignoring that fact*.  If the guards were a challenge in some way, appealing to the players motivations (detailed at length earlier) then you would of course include it.
> 
> But, it's much easier, of course, to take a single line or two out of a an entire section and ignore context because that makes for better quips on message boards.  :/




No, we're not. I'm not, at least. I'm saying that "challenges" are not the only thing that matters in D&D and that telling new DMs that things that aren't challenges are "boring" and should be left out and skipped over is terrible advice.

Again, it comes down to the open nature of RPGs and how RPGs do this one thing better than anything else: you can do anything. Wyatt is excising possibilities as "unfun" when he should be promoting *possibility* in general.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 6, 2012)

Hussar said:


> The two guards at the gate in the example aren't a challenge, thus, we skip over them. Everyone who is up in arms over the quote is ignoring that fact. If the guards were a challenge in some way, appealing to the players motivations (detailed at length earlier) then you would of course include it.




I'll agree with Reynard above. That's not what I'm doing.


I specifically describe (in some detail) the importance of non challenging encounters...feel free to disagree with that importance, but it is my perspective and I don't seem to be alone in that opinion.

You can read my points here:
The Guards at the Gate Quote - Page 8 - EN World: Your Daily RPG Magazine
and here:
The Guards at the Gate Quote - Page 8 - EN World: Your Daily RPG Magazine


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 6, 2012)

I think we're all missing the fact that the DMG isn't geared towards people like us. It's geared to the 14-year-old kid who just got a copy of the game from his weird uncle and whose only experience with RPGs so far is something like WoW.

Frankly, telling that n00b DM-to-be to skip the "boring crap" when first getting into gaming sounds like excellent advice to me. Is the advice good for long-term GMing and game-making? Of course not, but it's not geared to folks like us who spend untold hours of our lives on web-forums kvetching about who means what when they said how.

And I think that's the main thing being glossed over here. This advice simply isn't geared towards the people who are offended by it. And I suspect (I may be wrong, but based on the names of the people involved in this discussion) that most of the offended posters are people who don't like 4E to begin with and just seem to keep finding nits to pick.

I will reiterate it one last time, since I'm fairly sure people will only read that last sentence and try to use that as my entire post while ignoring the meat of what I'm saying---Wyatt's advice is excellent for people who are just becoming DMs for the first time and need the express train to funville to keep them interested. It's not for experienced players and DMs who dribble away bits of their time and energy in the minutiae of parsing the language of a roleplaying game. We just aren't the target audience.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 6, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Of course, not every DM runs a game that is a constant string of goal-focused challenges. And many don't pre-determine if guards at the gate are a "situation" or not.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The DM isn't the sole arbiter of what "faffing around" is, and if the players at the table derive endless volumes of enjoyment from doing things involving little direct confrontation, it is really awful advice to tell a DM to ignore that part of the game.





Kamikaze Midget said:


> Yeah, no one is really disputing the fact that not every scene is worth spending time on.
> 
> The conversation is mostly about James Wyatt's way of articulating that thought, which, depending on your level of charity, is either really badly written, or actually says that the scenes that aren't worth spending time on are the scenes that are not "encounters" with "attack rolls."



Who says it's all about GM authority?

DMG p 103:

*Player-Designed Quests*
You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. Evaluate the proposed quest and assign it a level. Remember to say yes as often as possible!​
PHB p 258:

You can also, with your DM’s approval, create a quest for your character. Such a quest can tie into your character’s background. . . Quests can also relate to individual goals, such as a ranger searching for a magic bow to wield. Individual quests give you a stake in a campaign’s unfolding story and give your DM ingredients to help develop that story.​
And who says it's all about combat?

PHB pp 9, 258-50:

Encounters come in two types.
**Combat encounters* are battles against nefarious foes. In a combat encounter, characters and monsters take turns attacking until one side or the other
is defeated.

**Noncombat encounters* include deadly traps, difficult puzzles, and other obstacles to overcome. Sometimes you overcome noncombat encounters by using your character’s skills, sometimes you can defeat them with clever uses of magic, and sometimes you have to puzzle them out with nothing but your wits. Noncombat encounters also include social interactions, such as attempts to persuade, bargain with, or obtain information from a nonplayer character (NPC) controlled by the DM. Whenever you decide that your character wants to talk to a person or monster, it’s a noncombat encounter. . .

Encounters are where the action of the D&D game takes place, whether the encounter is a life-or-death battle against monstrous foes, a high-stakes negotiation with a duke and his vizier, or a death-defying climb up the Cliffs of Desolation. . .

Two kinds of encounters occur in most D&D adventures: combat and noncombat encounters. . .

A skill challenge occurs when exploration (page 260) or social interaction becomes an encounter, with serious consequences for success or failure.​
The point is that it's about _encounters_. *Situations* in which there are serious consequences for success or failure. If it's just about talking to two guards on the way into a city, and there are no serious consequences for success or failure - it's just colour - than Wyatt is saying to move through it quickly. Whether or not one enjoys playing this sort of game - personally, I do - it is not "terrible advice". It's pretty standard advice on how to run a situation-focused game.



LostSoul said:


> I don't think pemerton is saying "ALL RPG's" be run in that manner.



Correct. But it is Wyatt's prerogative to give advice on how to play the game, just as Gygax did back in his PHB and DMG. Advice that not everyone followed, or follows.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> And new DMs need to be aware of both of these methods of playing, since it's something they might enjoy, too. It's pretty bad advice just to categorically say these things are not fun, period.



Where's the evidence of all these new GMs being led astray by James Wyatt? I mean, the AD&D PHB and DMG only gave me advice on how to run a Gygaxian/Pulsipherian style game aimed at challenging "skilled players", but I nevertheless worked out for myself how to GM the sort of game I was interested in.



Reynard said:


> All that has been said is that Wyatt is demonstrably wrong, and giving terrible advice to new GMs.



Where are all the threads bemoaning Gygax's "terrible advice" in the AD&D PHB? Have you (or anyone else) read it lately? It's advice for running a boring, bomb-squad style game of the sort discussed on the recent Tomb of Horrors thread. Maybe you like that sort of game, but I'm pretty confident a lot of players don't. And they managed to find other styles, and even use AD&D to run those games, despite Gygax's advice. I'm sure people who like talking to guards for the sake of colour are running those games in 4e despite what Wyatt wrote.

The fact that Wyatt, or I, think those are boring games shouldn't deter them, any more than I'm deterred in running my game by the fact that many posters on this board would think it has not enough exploration, nor enough fictional positioning at the gritty action resolution level.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> And I suspect (I may be wrong, but based on the names of the people involved in this discussion) that most of the offended posters are people who don't like 4E to begin with and just seem to keep finding nits to pick.




I don't like 4E, but it's not a nit: the quote is *one of the reasons* I don't like 4E, because the quote underscores a design intent that I don't think makes for good D&D. You are dismissing my opinion by suggesting it's just a "nit."



> I will reiterate it one last time, since I'm fairly sure people will only read that last sentence and try to use that as my entire post while ignoring the meat of what I'm saying---Wyatt's advice is excellent for people who are just becoming DMs for the first time and need the express train to funville to keep them interested.




And I think you are absolutely wrong. i think it is terrible advice. By training your new-to-gaming DMs that all that matters is "challenges" you are limiting the scope of their enjoyment and the enjoyment of the players, which will in the end lead them back to Skyrim and WoW because, frankly, those games do "challenges" far better than D&D can.



> It's not for experienced players and DMs who dribble away bits of their time and energy in the minutiae of parsing the language of a roleplaying game. We just aren't the target audience.




Are you really sugggesting that the 4E DMG was only written for new DMs and that it was not intended to convey design intent to existing, experienced DMs, even in the face of an overt strategy by WotC to convert the existing base first and grab new players later?


----------



## Reynard (Jan 6, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Where are all the threads bemoaning Gygax's "terrible advice" in the AD&D PHB? Have you (or anyone else) read it lately? It's advice for running a boring, bomb-squad style game of the sort discussed on the recent Tomb of Horrors thread. Maybe you like that sort of game, but I'm pretty confident a lot of players don't. And they managed to find other styles, and even use AD&D to run those games, despite Gygax's advice. I'm sure people who like talking to guards for the sake of colour are running those games in 4e despite what Wyatt wrote.
> 
> The fact that Wyatt, or I, think those are boring games shouldn't deter them, any more than I'm deterred in running my game by the fact that many posters on this board would think it has not enough exploration, nor enough fictional positioning at the gritty action resolution level.




I actually just reread the AD&D PHB because I picked up one with the "statue" cover for $10 at a game store. Anyway, there have been, and continue to be, lots of threads bemoaning Gygax's advice and writings in both the PHB and DMG. In fact, i bet if I started a thread titled "You Favorite/Most Hated Gygax Quotes" it would fill up with negativity very quickly -- and half the "hated" quotes would come not from the PHB or DMG, but Sorceror Scrolls and interviews.

In any case, Gygax never actually engaged in one-true-wayism in the DMG the way Wyatt does. When he said "Don't do this" (such as issues around demi-human level limits) he told you why and what you were in for if you ignored his advice.

In the OP quote, Wyatt is taking a playstyle stance that I find wrong and offensive and not very D&D-like at all.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 6, 2012)

Reynard said:


> I don't like 4E, but it's not a nit: the quote is *one of the reasons* I don't like 4E, because the quote underscores a design intent that I don't think makes for good D&D. You are dismissing my opinion by suggesting it's just a "nit."



It *is* a nit. It's one line in one book out of a line of dozens. The design intent is something I can understand harping on, but one line? That's like the very definition of a nit.



> And I think you are absolutely wrong. i think it is terrible advice. By training your new-to-gaming DMs that all that matters is "challenges" you are limiting the scope of their enjoyment and the enjoyment of the players, which will in the end lead them back to Skyrim and WoW because, frankly, those games do "challenges" far better than D&D can.



And now we get to the crux...it's just your opinion, dude. That's it. It's not some universal standard that you can ascribe to everyone. I happen to think it's excellent newbie advice. If you sat down with a first grader and told them to read "Lord of the Rings" you'd be rightfully laughed the hell out of the room. You start with the basics.



> Are you really sugggesting that the 4E DMG was only written for new DMs and that it was not intended to convey design intent to existing, experienced DMs, even in the face of an overt strategy by WotC to convert the existing base first and grab new players later?



*Only* new DMs? No. *Primarily* new DMs? Abso-freaking-lutely. Just as every PHB and DMG in every edition had significant space devoted to basics for new players/DMs. Also, I don't think the *whole* DMG is written to any one individual reader. But I do think specific bits are targeted at specific types of gamers and levels of experience. And that's exactly what we are talking about--one, single specific piece of advice in a 200 page book which is clearly aimed at some piece of the audience that is obviously *not you.*

How often to you interact with entry-level practitioners of any type of art? I teach college composition. If I started off with "advanced" writing techniques like targeted fragments, hyperbole, allusion, etc, and ignored the fundamentals like capitalization, punctuation, subject-verb agreement, and misspelling, I'd be greeted with nothing but unholy messes of papers and letters that attempted to be words and sentences and failed completely. I view this bit of advice from Wyatt to be something similar. That whole paragraph really boils down to, "Keep it fun," which seems insanely elementary and ridiculously unnecessary. But I have to spend a whole class on "They're, There, Their" and basic subject-verb number agreement (let's not even mention tense-shifting), things that also seem insanely elementary (literally, actually, as those things are supposedly taught in elementary schools) and ridiculously unnecessary.

The point is that some people *do* need to be told to skip the boring needless encounter. Not all guard encounters are such, and not everyone needs that level of advice, but there are more than a few who do. I'd argue even some long-time players/GMs need such advice, as I've played with my share of them, too.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jan 6, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Whether or not one enjoys playing this sort of game - personally, I do - it is not "terrible advice". It's pretty standard advice on how to run a situation-focused game.



Except it's terrible advice in the context of _fun_. He's literally saying "_this_ is not fun, don't do _this_." That's terrible, terrible advice to everyone who enjoys _this_.



pemerton said:


> Correct. But it is Wyatt's prerogative to give advice on how to play the game, just as Gygax did back in his PHB and DMG. Advice that not everyone followed, or follows.



That's true. It's his prerogative. It doesn't make his advice any less terrible. To my knowledge, he does not mention the type of game you're speaking of. He also explicitly _does_ say that something many people enjoy _isn't fun_. When telling someone how to have fun, saying "your way _isn't fun_" is terrible, terrible advice when it is, you know, fun.



pemerton said:


> Where's the evidence of all these new GMs being led astray by James Wyatt? I mean, the AD&D PHB and DMG only gave me advice on how to run a Gygaxian/Pulsipherian style game aimed at challenging "skilled players", but I nevertheless worked out for myself how to GM the sort of game I was interested in.



How does this negate the fact that the DMG advice should be better? Sure, Gygax's should've been, too. We've learned a ton about RPG and play styles since it was written. Let's write about some of it, yeah? Or, let's write about what we're trying to get across. If he's promoting a situation-focused style of game, _then say that_. He should make a note of that, so proper context is given.

And, even then, he shouldn't say something _isn't fun_. He should say it's falling short of the goal of this particular play style. 



pemerton said:


> Where are all the threads bemoaning Gygax's "terrible advice" in the AD&D PHB?



Two things here, I think.

One, I probably wouldn't like a lot of his advice. I might like a lot, though. It's probably a mixed bag. I have absolutely no problem saying Gygax's advice about ethereal mummies is terrible. There; now we can admit that Wyatt's advice in the original post is terrible, right?

Two, complaints about Gygax could be in a thread about it. As it stands, someone created a thread asking why people didn't like what Wyatt wrote. People are replying. Outcries of "why are we focusing on this?!" seem rather confusing, to me.



pemerton said:


> The fact that Wyatt, or I, think those are boring games shouldn't deter them, any more than I'm deterred in running my game by the fact that many posters on this board would think it has not enough exploration, nor enough fictional positioning at the gritty action resolution level.



Cool? I'm glad you are running your game the way you want to. I mean, I do it, too. I think all GMs should. However, you're in a thread about "why do people not like what this guy said?" saying "why are we talking about this guy?" Add to the fact that he's telling people that they're _having fun wrong_ and not just playing his potentially preferred style wrong and you have your answer as to why people are upset.

I'm glad you get to play the game you want to. I have no problem with authors pimping their preferred play style (I did so in my game). However, they should be really clear what it is they're saying (I had a section titled "Designer Biases and Preferences" that I broke down into different subsections), and _they shouldn't be making value judgments on what isn't fun_. Saying, "I tried to make a gritty feeling game" is one thing; saying "gonzo games aren't fun, don't play them" is another.

Maybe this strikes a particular nerve with me, though. I think it has something to do with my signature. As always, play what you like


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> And I think that's the main thing being glossed over here. This advice simply isn't geared towards the people who are offended by it. And I suspect (I may be wrong, but based on the names of the people involved in this discussion) that most of the offended posters are people who don't like 4E to begin with and just seem to keep finding nits to pick.




I suggest that you try not ascribing motive to people here in order to strengthen your argument. No I'm not a fan of 4E, but if you've read ANY of my posts at all when I've discussed 4E I've never railed against it in a way that I can be labled a 4E hater or whatever they're called. 

In fact, I've pretty much stated (not recently) that when the core books came out that the DMG (with obvious exceptions) and the Monster Manual were darn good. 

So yeah has NOTHING to do with 4E hate (thanks for playing!) and everything wit the fact that some of us think that Wyatt gave fairly bad advice. 

Its not for us? UGH.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 6, 2012)

D'karr said:


> The issue is that Wyatt didn't declare a definition of "fun".  [snip]




I would XP you if I could. Thank you for going through the book for context. This was exactly what I was referring to. You can't harp on one sentence and ignore the rest of the book and claim you're taking the quote in context. Especially those who keep saying he's advising that 4E be all about the combat.



Mark CMG said:


> The problem is you can either take the quote explicitly or you can assume some intent other than what was explicitly stated.  Taking it explicitly means he said that it was badwrongfun to enjoy gate guard encounters.  Assuming some intent, other than explicit intent, seems to be where the argument arises.  You obviously assume some other intent and think it means something that suits your style of play and condemn others who either take it explicitly or assume it doesn't support their style of play.  I'm not sure your dismissive false quote helps either argument.




We know he gave two gate guards as an example of "unfun" but how does that translate to "its all about combat" like many posters here are claiming?

[MENTION=9213]ShinHakkaider[/MENTION] - Yes, I think the quote is enough to put someone off of 4E. But I would think it a shame to base one's opinion on a single quote.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 6, 2012)

_My name, traveller?!?  You want my name?!?  Very well... my name is James Hyneman, and you are trying to enter my village of Mithbustaville.  Now be on your way!_


----------



## Tuft (Jan 6, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> [MENTION=9213]ShinHakkaider[/MENTION] - Yes, I think the quote is enough to put someone off of 4E. But I would think it a shame to base one's opinion on a single quote.




i'd imagine that the "fairy ring" quote was more opinion-forming than the "town guard" quote, especially considering where and when they were published; the pre-release books ought to have been aimed at existing fans, rather than the supposed 14-year old WoW-playing recruit...

Together they kind of form a pattern though...


The whole badwrongfun aspect of WOTC:s initial 4E marketing kind of reminds me of a Microsoft marketing campaign for an Office upgrade, where they portraid those running the older version of their software as moronic clueless bumpkin dinosaurs... Not ridiculing that they had not gotten around to upgrading yet, mind you, but that they were running such bad and inappropriate software...


----------



## pauljathome (Jan 6, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Except that some folks enjoy RPing encounters simply for what they are without them needing to be "challenges" per se.  I think that's part of what you're still not grasping, Hussar.  Something can be an RP encounter simply to set tone, mood, the stage, to pass information along without it requiring some sort of "challenge."  .




I should also point out that on more than one occassion something that I (as GM) had put in as "fluff" turned out to be absolutely central to the campaign.

Sometimes the players get really invested in something and it is often hard to predict what that will be in advance. When I see my players invested then, if at all possible, I'll expand that into an adventure or 10.

One entire campaign that lasted a couple of years got generated from a throw away encounter (in the third session) with a girl coming up to their fire in the middle of the night. The players went at her back story like dogs with a bone and I just went with it


----------



## pauljathome (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> I will reiterate it one last time, since I'm fairly sure people will only read that last sentence and try to use that as my entire post while ignoring the meat of what I'm saying---Wyatt's advice is excellent for people who are just becoming DMs for the first time and need the express train to funville to keep them interested. It's not for experienced players and DMs who dribble away bits of their time and energy in the minutiae of parsing the language of a roleplaying game. We just aren't the target audience.




I disagree with this.

I think that (as AuldGrump pointed out) the addition of a single "if" would have made this very good and valuable advice for that beginning GM.

"If the encounter with the guards is not fun then skip it" is absolutely superb advice.

I wouldn't even have a problem with 
"For a great many groups the encounter with the guards isn't fun and should be skipped"


----------



## S'mon (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> This advice simply isn't geared towards the people who are offended by it. And I suspect (I may be wrong, but based on the names of the people involved in this discussion) that most of the offended posters are people who don't like 4E to begin with and just seem to keep finding nits to pick.




Not me, it's my favourite game system for tabletop play.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 6, 2012)

Janx said:


> And I can accept some variance in what folks percieve as fat.
> 
> Not every gate guard scene is fat.  Not every shopping trip is fat.







It's me, isn't it? I _knew_ this uniform made me look fat!

The Auld Grump


----------



## S'mon (Jan 6, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Where are all the threads bemoaning Gygax's "terrible advice" in the AD&D PHB?




It helps that Gygax addresses the reader as a fellow adult, not as 'Mr Professional Games Designer' talking down to a not-so-bright 14 year old.  As a 12 year old first reading the DMG, I think that made a big positive impact on me; I always much preferred it to the 'for the kiddies' Mentzer Basic approach, even though Moldvay-Mentzer is much clearer writing.  And the presentation of advice in 4e DMG, unlike Mentzer Basic, often *is* very patronising IMO.  The 'From the Professionals' sidebars really got my back up.  You may be professional writers (not very well paid ones), but you're not *Professional DMs*.  At best you are keen amateurs, just like the rest of us.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 6, 2012)

pauljathome said:


> I disagree with this.
> 
> I think that (as AuldGrump pointed out) the addition of a single "if" would have made this very good and valuable advice for that beginning GM.
> 
> ...



He did say "An encounter," not "The encounter," if we're going to get nitty on parsing the language. I think trying to read that as "ALL encounters with two guards aren't fun" is reading way more into that sentence than was intended. "An" implies one, not all, especially since "an" is the root word for "one." And if we go with that meaning, we can also come to the following: "This encounter with two guards at the gate isn't fun, but another one might be."

But that's picking nits. Once again, I think the crux of the statement is being nit-picked to death. People seem to think Wyatt wants to prohibit any and all meetings with gate-guards, when what I think he's really saying is don't add a needless meeeting with a gate guard that goes like this, "Welcome to our city. Be good." "Thanks, we will. Which way to the inn?" "That way." and instead just jump past it with, "You enter the city and make your way to the central inn."



S'mon said:


> Not me, it's my favourite game system for tabletop play.



I did say "most" and not "all."


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 6, 2012)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Not me, it's my favourite game system for tabletop play.




And for another perspective, the quote doesn't bother me too much, I'm playing in no less than three simultaneous 4e campaigns at the moment, so I can't really have THAT big a problem with the game.  



			
				Mercutio01 said:
			
		

> I did say "most" and not "all."




Ascribing motives to anyone is not really useful. Remember, the person on the other side of the inter-tubes is an intelligent, rational, well-intentioned person, even if you disagree with them.

It's quite possible that the reason some folks aren't a fan of 4e has a lot to do with Wyatt's quotes, meaning it's not really a nit to pick, it's one of the core reasons they're not fans of the game. 

After all, no one likes being told that they're having fun in the wrong way. Fun isn't an objective thing that should be present universally given certain starting conditions, and the arrogance to dismiss entire playstyles can certainly be off-putting, even for those of us who play 4e on a regular basis, and like it at least well enough.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 6, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> And for another perspective, the quote doesn't bother me too much, I'm playing in no less than three simultaneous 4e campaigns at the moment, so I can't really have THAT big a problem with the game.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly - if the quote prevents someone from trying the game, or lessens their enjoyment in running the game, then it is not a 'nit'.

If it is a symptom of a wider problem then it is not a 'nit'. It was a statement that our style of fun was not fun.

And for some of us it was only one of several such statements, including some on the animated cartoons for the game and the trailer. (Oh look, isn't it funny? The dragon is taking a crap on a troll that is complaining about our game. Ha ha ha....)

I do not know what percentage of the lines that ticked people off about 4e were Wyatt's, but he was not working in a vacuum. However, he certainly has some of the gems that are most prone to quotation.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 6, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's quite possible that the reason some folks aren't a fan of 4e has a lot to do with Wyatt's quotes, meaning it's not really a nit to pick, it's one of the core reasons they're not fans of the game.






TheAuldGrump said:


> Exactly - if the quote prevents someone from trying the game, or lessens their enjoyment in running the game, then it is not a 'nit'.



I have a very, very hard time believing anyone who says that one quote, which so far has been routinely taken out of context and ascribed meaning that it doesn't actually have, is the cause for people not liking 4E to begin with. It is far, far more likely that there is dislike first, and then the finding of fiddly bits to assign the dislike to. If that's ascribing a motive, then so be it. I don't think it's unfair to call out the anti-4E bias when discussing the nitpicking of, literally, one sentence. This whole thread is about one sentence. If that's not the height of nitpicking, I'm not sure what is. 




> If it is a symptom of a wider problem then it is not a 'nit'. It was a statement that our style of fun was not fun.
> 
> And for some of us it was only one of several such statements, including some on the animated cartoons for the game and the trailer. (Oh look, isn't it funny? The dragon is taking a crap on a troll that is complaining about our game. Ha ha ha....)
> 
> I do not know what percentage of the lines that ticked people off about 4e were Wyatt's, but he was not working in a vacuum. However, he certainly has some of the gems that are most prone to quotation.



I'm certainly not going to defend the whole marketing and execution of 4E. I do think highlighting this one quote and doing your darnedest to make it emblematic of a problem with all of 4E design is more than a bit silly. Especially because I think you are misreading the statement and drawing conclusions that aren't supported by the actual language.

The scenario I provided above is exactly what I think Wyatt was getting at. That's not a necessary or fun encounter with two gate guards, and that, no lie, has been far more my experience in playing D&D than fun roleplaying experiences talking to gate guards.

I wish more DMs and players that I've played with followed Wyatt's advice to skip the unfun, boring, unnecessary encounters. You all seem to have ideal gaming experiences playing with excellent DMs (or being so yourselves) and have never experienced the kind of crappy scenarios that Wyatt was specifically speaking against. I'm happy for you. I, unfortunately, have played with a number of groups and gamers over the 20+ years of gaming, and have experienced more than my share of "gate guard encounters" that should have been skipped over to get to the fun.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 6, 2012)

I'll ask this as a neutral question, do you think in that one sentence Wyatt was telling you to skip all roleplaying opportunities to get to the combat?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> I'll ask this as a neutral question, do you think in that one sentence Wyatt was telling you to skip all roleplaying opportunities to get to the combat?



Not exactly - I think that he means that the game should go from planned encounter to planned encounter. 

If that encounter is a roleplaying encounter then fine - though most encounters aren't, they are in fact combat encounters. But do not bother with any extraneous encounters, because that would not be fun. 

If that is not what he meant then it was badly worded, but really? It pretty much fits with the whole Dungeon Delve/Encounters feel that has been pushed for 4e from the beginning. 

I think that the folks at WotC are trying to correct for this now, but I really do think that Wyatt did mean that the game should go from planned encounter to planned encounter.

Me, I'm a tourist. I want to stop and talk to the guards at the gate, maybe ask if there is any news on the war, and where is a good place to get some grub. If they're friendly, maybe give them some coin and tell them to get a drink after their watch, and stop at the pub, on me. 

This is going on right now - my paladin knows most of the gate guards by name. And if the GM feels like using them as a means to funnel me information, or to give us a new place to look for adventure, then so be it. (One might even think that is why I am doing it....  )

The Auld Grump


----------



## mudbunny (Jan 6, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Ascribing motives to anyone is not really useful. Remember, the person on the other side of the inter-tubes is an intelligent, rational, well-intentioned person, even if you disagree with them.




Just to jump off of that point...

Why do people not ascribe the same thing to Wyatt?? I think that it is very clear (to me at least) that throughout the rest of the chapter (and book) that the philosophy that they are espousing is "pick encounters that are fun for your players. Ignore things that your players find un-fun." 

For me, reading that phrase in context with the rest of the chapter, it is clear that it was meant to be an example of something that is un-fun, not a definitive statement that all encounters at the gates of a town with guards are un-fun.

I can see how others would read it differently, but to do so, for me, requires a significant ignoring of the context contained in the rest of the chapter.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 6, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Exactly - if the quote prevents someone from trying the game, or lessens their enjoyment in running the game, then it is not a 'nit'.
> 
> If it is a symptom of a wider problem then it is not a 'nit'. It was a statement that our style of fun was not fun.
> 
> ...




Agreed. 

I mean seriously? Pathfinder is my game of choice. And I've been DM'ing for over 20 years at this point so I'm gonna ignore Wyatt's advice anyway. I think it's fairly crappy advice because one of the reasons I play RPG's is beause youre not limited to THIS or THAT decisions. THIS is fun. THAT is not. Wyatt pretty plainly says this in the text.

When it should be: THIS is fun for some people. Here's why. THAT is fun for some people. Here's why.  

Then a few posters brought up the argument of reading that line in context and you know what I thought that was a COMPLETELY fair point so I got my copy of the DM's guide and found the entries and typed out the relevant paragraph's. The description/definition of ENCOUNTER as defined for 4E and the description/definition of FUN as defined for 4E. 

Now the goal posts have shifted yet again with posters saying 

A) it needs to be read with context with the entire book or even with the Player's Handbook. 

B) we're nitpicking be because those of us who have a problem with the quotes in question hate 4E because it burned down out ranch, stole our cattle, took our land and shot our dog. When obviously 4E only stole cattle we weren't really that all that interested in anyway because we decided to go vegan (no really I love steak, but I'll be vegan for the sake of the argument...). Either way, there are people who are proponents of 4E who also have issues with the quotes so...THWARTED! 

C) I'm fully willing to admit that I might be alone in this but I dont read reference books cover to cover. Nor do I commit everything that I read to memory. I do remember things that stand out to me when I'm reading. That quote, despite the fact that the DM's Guide is probably my favorite of the 4E books (and remember I dont care for 4E all that much) stood out and annoyed me as I think it was really bad advice. DMing is combination of art and science.  And there are times where if, as a game designer, you're going to seemingly dismiss a part of the game as overall NOT FUN you've got to understand that you might be dead wrong and just catering to your own preferences. 

Which is fine if you're working on an indie game. But if you're writing for the flagship RPG, the granddaddy of all RPG's, the 800lb gorilla you need to be a little more inclusive. Especially if during the promotion for your game you're talking about inclusiveness and getting everyone under the big tent. That's not big tent talk guys. That's OUR WAY is FUN. Your way? Not so much...

Which brings me to my final point I think that no one on my side of this argument has said that you shouldn't at some point speed pass certain encounters that may have no purpose. Even I have admitted to that. We just dont want people to think that no encounter that isnt distinctly combat or a skill challenge or involved with dice rolling is worthless and NOT fun. Now several arguments have been made trying to say that's not what Wyatt was saying. 

Again, with the goal post moving. The quote is there. Okay it needs to be looked at in context of more than just the quote. Okay take the entire paragraph. Quote is still there. Okay now we need to look at the entire book and maybe the PH too. Wait what about Gygax? he gave bad advice too! Wait? What the Deuce?!? who's talking about Gygax here? 

If we disagree? well it wasn't written for you so you're nitpicky for reading into it. WHAT?!? Reading into what? I'm assuming he's saying EXACTLY what he wanted to say BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE WROTE IN THE GORRAMED BOOK. 

Listen, we get it you dont want to give any ground, you dont want to admit that some us MAYBE, just MAAAAAAYBE have a point about how Wyatt wrote what he did. I think enough of us have said yes we see things from your side and we're not debating that much. But almost none of you are willing to see this thing from our point of view instead you find it easier to call us 4E haters, nitpickers (is that even a word) and other dismissive things. 
So in closing good luck with all that. It still doesnt change the fact that Wyatt wrote what he wrote. It's there in the book. You cant say we're reading into something that's not there when IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE BOOK. If anything we're responding to something that's plainly stated (which should be the case for a reference book by the way...) and you guys are reading into his statements with stuff that's not there. I'm willing to live and let live though. So no hard feelings. Play how and what you want.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> I'll ask this as a neutral question, do you think in that one sentence Wyatt was telling you to skip all roleplaying opportunities to get to the combat?



In the spirit of neutrality, I'll answer this question without saying what I think he means (again): no, I don't think he's saying "to skip all roleplaying opportunities to get to the combat."


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 6, 2012)

mudbunny said:


> For me, reading that phrase in context with the rest of the chapter, it is clear that it was meant to be an example of something that is un-fun, not a definitive statement that all encounters at the gates of a town with guards are un-fun.
> 
> I can see how others would read it differently, but to do so, for me, requires a significant ignoring of the context contained in the rest of the chapter.



This, exactly. 



TheAuldGrump said:


> Not exactly - I think that he means that the game should go from planned encounter to planned encounter....I think that the folks at WotC are trying to correct for this now, but I really do think that Wyatt did mean that the game should go from planned encounter to planned encounter.



I think that is reading into the statement something that isn't there. I think it's your perceptions coloring how you read it. Not to minimize the idea, because after a few years of playing 4E, I've come to a similar conclusion, at least among the gamers I've played 4E with. But I definitely don't think that is either implied or meant to be implied in his words.



> It's there in the book. You cant say we're reading into something that's not there when IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE BOOK. If anything we're responding to something that's plainly stated (which should be the case for a reference book by the way...) and you guys are reading into his statements with stuff that's not there. I'm willing to live and let live though. So no hard feelings. Play how and what you want.



And you're reading into it stuff that's not there either. It doesn't say what you think it says. It does not say, what The Auld Grump thinks it says. I've already parsed out the grammar for you, provided definition for "an" (an indefinite article usually referring to a nonspecific single noun that isn't meant as a generality), and explained that Wyatt did not, in any place, tell you to never ever ever ever talk to a gate guard because that's badwrongfun. He said to skip the unfun stuff, and used an example of something that is quite often unfun to illustrate the kind of mindless encounter you can safely skip over to keep the fun going.

You are the one reading more into it than it says, and The Auld Grump said exactly as much in his above post.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 6, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> In the spirit of neutrality, I'll answer this question without saying what I think he means (again): no, I don't think he's saying "to skip all roleplaying opportunities to get to the combat."



Okay. Then do you agree with The Auld Grump who thinks he means that you should skip by any and all encounters that are not pre-planned?

If not, what do you think he does mean, other than that unfun encounters are unfun and can be skipped over to get to the fun, wherein he uses an example of an unfun meeting with gate guards?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> This, exactly.
> 
> I think that is reading into the statement something that isn't there. I think it's your perceptions coloring how you read it. Not to minimize the idea, because after a few years of playing 4E, I've come to a similar conclusion, at least among the gamers I've played 4E with. But I definitely don't think that is either implied or meant to be implied in his words.
> 
> ...



And people have disagreed with the way you have 'parsed' Wyatt's statement - or, more accurately, how you have _reinterpreted_ his statement.

He wrote what he wrote.

He _did_ describe talking to the guards as not fun.

He did _not_ have an 'if' in his statement. It was declarative.

And it was not the only time that he had made that kind of declaration.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 6, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> And people have disagreed with the way you have 'parsed' Wyatt's statement - or, more accurately, how you have _reinterpreted_ his statement.
> 
> He wrote what he wrote.
> 
> ...



You don't like my terminology? Fine. I'll turn off my grammarian hat and my writing instructor hat, and my writer hat. Wyatt did not say what you think he says in that sentence. He simply doesn't. 

I didn't reinterpret anything. He said "An encounter." That does not mean ALL encounters. It doesn't mean MOST encounters. It doesn't even mean SOME encounters.

And it _certainly_ does not say that you should skip from one planned encounter to another.

He does say to skip encounters that are not fun, and calls out the meeting with gate guards as an unfun encounter. I happen to think that is among the best advice I've read in the DMG. Skip the stuff that isn't fun.

I don't see anyone arguing that food supplies and encumbrance are fun, and yet he says to skip those, too. Do you also disagree with him on that point? How about "long treks through endless corridors"? Are those also statements to call him out about?

Is that all some over-arching design philosophy meant to stamp out anything that isnt a prescripted, pre-planned encounter?

Or are they just examples of unfun play that can be skipped over to maintain the fun?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> Okay. Then do you agree with The Auld Grump who thinks he means that you should skip by any and all encounters that are not pre-planned?



I don't personally think it has to do with pre-planned or spontaneous encounters.



Mercutio01 said:


> If not, what do you think he does mean, other than that unfun encounters are unfun and can be skipped over to get to the fun, wherein he uses an example of an unfun meeting with gate guards?



I think he means skip over the unfun parts, to get to the fun. I think he is saying that guard encounters are unfun. Period; objectively. And that's simply incorrect.

He did say this in the context of "skip what isn't fun." That much is true, and that context is true. Then, in an attempt to communicate to newer players what is and isn't fun in a gaming session, he told them to skip to encounters ("Move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun!").

He _is_, as you say, telling people to skip the unfun parts. That's his real point. However, I feel he overstepped the line when he told people -new players in particular, so I'm told- that talking to the gate guards when it's not an encounter isn't fun. He seemed to imply that most things that weren't an encounter aren't fun ("Move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun!").

With the given definition of encounter (challenges that usually involve a lot of die rolling), I find this exceptionally bad advice. His definition of "fun" does not hold true for my group, and judging by many posts here (both 4e supporters and detractors alike), I'd say I'm not alone.

And, while I have a chance to reply to you, I'd like to take a moment to mention your "parsing" of the word "an" in regards to context. You said:


			
				Mercutio01 said:
			
		

> He did say "An encounter," not "The encounter," if we're going to get nitty on parsing the language. I think trying to read that as "ALL encounters with two guards aren't fun" is reading way more into that sentence than was intended. "An" implies one, not all, especially since "an" is the root word for "one." And if we go with that meaning, we can also come to the following: "This encounter with two guards at the gate isn't fun, but another one might be."



That's not how the context of "an" or "a" is usually used. I could say, "man, a steak dinner sounds _really_ good right now." That does not imply that I generally might not like steak, but right now it sounds good. The implication is that I like steak, and that it sounds good right now. I've made a declaration of something (the steak; guard encounters) and my favorability towards it (I like it; it's not fun).

While "an" certainly does only refer to a single instance, I think it's pretty intellectually misleading to interpret that as not representative of what someone thinks. That's not what context has taught us in standard use of language. I can say, "an outing to go hiking isn't fun." That implies that the activity, in general, is not fun for me. It's not, "a _particular_ outing to go hiking isn't fun" within the regular context of language.

And, just to clarify on the "not fun for me" part, I was speaking in regards to myself. Mr. Wyatt, however, was speaking about Fun in general, and made an objective value judgement of it. That was a mistake, and was, in my opinion, terrible advice to give to new players.

Thanks for asking my opinion, though. I see where you're coming from, but I really don't agree with it. As always, play what you like 

Edit (and disclaimer: Mercutio01 XP'd me before I wrote this, so he may not feel this is fair enough ):


			
				Mercutio01 said:
			
		

> I don't see anyone arguing that food supplies and encumbrance are fun, and yet he says to skip those, too. Do you also disagree with him on that point? How about "long treks through endless corridors"? Are those also statements to call him out about?



Well, he said:


			
				Mr. Wyatt said:
			
		

> Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren’t fun, so don’t sweat them, and let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun.



Not my cup of tea, but he qualified it with a "usually". It's the little things where he doesn't objectively and unilaterally define what is and is not fun for everyone. He's wrong for my group, but probably right for most groups.



			
				Mr. Wyatt said:
			
		

> Long treks through endless corridors in the ancient dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren’t fun.



This is the same as his first example. Objective value judgments on fun are mistake. He made one here, too. Just my thoughts on these two sentences, though. For the record, my group does keep track of food supplies, ammo, encumbrance, etc. And, every once in a while, when the players are somewhere with hallways, rooms, and the like, and they're exploring, I'll let them know when they come up on a fork, see more doors, break-offs passageways, or the like. I do, however, let their characters keep track of the details (or leave markings on the ground or walls), and make attribute checks to remember ways out (or figure it out). As always, play what you like


----------



## haakon1 (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> I think we're all missing the fact that the DMG isn't geared towards people like us. It's geared to the 14-year-old kid who just got a copy of the game from his weird uncle and whose only experience with RPGs so far is something like WoW.
> . . .
> I suspect (I may be wrong, but based on the names of the people involved in this discussion) that most of the offended posters are people who don't like 4E to begin with and just seem to keep finding nits to pick.




I agree with both thoughts I quoted from you.

What I think goes unsaid is the deep connection between them.

I think your theory that 4e was written to entice 14 year old WOW players to give D&D a try, to make it seem less old-fashioned, less of their weird uncle's game, makes good sense -- I see a lot of evidence for it.

And that has a lot to do with why a large number (majority?) of D&D's existing customers don't like 4e -- it's not for us.  I'd go further and say it's purposefully against the traditions of the game in some ways, based on the marketing approach and on quotes like this that say "The traditions your weird uncle tried to teach you are WRONG.  This is not your uncles Buick, err, D&D.  You should do it this new, improved modern way."

Saying "Traditions that you wanted to pass on to the next generation are WRONG and must be changed" tends to upset people.  At the risk of stepping over the "no religion" rule, the Catholic Church is being roiled by an edition war right now, with November changes to the English-language Mass like "And also with you" becoming "And also with your spirit", which "Old School" Catholics just can't remember, since old version was known by heart.  I read a good article about this in Fortune, from a Jewish POV, about how changes in services (in the author's opinion) wreck the traditions and the links between generations, which are the (secular) point of following rituals in the first place.  So it's not too surprising to me that the Edition Wars looked a bit like a Holy War.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> You don't like my terminology? Fine. I'll turn off my grammarian hat and my writing instructor hat, and my writer hat. Wyatt did not say what you think he says in that sentence. He simply doesn't.
> 
> I didn't reinterpret anything. He said "An encounter." That does not mean ALL encounters. It doesn't mean MOST encounters. It doesn't even mean SOME encounters.




Okay the definition of "an" is...

Adjective:The form of the indefinite article (see a) used before words beginning with a vowel sound.
So let's look at "a"...

*a/ā/ *



Adjective:

Used when referring to someone or something for the first time in a text or conversation: "a man came out of the room".
Used with units of measurement to mean one such unit: "a hundred"; "a quarter of an hour".
So in all actuality I think Wyatt is using it in the context that definition 1 presents.




Mercutio01 said:


> And it _certainly_ does not say that you should skip from one planned encounter to another.




Nope, from a purely literal stance it does not say that... ofc  ourse that hasn't stopped you from injecting your own inferences and interpretations onto the quote either.



Mercutio01 said:


> He does say to skip encounters that are not fun, and calls out the meeting with gate guards as an unfun encounter. I happen to think that is among the best advice I've read in the DMG. Skip the stuff that isn't fun.




Thus the problem, an encounter with gate guards is not inherently unfun. Since numerous posters in this thread have listed various reasons as to why that is so, I won't repost them here. In a nutshell this is why his wording, and/or advice is considered bad by many. He needs a qualifier with the examples he gives and chooses not to use one.



Mercutio01 said:


> I don't see anyone arguing that food supplies and encumbrance are fun, and yet he says to skip those, too.
> 
> Do you also disagree with him on that point? How about "long treks through endless corridors"? Are those also statements to call him out about?




In a gritty survivalist Dark Sun game tracking supplies, food and encumbrance could be fun, but no, I don't think most people consider the tracking of minutae (whatever they determine that to be) as fun.

However just because no one is arguing against it that doesn't change the fact that the quote is badly worded and thus imparts bad advice.





Mercutio01 said:


> Is that all some over-arching design philosophy meant to stamp out anything that isnt a prescripted, pre-planned encounter?
> 
> Or are they just examples of unfun play that can be skipped over to maintain the fun?




I don't agree that they are all examples of unfun play... and that is the heart of the matter. Unfun play as Wyatt presents it seems to have been cast as anything that does not present a challenge (whether in the form of combat, skill challenge, or whatever), and I don't agree with that wider sentiment.


----------



## haakon1 (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> People seem to think Wyatt wants to prohibit any and all meetings with gate-guards, when what I think he's really saying is don't add a needless meeeting with a gate guard that goes like this, "Welcome to our city. Be good." "Thanks, we will. Which way to the inn?" "That way." and instead just jump past it with, "You enter the city and make your way to the central inn."




He said what he said, but I must say I would far prefer the first alternative (though it would need to longer to do any good) to the second (genericizing the setting into flavorless mush).


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 6, 2012)

haakon1 said:


> He said what he said, but I must say I would far prefer the first alternative (though it would need to longer to do any good) to the second (genericizing the setting into flavorless mush).



I obviously would not prefer the first. I also don't think skipping past gate guards = flavorless mush. I think that's a bit of a strawman, don't you?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> You don't like my terminology? Fine. I'll turn off my grammarian hat and my writing instructor hat, and my writer hat. Wyatt did not say what you think he says in that sentence. He simply doesn't.
> 
> I didn't reinterpret anything. He said "An encounter." That does not mean ALL encounters. It doesn't mean MOST encounters. It doesn't even mean SOME encounters.
> 
> ...



Calm down, you are not getting more accurate.

You asked for whether I _thought_ he meant combat only.

I told you - that I think that he means go from planned encounter to planned encounter. Not just combat encounters, but planned encounters nonetheless.

If you ask for an interpretation do not get angry with that interpretation.

And yes, I still stand by my interpretation, and that Wyatt meant _exactly what he wrote_, and that he _was_ declaring things such as long treks through dwarfen tunnels or talking to the guards at the gate as 'not fun'.

At this point I really do not see either of us agreeing - you are too willing to reinterpret what was, at best, a badly worded statement, or was, in my opinion more likely, just plain a bad piece of advice.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Reynard (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> I have a very, very hard time believing anyone who says that one quote, which so far has been routinely taken out of context and ascribed meaning that it doesn't actually have, is the cause for people not liking 4E to begin with. It is far, far more likely that there is dislike first, and then the finding of fiddly bits to assign the dislike to.




I just want to respond to this one part before I bow out of this discussion (as I find myself repeating myself, which usually means I need to stop):

You can believe what you like, but the fact is this is what happened to me. I was on the fence about 4E during the build up, oscillating between anticipation and dislike (oh, "Traps Design and Development" column, how I loathe thee!) but I still not only ordered the slipcase set, but, since it hadn't arrived, ran down to the FLGS on launch day and snagged a PHB. Things looked weird, and I was uncertain, but it was not until the DMG arrived and I read the definition of "Fun" by Mr. Wyatt did I realize that this edition of the game was no longer the D&D I had known and loved and played for over 20 years.

So you can think me nit picking, and you can doubt me, but the fact is this: Wyatt chose to define fun in a way that made me actively dislike 4E. And your assertion that he did not do so is astounding. Even in context, he is saying "these things are not fun; don't do them" in explicit, direct language.


----------



## haakon1 (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> I don't see anyone arguing that food supplies and encumbrance are fun, and yet he says to skip those, too. Do you also disagree with him on that point?




Yes, and I said so earlier, explaining why I'd want to play the MMO of D&D, after seeing the lack of encumbrance rules and auto-healing for standing around.

I like resource management rules.  My favorite computer games are strategy war games, which are all about resource management.

I also like encumbrance rules.  My favorite books about the Vietnam is "The Things They Carried", which actually goes pretty extensively (as you might guess from the title) about what soldiers carried with them through the jungle.  And when I ran RECON (Vietnam War RPG) for several years, I made the player inventory every last thing they carried, following the advice in that game -- if you didn't bring enough ammo, or malaria pills, or a can open, just like in real life, your character is screwed.

It's an aspect of war and expeditions that I think is FUN to think about in a game.  In fact, my "favorite moment" in D&D is often the moment where you can't think of any way to turn a losing situation around, and your desparately scanning the inventory on your character sheet as you await your turn, and come up with some whacky idea:  "The orcs breaking down the door, are what, 20 feet below us?  And the floor is rough stone?  Cool, I have 10 flasks of oil in my pack.  I'll empty the backpack on the orcs below, then you toss the torch from the wall!  That might drive them away from the door for a few rounds!"


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 6, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Calm down, you are not getting more accurate.
> 
> You asked for whether I _thought_ he meant combat only.
> 
> ...



1) Not excited or angry. 

2)You accused me of interpretation. Then you went and interpreted something that's clearly not there.



> At this point I really do not see either of us agreeing - you are too willing to reinterpret



Watch where you toss "reinterpret" around. You've done more than I to interpret anything. See above.



Reynard said:


> Wyatt chose to define fun in a way that made me actively dislike 4E. And your assertion that he did not do so is astounding. Even in context, he is saying "these things are not fun; don't do them" in explicit, direct language.



Fair enough. It's still hard to swallow, but I'll accept you at your word.

Clearly the people who dislike Wyatt's definition of fun see it in a different fashion than I do. I happen to think you are all reading your own biases into that statement, but it would then be blind of me not to acknowledge that I'm doing the same. I've noted that I've played in frequent games with unfun gate-guard-style encounters, which pre-disposes me to disliking them in general, and agreeing with Wyatt on principle. Gate guard encounters are overwhelmingly not fun. At least for me. I think giving new gamers advice on skipping them because they are not fun is good advice. Again, because that's been my experience.

Those of you arguing against Wyatt's statement all seem to enjoy gate guard encounters, and you find those fun. You see his statement as an attack on your fun. I don't think it's anywhere near as broad a statement as you do, but this is where personal experience colors everything. I wouldn't expect my first-year college students to be able to write a college level paper write off the bat, mostly because of experience proving to me that they are generally incapable of doing so. I also wouldn't expect GMs to be able to run a game that doesn't include basic errors with unnecessary encounters that are not fun, also because of my experience that they are generally incapable of doing so. I see "avoid boring encounters" as equivalent to "capitalize the first word in a sentence." To wit--basic information that theoretically _should_ be known, but somehow is not.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:
			
		

> I have a very, very hard time believing anyone who says that one quote, which so far has been routinely taken out of context and ascribed meaning that it doesn't actually have, is the cause for people not liking 4E to begin with.




Well, that's not really the situation, is it?

Wyatt's on record in a few different places as being dismissive of playing the game in a less combat-intensive way (the faerie ring quote from Worlds & Monsters plays into it, too).

In addition, the delve format, and the first few published adventures for 4e certainly seemed to line up with the "chain of combat encounters" philosophy that Wyatt seems to be espousing there.

Furthermore, the rules of the game that weren't dedicated to slaying monsters were few, far between, and fraught with problems (Skill Challenges and Rituals are in particular in my "good idea, bad implementation" camp). Your class's abilities are almost exclusively "attacks" and combat utilities. Monsters are also only there for combat, to attack the party, and then be slain. 

If it was only one single quote, or even a handful of them, it's entirely possible that many people would ignore it (as they frequently did Gygax's less-than-favorable moments). But the quote is emblematic of a philosophy that many feel is present in a big way throughout the entire launch of 4e. 

Not that a lot of players didn't ignore this philosophy in favor of whatever fun they have at their own tables (I know my groups do!), just that, yeah, I can see how that one quote, taken in its full context, is one of the primary examples of what a lot of people really don't like about 4e. It is an explicit part, in the core books, where one of the lead designers comes down to a DM and says, explicitly, "Your way of playing has no place in this new game." 

That, again, might not be what he really meant. But it's certainly not an irrational position to take. 



			
				mudbunny said:
			
		

> Why do people not ascribe the same thing to Wyatt?? I think that it is very clear (to me at least) that throughout the rest of the chapter (and book) that the philosophy that they are espousing is "pick encounters that are fun for your players. Ignore things that your players find un-fun."




It's not very clear to everyone.

Which is kind of the source of the disagreement, here. 

Folks on one side saying, "It's clear TO ME what he meant! Anyone who thinks otherwise is at best mistaken and at worst a _hater_ who just _hates_ and loves to _hate_."

Folks on the other side saying, "It's clear TO ME what he said! Anyone who thinks otherwise is at best mistaken and at worst a _fanboy_ who just _blindly follows authority_ and _can't see reality_."

I guess I'm seeing a lot more of the former in this thread specifically, though that may be just because the OP started with "How can anyone actually have a real problem with this?", and, once explained, people keep being shocked (shocked!) that this statement is problematic. 

I think Wyatt was doing the best he could to present the game to new fans, and I'm reasonably confident the intent was basically to say, "skip stuff that's not fun." However, the category of "not fun" somehow, to Wyatt, was _objective_ as he was writing this. Whether that's a personal bias that leaked in, or a deliberate strategy 4e used in the early days (because marketing results showed that people had the most fun with combat encounters, so to make combat encounters the center of the game was the best thing for the game financially and for fun maximization, or whatever) is kind of an open question. The full context of the D&D game circa 2008 gives some evidence for the latter interpretation, though I find myself favoring the former, just because I can't believe that these smart designers would actually be that categorical in their dismissal of parts of the game that they themselves had enjoyed for years.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> 1) Not excited or angry.
> 
> 2)You accused me of interpretation. Then you went and interpreted something that's clearly not there.
> 
> ...



Considering that I have been going from his _direct quote_ I find it interesting that you accuse me of reinterpreting, while you are somehow not reinterpreting when you say that he did not mean what he wrote.

I interpreted _once_, when directly asked, _by you_ to do so. You get upset when I did so, fine - but again, it is the only time that I read more into what he wrote than what he actually wrote.

Again - I think that Wyatt meant exactly what he wrote in that paragraph, when he wrote it. He was not referring to other parts of the book. He did not accidentally leave out the much needed 'if'.

He wrote what he wrote, nothing more nothing less, and meant what he wrote, nothing more, nothing less. I need interpret, or reinterpret, nothing.

At this point I am done, you have gone beyond where I am comfortable in the emotional quality of your responses.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 6, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Considering that I have been going from his _direct quote_ I find it interesting that you accuse me of reinterpreting, while you are somehow not reinterpreting when you say that he did not mean what he wrote.



I did not say that he didn't mean what he wrote. In fact, I said the opposite. He did mean what he wrote. I think you're reading it to be a universal case (avoid ALL gate guard encounters) and I'm reading it to be an individual case (avoid not-fun gate guard encounters).



> At this point I am done, you have gone beyond where I am comfortable in the emotional quality of your responses.



I think you are reading emotion where there is none. You have tossed accusations of "reinterpretation" and indicated that I was being shifty and underhanded when I used Wyatt's actual words and what they meant. I did no such thing, intended no such thing, and was trying to point out that the reading of "An encounter" as "All encounters" is incorrect.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> ...He does say to skip encounters that are not fun, and calls out the meeting with gate guards as an unfun encounter. I happen to think that is among the best advice I've read in the DMG. Skip the stuff that isn't fun.
> 
> I don't see anyone arguing that food supplies and encumbrance are fun, and yet he says to skip those, too. Do you also disagree with him on that point?...




Yes, I most certainly do.

You may not like long corridors, gate guard encounters, or tracking equipment and encumbrance.  Personally I don't either.

*But there are groups that DO!*

They may not be posting in this thread, but I've seen many people on ENWorld talk about those very things and state their preference for them.  That for them, the game just isn't D&D without those elements.

And that's the point.  James Wyatt is saying that the games official stance is their preferences are not fun and should be avoided.

There is no other way to spin it or interpret it.

Calling your customers preferences and ideas badwrongfun, and then designing a game which excludes a portion of your fan/customer base is by any standard, absolute foolishness.

You don't remain a success by criticizing and marginalizing your customer base, and that's exactly what that quote does.

The reason it doesn't bother you is most likely because the things he calls unfun, are unfun to you also.

Put the shoe on the other foot.

Let's say he said: _"An RPG designed as first and foremost, a "Game", is not fun.  Realism is where true fun comes from.  Skip the builds made from a game mechanics focus, and stick to characters based on a backstory and realistic life progression.  Then pick only skills, feats and powers that support that background.  Picking powers just for how cool they are is unfun in the long run.  For you and your group."_

That would have been just as wrong.  Pissed off another large part of the RPG base, and alienated customers.

It's the exact same thing.

Any advice or instruction that marginalizes or disparages gamers play styles is _not_ good advice.

A company centered around a niche hobby needs to be _inclusive_, for that's the only way they can remain successful.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 6, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Yes, I most certainly do.
> 
> You may not like long corridors, gate guard encounters, or tracking equipment and encumbrance.  Personally I don't either.
> 
> ...



You know, I think there is an old Vampire: the Masquerade book that says almost exactly that. in regards to picking merits/flaws, and backgrounds....

Ticked me off then, too.



> That would have been just as wrong.  Pissed off another large part of the RPG base, and alienated customers.
> 
> It's the exact same thing.
> 
> ...



I can't argue with that - it is why I think 5e _has_ to be largely compatible with 4e. The hobby, as a whole, cannot afford to lose those players that are linked to 4e, its systems, and its assumptions.

It nearly lost a large percentage of the 3e players, thank the gods the OGL allows comparable systems, be it Pathfinder or Fantasy Craft, OSRIC or True20.

The Auld Grump, True20... that reminds me about another thread....


----------



## Janx (Jan 6, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Let's say he said: "An RPG designed as first and foremost, a "Game", is not fun. Realism is where true fun comes from. Skip the builds made from a game mechanics focus, and stick to characters based on a backstory and realistic life progression. Then pick only skills, feats and powers that support that background. Picking powers just for how cool they are is unfun in the long run. For you and your group."




I don't have an offended reaction from that statement.

Let's say TAG is right that the quote above is akin to something in a Vampire book and our group is abou to consider getting into Vampire and I just read that statement.

My response is:
clearly the designers want to encourage realism and character, rather than maximizing and optimisation.

OK.

I will try that, but I'm still not going to make a sucky character if I can help it.


----------



## haakon1 (Jan 6, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> The reason it doesn't bother you is most likely because the things he calls unfun, are unfun to you also.
> 
> Put the shoe on the other foot.
> 
> ...




Excellent post, El Mahdi.

In my case, I would have agreed with that advice wholeheartedly (I think it's "what's best in the game").  I think I might be defending him along the lines of "Yeah, he didn't word it the best he could of, but his basic point is insightful: it's a ROLE PLAYING game.  Game is in there, but role playing comes first.  And that's why real RPG's like D&D beat dice roller combat games like WOW.  We have so much more depth and pathos when we kill the orcs and take their stuff, because those Gate Guard encounters really make the world come alive."


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 6, 2012)

[MENTION=37277]Mercutio01[/MENTION], that hole's not gonna stop diggin' itself.


----------



## OnlineDM (Jan 6, 2012)

In case it helps people interpret the effect of Wyatt's infamous quote one way or the other, I'm a DM who really only started in RPGs with 4th Edition (I had looked at 3.0 years ago but never got a game going). I read the 4th Edition Dungeon Master's Guide cover to cover before I started running games.

I've now been running games regularly for about 20 months, and I think my players regard me as a good DM. I've run games for a wide variety of players - home groups, online groups, FLGS groups, convention groups. I've run pre-published adventures and adventures I've written myself.

I've absolutely included "talk to the gate guards" types of things in my games. Sometimes we've breezed right through them quickly or ignored them altogether, and sometimes the players have spent a lot of time getting into them. Both ways were fun for their respective groups.

All I'm saying is that I, for one, did not end up taking Wyatt's "no gate guards" comment at face value. I, being a DM who learned to run the game from the book in question, never walked away thinking that my adventures should not include the opportunity to talk to gate guards or explore big dungeons. I did walk away with the impression that I should skip over things that are likely to be boring for my players (and for myself) and get to the stuff that will be more fun.

So, here's at least one case study for a person learning to run the game from the book, who read that quote and did not take it literally but instead understood the spirit of what the book as a whole was trying to convey. And I think I'm a better DM for it.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 6, 2012)

The Shaman said:


> [MENTION=37277]Mercutio01[/MENTION], that hole's not gonna stop diggin' itself.



And the crap-talk violates board policy. Reported.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 6, 2012)

I think that it is time that this thread get locked - all and sundry have been repeating themselves, getting louder, and redder in the face.

At this point the only things that are certain are that some folks were offended by Mr. Wyatt's words, both in the DMG and elsewhere, and other folks weren't.

The Auld Grump


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 6, 2012)

[MENTION=37277]Mercutio01[/MENTION] , your argument comes across as, 'Who ya gonna believe, me, or your lyin' eyes?!'

I think most people understand that Mr Wyatt wanted to get across the notion of 'focus on fun things, not on not-fun things.' However, whatever his intent, he called out the encounter with the guards at the gate as explicitly not-fun. For a whole bunch of reasons that have already been offered in this thread, that's poor advice.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 6, 2012)

And I'm in agreement with The Auld Grump here. I won't deign to answer the obvious strawman bullcrap being spouted by The Shaman.


----------



## the Jester (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> I'll ask this as a neutral question, do you think in that one sentence Wyatt was telling you to skip all roleplaying opportunities to get to the combat?




No, but the attitude I get is "gloss over anything that isn't an encounter. If you roleplay it out, there ought to be a point to the scene."

Which is fine, except that a lot of gamers like to roleplay for its own sake. Sometimes the point of the scene is as simple as "talking to guards at the gate".

It's not the specific advice that rubs people so wrong imho, it's the dismissal of certain playstyles as badwrongfun.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 6, 2012)

the Jester said:


> No, but the attitude I get is "gloss over anything that isn't an encounter. If you roleplay it out, there ought to be a point to the scene."
> 
> Which is fine, except that a lot of gamers like to roleplay for its own sake. Sometimes the point of the scene is as simple as "talking to guards at the gate".



The attitude you describe is exactly what I think he was saying, too. I think you and I are in agreement with what he's saying. I don't happen to think that's bad advice, especially when trying to introduce D&D to new gamers, and that's still who I think the target audience was.


----------



## the Jester (Jan 6, 2012)

ShinHakkaider said:


> C) I'm fully willing to admit that I might be alone in this but I dont read reference books cover to cover. Nor do I commit everything that I read to memory. I do remember things that stand out to me when I'm reading. That quote, despite the fact that the DM's Guide is probably my favorite of the 4E books (and remember I dont care for 4E all that much) stood out and annoyed me as I think it was really bad advice.




I'll add to this- I did read the 4e DMG from cover to cover, and 4e is my current primary game. Check the 24 or so threads full of monsters by level that I've converted to 4e if you doubt my genuine love of the system. But that quote stuck out for me, too, as appallingly bad advice _for my group_, because we sometimes do like the meaningless, no-action, no-dice, no-real-consequence, pointless except for the joy of roleplaying encounters. My wizard player loves to rp with the local alchemist. The barbarian's player loves roleplaying in depth every chance he gets so that he can Conan out his attitude. The warden's player would be happy roleplaying his interaction with kids playing tag (and even rolling dice for it!). None of those encounters "means" a thing, or has any action, but they are all tons of fun for my group.

I'm not h4ting. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with a group that prefers to skip all that. I'm just saying it is terrible advice for some groups, terrible advice that stuck out as a blemish in the 4e DMG, which I found to otherwise be a pretty good read (thought the DMG2 is far better! ).

Consider this, too: one of the big criticisms many people level at 4e is that it encourages a minimal-rp, encounter-focused game. My campaign is pretty darn far from minimal-rp and it runs fine in 4e. But even I, loving 4th Edition as I do, can plainly see that it _does_ promote a certain playstyle as optimal. Tiles and preprinted battlemaps, measurements in squares, the (awful) Delve format, etc etc etc... there are a lot of ways in which it pushes a very tactical combat game style. But my campaign is evidence that it works fine with other playstyles too. 

The conclusion I'm getting at here is that 4e doesn't _have to_ run as a skirmish-style game, but it actively encourages it. It's just fine as a framework for all that other "guards at the gates and fairy rings" stuff too.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 6, 2012)

The Shaman said:


> I think most people understand that Mr Wyatt wanted to get across the notion of 'focus on fun things, not on not-fun things.'




I have a friend in my gaming group that fits this attitude. You admit that most people understand his intent, but here we are still arguing about that intent 19 (edit: 20 or 286 posts for those viewing differently) pages later?! 



Must be why I like ENWorld...reminds me of sitting around the table with friends.


----------



## the Jester (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> I think that is reading into the statement something that isn't there. I think it's your perceptions coloring how you read it. Not to minimize the idea, because after a few years of playing 4E, I've come to a similar conclusion, at least among the gamers I've played 4E with. But I definitely don't think that is either implied or meant to be implied in his words.




If you look at the formatting of WotC adventures, they are pretty much presented as a line of encounters, sometimes without any real choice as to what order they occur in. (Pyramid of Shadows or the trek across the Abyss in the E modules, anyone?)

If it wasn't intentional, the 4e designers sure didn't think through a lot of the way they present the game and (especially) adventures.


----------



## Halivar (Jan 6, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Must be why I like ENWorld...reminds me of sitting around the table with friends.



Except I can't throw food at you.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 6, 2012)

Halivar said:


> Except I can't throw food at you.




Neither can my friends...either out of respect for or fear of my wife.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 6, 2012)

the Jester said:


> If you look at the formatting of WotC adventures, they are pretty much presented as a line of encounters, sometimes without any real choice as to what order they occur in.



I only have KotS as I tend to game without modules. That hasn't always been true, and adventure modules from more than a few other editions were fairly similar, including classics like White Plume Mountain and, my favorite, Night Below.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 6, 2012)

the Jester said:


> If you look at the formatting of WotC adventures, they are pretty much presented as a line of encounters, sometimes without any real choice as to what order they occur in. (Pyramid of Shadows or the trek across the Abyss in the E modules, anyone?)
> 
> If it wasn't intentional, the 4e designers sure didn't think through a lot of the way they present the game and (especially) adventures.



I have a message board acquaintance that continually trumpets War of the Burning Sky as how a 4e Adventure Path should be written. And has very not-nice things to say about WotC adventures. I have told him that this is not new to 4e - WotC has had a hard time with adventures for a long time now.

You don't have to hate 4e to hate that quote, though it does add fuel to the fires of h4te.

I stopped h4ting after Pathfinder came out, I am now more worried that D&D might be sidelined.

How is the Essentials DM box in regards to not ticking off potential customers? I have not seen an open box, so I cannot make any comparison.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Neither can my friends...either out of respect for or fear of my wife.



Nar, they just have lousy aim, and don't want to risk hitting each other.  Remember, there is no such thing as friendly fire in regards to custard pie wars.

The Auld Grump


----------



## the Jester (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> The attitude you describe is exactly what I think he was saying, too. I think you and I are in agreement with what he's saying. I don't happen to think that's bad advice, especially when trying to introduce D&D to new gamers, and that's still who I think the target audience was.




Well, like I said, the problem to me is that he seems to exclude certain values of "fun", which are values that my group really enjoys. 

The Vampire example is interesting, because I'm totally okay with it as advice in WoD... probably because I don't have a 30+ year in playing a "not fun in this game" way. It helps set up a certain playstyle that runs through the WoD games. I'm okay with a game emphasizing a playstyle, but found 4e's _dismissal_ of what I'd been doing for so long to be jarring and kind of condescending.



Mercutio01 said:


> I only have KotS as I tend to game without modules. That hasn't always been true, and adventure modules from more than a few other editions were fairly similar, including classics like White Plume Mountain and, my favorite, Night Below.




KotS is interesting in that it has one of the most glaring examples of the "encounter over adventure" philosophy with the excavation site. I mean, it's supposed to be important, but the module basically says, "Well, the bad guys are doing this for some reason, but it doesn't really matter what happens here." There is never any effect from the encounter (unless you gussy it up a little in play). If the pcs kill the bad guys and prevent them from whatever mumble mumble, nothing happens. If they skip the encounter completely... nothing happens. And let's not even talk about the silly "skill challenge for the sake of having a skill challenge" with the undead guy.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> I'll ask this as a neutral question, do you think in that one sentence Wyatt was telling you to skip all roleplaying opportunities to get to the combat?




No, he was saying to skip exploratory play to get to the Encounter - which could be combat, a skill challenge, or a puzzle, AIR from the DMG.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> And the crap-talk violates board policy. Reported.




"GUARDS! GUARDS!!"


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 7, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I think that it is time that this thread get locked - all and sundry have been repeating themselves, getting louder, and redder in the face.
> 
> At this point the only things that are certain are that some folks were offended by Mr. Wyatt's words, both in the DMG and elsewhere, and other folks weren't.
> 
> The Auld Grump




I think you're probably right. I for one am out. It has been an informative thread though. And a lot of fun reading the captions to the guard illustration.


edit: (at least for now, anyways)


----------



## Eridanis (Jan 7, 2012)

Everyone take a deep breath and calm down, please. No need to slide off the cliff into personal attacks.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 7, 2012)

Reynard said:


> Anyway, there have been, and continue to be, lots of threads bemoaning Gygax's advice and writings in both the PHB and DMG.



Fair enough. I don't see many of them saying "And therefore, AD&D is dead to me!" or suggesting that, because of Gygax, whole generations of potential GMs and players have been killed off.



Reynard said:


> In any case, Gygax never actually engaged in one-true-wayism in the DMG the way Wyatt does. When he said "Don't do this" (such as issues around demi-human level limits) he told you why and what you were in for if you ignored his advice.
> 
> In the OP quote, Wyatt is taking a playstyle stance that I find wrong and offensive and not very D&D-like at all.





S'mon said:


> It helps that Gygax addresses the reader as a fellow adult, not as 'Mr Professional Games Designer' talking down to a not-so-bright 14 year old.



From the AD&D PHB, pp 107-9:

[W]hat follows are some basic guidelines as to how good players approach the game, and as continued success tends towards even more achievement, those who play well might actually become great. . .

_et an objective_ for the adventure. . .

Once the objective has been established, consier how well the party plaing will suit the needs which it has engendered. . . Is it well-balanced . . . ? Will it be necesssary to find mercenary non-player characters or hire men-at arms . . . ?

Assign formations for the group - 10' corridor, 20' corridor, door opening . . . The leader should keep a sketch or trailing map as the adventure gets underway, and another member of the expedition should keep a carefully drawn map as well. . .

_Aovid unnecessary encounters_. . . _Do not be sidetracked_ . . . [A]lways stay with what was planned if at all possible . . .

Superior play makes the game more enjoyable for all participants . . . It allows more actual playing time. It makes play more interesting. . . If you believe that *Advanced Dungeons & Dragons* is a game worth playing, you will certainly find it doubly so if you play well.​

From the AD&D DMG, p 92:

Thoughtless placement of powerful magic items has ben the ruination of many a campaign . . . This is in part the fault of this writer . . . Had the [random treasure tables] been prefaced with an admonition to use care and logic in placement or random discovery of magic items, had the intent, meaning and spirit of the game been more fully explained, much of the give-away aspct of such campaigns would have willingly been squelched by the DMs. The said fact is, however, that this was not done, so many campaigns are little more than a joke . . . because of the foolishness of player characters with astronomically high levels of experience and no real playing skill. These god-like characters boast and strut about with retinues of ultra-powerful wservants and scores of mighty magic items, artifacts, relics adorning them as if they were Christmas trees decked out with tinsel and ornaments.​
How is Gygax not engaging, in these passage, in "one true way-ism"? - advocacy of operationally-oriented, exploration heavy gamism with very overt metagame in the preparation phase, with no recognition of other playstyles like full-fledged immersion (at the time, Chivalry and Sorcery and Runequest both aimed at this), more light-hearted gamism of the Tunnels and Trolls variety, etc.

I also don't feel any particular lack of condescension.

Gygax's advice is, of course, not terrible advice if you want to run a Gygaxian game of AD&D. Wyatt's advice, similarly, is not terrible advice if you want to run a situation-focused game of 4e. Neither strikes me as particularly offensive, although Gygax is ruder than Wyatt.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 7, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Considering that I have been going from his _direct quote_ I find it interesting that you accuse me of reinterpreting, while you are somehow not reinterpreting when you say that he did not mean what he wrote.




I can't do it...but someone, somewhere, PLEASE, give the man xp for not just summing up the thread, but summing up the absurdity of the thread!


----------



## pauljathome (Jan 7, 2012)

pemerton said:


> How is Gygax not engaging, in these passage, in "one true way-ism"? - t.




I am honestly not getting your point.

Are you assuming that those of us who are criticizing Wyatt are defending Gygax? I can speak only for myself when I assure you that the former does NOT imply the latter but I suspect that I am not alone in that opinion.

Or are you assuming that the state of the art when 4h edition came out is the same as when AD&D came out?

In 1980 odd D&D was very definitely still massively dominated by dungeon crawls. Compared to today there was comparatively little roleplaying, comparatively little urban or nature oriented adventures. Heck, most groups would never even find a town let alone a guard .


----------



## pemerton (Jan 7, 2012)

My point is that there is nothing unusual about a DMG giving advice on how to GM the game to achieve a certain sort of play experience. And that the idea that Wyatt's advice in his DMG is "terrible advice", that will destroy generations of prospective GMs, is as silly as the idea that Gygax's advice was terrible advice with destructive consequences.

Gygax's advice won't have produced many White Wolf-style GMs. So what? It produced Gygaxian GMs, presumably, among those who followed it.

Wyatt's advice won't produce Gygaxian or White Wolf-style GMs, either. It will produce situation/encounter-oriented GMs among those who follow it. But so what? This is a perfectly reasonable way to run an RPG, and one to which 4e is particularly well suited as a system. Those players who love talking without purpose to gate guards will be deprived - as will those players who like 2nd ed era metaplot-driven railroads - but then, as I know from experience, plenty of players have been deprived of player-driven situation-focused play by GMs who took the advice of the 2nd-ed and White Wolf-era manuals, and plenty of players have been stuck in Gygaxian/Pulsipherian games when they really would have preferred something else.

Any time a GMing book gives advice on how to run the game, it has to choose one style over another. My point is that there is nothing particularly objectionable about Wyatt's choice of style, beyond the obvious point that some people prefer other styles.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 7, 2012)

pemerton said:


> My point is that there is nothing unusual about a DMG giving advice on how to GM the game to achieve a certain sort of play experience. And that the idea that Wyatt's advice in his DMG is "terrible advice", that will destroy generations of prospective GMs, is as silly as the idea that Gygax's advice was terrible advice with destructive consequences.
> 
> Gygax's advice won't have produced many White Wolf-style GMs. So what? It produced Gygaxian GMs, presumably, among those who followed it.
> 
> ...




Gygax never tried to tell me to leave something out of my game because it wasn't fun.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 7, 2012)

S'mon said:


> "GUARDS! GUARDS!!"








Let me guess, someone stole your sweetroll.

The Auld Grump, with the _other_ Skyrim meme.


----------



## jonesy (Jan 7, 2012)

Skyrim schmyrim.





_What do you want? Stop right there, criminal scum! Stop right there criminal scum! We're watching you. What do you want?_


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 7, 2012)

jonesy said:


> Skyrim schmyrim.
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Vengeance!

The Auld Grump


----------



## jonesy (Jan 7, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Vengeance!


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 7, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> You admit that most people understand his intent, but here we are still arguing about that intent 19 (edit: 20 or 286 posts for those viewing differently) pages later?!



Have you ever had to answer the question, "Does this dress make my butt look big?"

How you say it matters, no matter what your intent may be.


----------



## jonesy (Jan 7, 2012)

The Shaman said:


> Have you ever had to answer the question, "Does this dress make my butt look big?"
> 
> How you say it matters, no matter what your intent may be.



"You look beautiful."

or

"Much better than the other one. And I really liked the other one."

or

"Are you trying to turn me on? Here? In the store?"

or

"Good golly, miss molly, you so fine I lose my mind!"

Don't even try to answer the question directly. Anything else works better.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 7, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> Gygax never tried to tell me to leave something out of my game because it wasn't fun.




  "Must spread XP".


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jan 7, 2012)

pemerton said:


> And that the idea that Wyatt's advice in his DMG is "terrible advice", that will destroy generations of prospective GMs, is as silly as the idea that Gygax's advice was terrible advice with destructive consequences.



I must have missed it, but where did anyone say it would destroy generations of prospective GMs? I don't believe that's the case. I also don't think that changes the fact that calling certain styles of play "not fun" is terrible advice.



pemerton said:


> Those players who love talking without purpose to gate guards will be deprived - as will those players who like 2nd ed era metaplot-driven railroads - but then, as I know from experience, plenty of players have been deprived of player-driven situation-focused play by GMs who took the advice of the 2nd-ed and White Wolf-era manuals, and plenty of players have been stuck in Gygaxian/Pulsipherian games when they really would have preferred something else.



This makes me think that we should be qualifying advice we give in DMGs, and not calling certain styles "not fun". I'd much, much rather hear, "this is how you play _this_ style of game, to which this system is intended and well-suited" than "play this way, because _this_ way is not fun." The difference there in tone is amazing, and the difference in advice level matches it.



pemerton said:


> My point is that there is nothing particularly objectionable about Wyatt's choice of style, beyond the obvious point that some people prefer other styles.



Except, in his quote (what the thread is about), the objectionable thing is calling people's play style "not fun". People shouldn't be saying, "gonzo games aren't fun" or "narrative games aren't fun" or "situation/encounter-oriented games aren't fun" worded as an objective value judgement in the DMG. And, I have a feeling you'd be objecting to that statement if that was the case, and rightly so.

The thread is about, "why do people have a problem with this quote?" Well, it's simple: he's wrong. As always, play what you like


----------



## jonesy (Jan 7, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> I usually go with "no"



In my experience it isn't always clear whether that is the desired answer. Some dresses are apparently supposed to 'enhance' your appearance.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 7, 2012)

jonesy said:


> "You look beautiful."
> 
> or
> 
> ...



So 'Horizontal stripes? With a muumuu??!"  is right out? 

The Auld Grump, in orange and teal?!


----------



## jonesy (Jan 7, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> So 'Horizontal stripes? With a muumuu??!"  is right out?
> 
> The Auld Grump, in orange and teal?!



Why do I keep getting messages that tell me I can't exp you everytime you post something. Oh vBulletin, how thou dost mock me.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 7, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> Gygax never tried to tell me to leave something out of my game because it wasn't fun.





S'mon said:


> "Must spread XP".



No. He told you to leave something out - lots of magic items, and "low skill" players with high level PCs - or else be a legitimate object of ridicule. He also said that "Monty Haul" games are "crashing bores" (on the same page I quoted upthread), which is synoymous with "not fun". So I don't see any difference. Both are giving advice on what makes for a fun or a boring RPG.


----------



## LurkAway (Jan 7, 2012)

pemerton said:


> No. He told you to leave something out - lots of magic items, and "low skill" players with high level PCs - or else be a legitimate object of ridicule. He also said that "Monty Haul" games are "crashing bores" (on the same page I quoted upthread), which is synoymous with "not fun". So I don't see any difference. Both are giving advice on what makes for a fun or a boring RPG.



I DO see a marked difference in the giving of the advice. With Gygax, those were more eccentric times in an immature niche market. People said a lot of things back then that they don't say now. I think the more accurate question is: Did/would Gygax write about "crashing bores" in the 4E DMG (if he were one of the authors) and I think the resounding answer is 'no'. I think it's inaccurate to compare sensibilities in different times. I mean, who reads a 30-year old RPG book and gets offended by the outdated writing style?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 7, 2012)

Don't you laugh - I'm the only thing keeping this thread from being closed.

The Auld Grump


----------



## pemerton (Jan 7, 2012)

LurkAway said:


> I DO see a marked difference in the giving of the advice. With Gygax, those were more eccentric times in an immature niche market. People said a lot of things back then that they don't say now. I think the more accurate question is: Did/would Gygax write about "crashing bores" in the 4E DMG (if he were one of the authors) and I think the resounding answer is 'no'. I think it's inaccurate to compare sensibilities in different times. I mean, who reads a 30-year old RPG book and gets offended by the outdated writing style?



Not me.

Who reads a contemporary RPG guidebook and gets offended by being told that something they like in their games - non-encounter, non-action driving scenes with gate guards - aren't fun? If you disagree, note the disagreement and move on!

What I don't get is the complaints that it's "terrible advice." What does it matter to anyone that some stranger - whose GMing practice is being shaped by the 4e DMG - might be running games in a different style? And if those strangers really want to run exploration-heavy games with free-floating colour, I'm sure they'll find there way there regardless of what they might have read in the 4e DMG.

It would be terrible advice if it was prone to produce games that were actually inferior in some way. But where's the evidence for that? I haven't seen any.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 7, 2012)

pemerton said:


> No. He told you to leave something out - lots of magic items, and "low skill" players with high level PCs - or else be a legitimate object of ridicule.




You're misreading it.  He said to balance challenge against reward (ie not Monty Haul), and that the game isn't designed to challenge Christmas Tree PCs.  He didn't actually say Monty Haul was Not Fun (for the players).  

Edit:This is a particularly silly objection to EGG in that his 'balanced item' examples include 2 ogres (hd 4+1) with 2,000gp, and magic weapons in a 1st level dungeon.  His 'careful item placement' is still far more generous than the modern default for treasure placement given in either 3e or 4e!  4e in particular is very stingy by default unless all items are carefully tailored to the PCs. And of course if you use the 1e DMG treasure & NPC gear tables as written you get 5th level PCs running around with +5 swords and belts of storm giant strength.

Edit: I don't see how the merits of Gygaxian advice is relevant to whether Wyatt's advice is bad.  If we want to critique Gygax's advice maybe we could have a new thread?  I'm running a semi-Gygaxian 1e Yggsburgh campaign right now, it might benefit from such a discussion.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 7, 2012)

pemerton said:


> It would be terrible advice if it was prone to produce games that were actually inferior in some way. But where's the evidence for that? I haven't seen any.




Keep on the Shadowfell
(I hear there's an OK bit in Thunderspire Labyrinth)
Pyramid of Shadows 
Assault on Nightwyrm Fortress
E1-E3

A million Dungeon magazine adventures.

Fun Fun Fun = Less Fun.

Edit:  But Jester, I *like* Dungeon Delve.


----------



## LurkAway (Jan 7, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Not me.
> 
> Who reads a contemporary RPG guidebook and gets offended by being told that something they like in their games - non-encounter, non-action driving scenes with gate guards - aren't fun? If you disagree, note the disagreement and move on!
> 
> What I don't get is the complaints that it's "terrible advice."



The OP asks why the "quote is so objectionable". People are responding. What's the problem? If you'd like, someone can start a thread on Gygax's advice and ask why it's objectionable or not -- maybe it's a non-issue (because it's old, because it doesn't try to define "fun") or maybe there are a lot of closet Gygax advice haters, I don't know. I just thought that your comparison of Wyatt's advice in the current DMG to a 30 yr old Gygaxian advice doesn't tell me anything about why people are objecting to Wyatt's advice or not.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 7, 2012)

pemerton said:


> What I don't get is the complaints that it's "terrible advice." What does it matter to anyone that some stranger - whose GMing practice is being shaped by the 4e DMG - might be running games in a different style?



But that is not the point being made.

Do *YOU* run games in which encounters with two guards at a gate are a de facto example of "not fun" and therefore you NEVER do that?

I'm willing to make a large wager that your answer is no.  I doubt there is ANY stranger out there that meets your hypothetical description in the context of the Guards at the Gate quote.

And if there IS one group out there for whom it really is implicitly true that "An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun." then I would say for that specific example the whole dreaded "not D&D" debate comes back into life.  But again I really doubt there is even ONE group out there that fits those words as they were published.

To my point of view the only rational and agreeable conversation on this topic should be something like:
4E Detractor: Man, that was a stupid thing he said
4E Fan: Yeah, but it is just a really poor choice of words.  There is a lot of 4E text out there and they didn't say what they meant.  But it is only a fair criticism of the writing and editing right there, not of the game itself.
4E Detractor: Yeah, but it certainly reflects 4E as I see it's problems.
4E Fan: Its fair that a different perspective can see things in a different way.  But since you don't like 4E your perspective may also prevent you from fairly seeing how that quote has no bearing on the real fun that we do have when playing.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 7, 2012)

The Shaman said:


> Have you ever had to answer the question, "Does this dress make my butt look big?"
> 
> How you say it matters, no matter what your intent may be.










_You will answer my question!  And understand this: how you answer is just as important as correctly answering..._

_Does this armor make my butt look big???_


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 7, 2012)

jonesy said:


> "You look beautiful."
> 
> or
> 
> ...





_Obi-Wan has taught you well.  You have controlled your fear._

_Indeed you are powerful, as the Emperor has foreseen._


*vBulletin is mocking me also.  I so wanted to XP this.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 7, 2012)

_"Are you trying to turn me on? Here? In the store?"_ -- [MENTION=10324]jonesy[/MENTION]


----------



## pauljathome (Jan 7, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Any time a GMing book gives advice on how to run the game, it has to choose one style over another. My point is that there is nothing particularly objectionable about Wyatt's choice of style, beyond the obvious point that some people prefer other styles.




Actually, it doesn't. There are lots of books of GM advice that point out that there are alternative ways of gaming and that different groups and different people prefer different mixes of the alternatives.

And it certainly isn't a matter of space since the addition of one tiny little word "if" would have made the quote quite unobjectionable.

As I said earlier, I have no problem at all with strong advice in a game that is intended for one play style (I used Feng Shui as my example).

But I think that 4th edition D&D should have better tried to support multiple styles.

Fundamentally, I believe THAT is what got people upset. D&D went from openly supporting multiple playing styles to being presented as strongly favouring a subset of those playing styles. And what is quite acceptable for smaller more focussed games was unacceptable to many people for the game that was 90 odd % of our environment


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 7, 2012)

Just you remember, it's not all fun and games for the guards either, sometimes there is danger, sometimes there are... _adventurers!_ 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPXG4pdPj4w]Python Gate[/ame]

The Auld Grump


----------



## S'mon (Jan 7, 2012)

I'm just glad my 2 minutes spent googling for that old pic brought so much joy to so many.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jan 7, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Who reads a contemporary RPG guidebook and gets offended by being told that something they like in their games - non-encounter, non-action driving scenes with gate guards - aren't fun? If you disagree, note the disagreement and move on!



True, I'm not offended by it. I do think it's terrible advice, and certainly less excusable than what Gygax wrote all those years ago before the hobby had even developed. And, I think Gygax gave some terrible advice in his time, too.



pemerton said:


> What I don't get is the complaints that it's "terrible advice." What does it matter to anyone that some stranger - whose GMing practice is being shaped by the 4e DMG - might be running games in a different style? And if those strangers really want to run exploration-heavy games with free-floating colour, I'm sure they'll find there way there regardless of what they might have read in the 4e DMG.
> 
> It would be terrible advice if it was prone to produce games that were actually inferior in some way. But where's the evidence for that? I haven't seen any.



_Because it will produce inferior games if followed for many groups_. It would for my group. It would for others in this thread. While most of us would eventually ignore it, if I had only the DMG to go on, it'd slow down my fun to start out with. It'd actively hamper my fun.

Luckily for me, I started with my older brother getting me into the game. And, luckily for me, I'm pretty intelligent and charismatic (and good looking... I could go on), so when I started GMing myself, I got better pretty quickly (and am probably slowly improving to this day).

However, if I only had the DMG for advice to go on, and I followed the advice that he gives there, I'd be missing out on a type of fun I find fundamentally improves the game for my group. So, in my mind, if advice on Fun actively hampers the Fun I'll be having, it's terrible advice. The logic seems simple to me.

While the play style the advice will produce may work great for a different group, that matters little to giving advice on Fun to the masses. Any sort of objective value judgement on Fun is probably terrible advice, especially if it's declaring a particular common play style better than other common play styles in the hobby. And, not just better, but those other play styles "not fun" in general.

Why you can't see that as terrible advice is beyond me. He's giving advice that would actively hurt Fun for a lot of people if they followed it (passively hurting it might be bad, but actively hurting it makes it terrible, in my opinion). To me, the quality advice of advice should be judged on "what would happen if I followed this?" and not "how easy is it to ignore this?" As always, play what you like


----------



## S'mon (Jan 7, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> True, I'm not offended by it. I do think it's terrible advice, and certainly less excusable than what Gygax wrote all those years ago before the hobby had even developed. And, I think Gygax gave some terrible advice in his time, too.




Yes - I'm not offended, I just think it's terrible advice.

And I agree Gygax gave bad advice too - not on treasure placement; but his admonitions to punish problem players with in-game sanctions like blue bolts from the heavens is not a good idea, IMO.  Also, some of his rules suck - 1e training costs at low level, for instance, are much too high.  Not 'offensive', though, just poor.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jan 7, 2012)

S'mon said:


> Yes - I'm not offended, I just think it's terrible advice.
> 
> And I agree Gygax gave bad advice too - not on treasure placement; but his admonitions to punish problem players with in-game sanctions like blue bolts from the heavens is not a good idea, IMO.  Also, some of his rules suck - 1e training costs at low level, for instance, are much too high.  Not 'offensive', though, just poor.



Yeah, my thoughts on his terrible advice include ethereal mummies and the like (can't XP you again yet). Basically those methods of dealing with problem players, even if his number one suggestion was "don't play with them."


----------



## jonesy (Jan 7, 2012)

_Bunnies! Look, over there!_


----------



## Filcher (Jan 7, 2012)

jonesy said:


> _Bunnies! Look, over there!_




What an awesome image! Where it that from? Sorta looks like a choose your own adventure / lone wolf sort of thing.


----------



## jonesy (Jan 7, 2012)

Filcher said:


> What an awesome image! Where it that from? Sorta looks like a choose your own adventure / lone wolf sort of thing.



You're new in this thread, aren't you? 

It's the Port Blacksand guard from City of Thieves of Fighting Fantasy.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 7, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Who reads a contemporary RPG guidebook and gets offended by being told that something they like in their games - non-encounter, non-action driving scenes with gate guards - aren't fun? If you disagree, note the disagreement and move on!
> 
> What I don't get is the complaints that it's "terrible advice." What does it matter to anyone that some stranger - whose GMing practice is being shaped by the 4e DMG - might be running games in a different style? And if those strangers really want to run exploration-heavy games with free-floating colour, I'm sure they'll find there way there regardless of what they might have read in the 4e DMG.
> 
> It would be terrible advice if it was prone to produce games that were actually inferior in some way. But where's the evidence for that? I haven't seen any.




As to inferiority: I would think that a game made by the leader in the industry, that purposely and officially excludes certain types of gamer styles, officially disparages and marginilizes those styles, and did this profusively throughout it's mechanics and products, as well as throughout it's marketing and the games release, is by definition making an inferior game.

The industry leader, the 800 lb. Gorrilla, making a game and marketing it in a way that alienates a majority of it's potential customer base... A game designed with a narrow style focus (and by default, a narrow customer focus), but being marketed with an expectation of broad acceptance...

Absolute Foolishness.

From a business standpoint, Exclusiveness (at least without an exclusive pricepoint), is _Inferior_ to Inclusiveness. A game that can be all things to all gamers, and excites the _majority_ of it's potential customer base, is quite obviously superior to one that doesn't. If they had made that game, and treated their potential customers in that manner, I highly doubt we would have seen problems on the magnitude of what happened...problems that continue to plague WotC.


As to whether it's silly for people to be offended or not: people were, and James (and WotC at large) could have avoided it completely with a little forethought and reason. Whether one believes such offense is reasonable is moot. Nobody is going to change human nature by extolling how much these offended readers shouldn't feel this way. If one wants to be successful in marketing a new product, then one must acknowledge and work with such factors as this...or suffer the blowback (as WotC undeniably has).


As to whether it was bad advice or not: the release of the last D&D edition has shown us that predominantly, people come into the game by being introduced by those who already play. Also, most groups tend to play the system that their GM prefers. Putting _advice_ in the DMG, that quite obviously signals to GM's that if you don't play by this specific style you are not going to like this game, was beyond foolish. Turning off the majority of the people that are going to be selling this game to their groups... I find that actually goes beyond simply calling it _bad_ advice, and takes it into the realm of foolishness, arrogance, and fiscal suicide.


As to moving on: that seems to be exactly what the majority of the fan/customer base did.


Hopefully, the new class at WotC has learned from the mistakes of the past and their predecessors, when designing and releasing the new edition.




P.S.: I think it's also important to note for the subject of this discussion, that James Wyatt's quote did not occur in a vacuum. It occured in an environment where:

the game was being marketed by criticizing that which came before it (alienating customers that liked what came before it)
customers were being told that their feedback as concerns products (specifically including high res, unlabled maps in adventures) were silly and they really didn't want it or need it (alienating customers that initially bought in to 4E and DDI, but when treated like this told WotC to get stuffed)
pdf's of older editions were pulled with a voiced explanation that customers simply couldn't be trusted to not pirate, and generated suspicion that they were pulled as a business decision to make 4E the only game in town
(and finally) in an environment where promises were made as to DDI support of the game that did not materialize when promised, and to a large extent still hasn't materialized
That quote was not an isolated incident. And I feel offense at it wasn't just reasonable and justified, but should have been expected.


----------



## Brainwatch (Jan 7, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> _You will answer my question!  And understand this: how you answer is just as important as correctly answering..._
> 
> _Does this armor make my butt look big???_





"Turn around and let me see."

<guard turns around>

"Hmm, let me see you walk it in some."

<As the guard starts walking, the sound of someone running away can be heard>


----------



## pemerton (Jan 8, 2012)

S'mon said:


> Keep on the Shadowfell <etc>



These aren't bad (at least in my view) because they don't involve peripheral encounters with gate guards. They're bad because the actual encounters they present are failures - little thematic content, little integration with player interest as expressed via their PCs, etc.



S'mon said:


> You're misreading it.  He said to balance challenge against reward (ie not Monty Haul), and that the game isn't designed to challenge Christmas Tree PCs.  He didn't actually say Monty Haul was Not Fun (for the players).



He did say it's a "crashing bore for most participants" (DMG p 92). He also said that equipping the PCs "should be done before play begins, for it is time consuming, and the readying of a party can require several hours if there are more than six characters involved" (PHB p 107). As I read it (and I've reread it to try and ensure against misreading) this is both (i) a diagnosis of a particular playstyle as unfun, and (ii) an instruction to leave something out. No RPing through 6 hour shopping trips at the 1st ed AD&D by-the-book table!



S'mon said:


> This is a particularly silly objection to EGG <snip> if you use the 1e DMG treasure & NPC gear tables as written you get 5th level PCs running around with +5 swords and belts of storm giant strength.



I'm not objecting to his advice (at least with respect to Monty Haul - personally, I follow it, but I've known groups who didn't and who nevertheless have fun). I'm trying to rebut the contention (express or implied by some (many?) of the critics of Wyatt's advice) that the 4e DMG somehow crosses a new line in D&D by trying to prescribe a playstyle based on a conception of what makes for a fun game.



S'mon said:


> I don't see how the merits of Gygaxian advice is relevant to whether Wyatt's advice is bad.  If we want to critique Gygax's advice maybe we could have a new thread?  I'm running a semi-Gygaxian 1e Yggsburgh campaign right now, it might benefit from such a discussion.



I'll let you start that thread, but am happy to participate - I have some views! (And I think there are very interesting differences between Moldvay Basic, which I started with, and Gygaxian/Pulsipherian AD&D.)

But I'm not here trying to critique Gygax. I'm just pointing out that he did the same thing as Wyatt does, and hence that giving playstyle advice and prescriptions is not new to 4e.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 8, 2012)

BryonD said:


> Do *YOU* run games in which encounters with two guards at a gate are a de facto example of "not fun" and therefore you NEVER do that?



I've never been a big one for running pure colour "encounters" (I'm using inverted commas because, in 4e's sense of the term, these _aren't_ encounters, and these days - with fewer and shorter sessions - even less so. I do sometimes use "encounters" which are not (in 4e's sense) encounters in order to frame or prelude or perhaps foreshadow events.

I have very little pure exploration in my game.



BryonD said:


> Yeah, but it is just a really poor choice of words. There is a lot of 4E text out there and they didn't say what they meant.



I'm happy to concede - as I've frequently contended in other threads in the past - that big chunks of the 4e DMG could be better written. But the quote from Wyatt isn't - in my view - any where near the worst example, and it's general thrust (especially in the context of the other advice in the DMG and the PHB) is pretty clear to me, and I would imagine to most other intelligent readers.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 8, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> _Because it will produce inferior games if followed for many groups_. It would for my group. It would for others in this thread.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Why you can't see that as terrible advice is beyond me. He's giving advice that would actively hurt Fun for a lot of people if they followed it



My advice if you want to see an interesting movie this summer in Australia (I'm not sure what the release schedule in the US is): Lars von Trier's _Melancholia_. Or Almodovar's _The Skin I Live In_.

For some people those movies may not be fun. But objectively speaking, they are well-made movies by leading directors with good actors and interesting themes and plots. Even if you happen not to like those films, my advice is not, in any objective sense, "terrible advice". Neither of them is a stinker.

And non-exporation-focused, situation-based RPGing is not inherently flawed or "unfun".

The real issue is whether Wyatt's advice is bad advice _for actual and prospecive D&D players_.



pauljathome said:


> I have no problem at all with strong advice in a game that is intended for one play style (I used Feng Shui as my example).
> 
> But I think that 4th edition D&D should have better tried to support multiple styles.
> 
> Fundamentally, I believe THAT is what got people upset. D&D went from openly supporting multiple playing styles to being presented as strongly favouring a subset of those playing styles.



I'm one of those who has never found D&D to support these multiple styles very well. AD&D isn't very pluralistic in its text (as I've quoted upthread). I don't remember 3E being pluralistic in its text, but am happy to be reminded!

So for me it seemed not a narrowing of focus but just a change of focus, from exploration (especially dungeon exploration and adventure-path-plotline exploration) to situation. If that's a "terrible" change of focus, the bad-ness consists not in the change in aesthetic focus per se, but in the miscalculation of market consequences. (Which is how I read [MENTION=59506]El Mahdi[/MENTION]'s post above.)


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jan 8, 2012)

pemerton said:


> He did say it's a "crashing bore for most participants" (DMG p 92). He also said that equipping the PCs "should be done before play begins, for it is time consuming, and the readying of a party can require several hours if there are more than six characters involved" (PHB p 107). As I read it (and I've reread it to try and ensure against misreading) this is both (i) a diagnosis of a particular playstyle as unfun, and (ii) an instruction to leave something out. No RPing through 6 hour shopping trips at the 1st ed AD&D by-the-book table!



The first quote is qualified with a "for most participants". That is, he allows for exceptions (though it's definitely a somewhat debatable point). The second is advice on pacing, as far as I can tell, not a comment on what is or is not fun.



pemerton said:


> But I'm not here trying to critique Gygax. I'm just pointing out that he did the same thing as Wyatt does, and hence that giving playstyle advice and prescriptions is not new to 4e.



From your two quotes, above, it looks like he did something different than what Wyatt did. Gygax qualified his statement of what is fun to applying to most people, leaving room for exceptions. Additionally, he gave his view on pacing, which is not an objective value judgement on what Fun is.



pemerton said:


> My advice if you want to see an interesting movie this summer in Australia (I'm not sure what the release schedule in the US is): Lars von Trier's _Melancholia_. Or Almodovar's _The Skin I Live In_.
> 
> For some people those movies may not be fun. But objectively speaking, they are well-made movies by leading directors with good actors and interesting themes and plots. Even if you happen not to like those films, my advice is not, in any objective sense, "terrible advice". Neither of them is a stinker.



Then again, you didn't say "documentaries aren't fun, don't watch them" or the like, did you? In fact, you said "for some people those movies may not be fun" and allowed the possibility to exist. Wyatt didn't. Wyatt didn't say "this play style will result in a satisfying and compelling style of situation/encounter-oriented gaming" or the like. He said something _wasn't fun_. You're comparison is off, in my opinion.



pemerton said:


> And non-exporation-focused, situation-based RPGing is not inherently flawed or "unfun".
> 
> The real issue is whether Wyatt's advice is bad advice _for actual and prospecive D&D players_.



That's definitely a different take on it. I mean, if _any_ of those players would have fun talking to that guard with nothing on the line, he's given terrible advice. Because, by following it, it'd be actively hurting their enjoyment.



pemerton said:


> I'm one of those who has never found D&D to support these multiple styles very well. AD&D isn't very pluralistic in its text (as I've quoted upthread). I don't remember 3E being pluralistic in its text, but am happy to be reminded!



The 3.5 DMG, under _Style of Play_ on page 7, talks about "Kick in the Door", "Deep-Immersion Storytelling", "Something in Between", "Serious versus Humorous", "Naming Conventions", and "Multiple Characters". Later, it goes on to talk about _Motivations_ on page 43, where it talks about "Tailored or Status Quo" "Event-Based Adventures", "Site-Based Adventures", and the like.  

And, I think I can safely say that many people have played all editions of D&D in many different styles, and found that it met their play style just fine. You may not think it supports those styles well, but obviously you'll get people who disagree.



pemerton said:


> So for me it seemed not a narrowing of focus but just a change of focus, from exploration (especially dungeon exploration and adventure-path-plotline exploration) to situation. If that's a "terrible" change of focus, the bad-ness consists not in the change in aesthetic focus per se, but in the miscalculation of market consequences. (Which is how I read [MENTION=59506]El Mahdi[/MENTION]'s post above.)



The change of focus isn't terrible, _calling people's fun "not fun" is terrible advice_, because it'll make the game worse for people he's leaving out. He's not saying "these things are not fun for most players" (which would be debatable enough already). He's saying "these things are not fun; skip them and roll some dice! That's what's fun!"

I feel like you keep trying to shift this to play style, but that's not the objection. Some people object to _one_ style being put forth, yes, but not this particular style. You don't need to defend it. I object to his "this isn't fun; don't do it" advice because it's objectively wrong for some groups, and saying so will detract from their play experience if they follow his advice. El Mahdi thinks that it was a very bad idea to excluding some of the player base from a business standpoint. Pauljathome doesn't like one style getting explicitly supported without support for other styles.

Nobody, as far as I can tell, is saying "a situation/encounter-based style is not fun" in this thread (but please correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think you need to defend it. I don't think, however, that Mr. Wyatt's quote is very defendable from where I stand, though. As always, play what you like


----------



## BryonD (Jan 8, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I've never been a big one for running pure colour "encounters" (I'm using inverted commas because, in 4e's sense of the term, these _aren't_ encounters, and these days - with fewer and shorter sessions - even less so. I do sometimes use "encounters" which are not (in 4e's sense) encounters in order to frame or prelude or perhaps foreshadow events.
> 
> I have very little pure exploration in my game.



Please clarify.  Are you saying that "An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun." is a de facto true statement in your games or not.  That was the question and your answer is a little cagey.



> I'm happy to concede - as I've frequently contended in other threads in the past - that big chunks of the 4e DMG could be better written. But the quote from Wyatt isn't - in my view - any where near the worst example, and it's general thrust (especially in the context of the other advice in the DMG and the PHB) is pretty clear to me, and I would imagine to most other intelligent readers.



Hey, again, you are playing a bit of bait and switch.  I made no claim that this was the only example or that it was even the worst.  Frankly, I wouldn't consider myself adequately expert in every detail of what is written in 4E.

What I DID say was that you can't defend THIS quote without turning it into something that isn't actually there and THIS quote also speaks directly to what many people find really lacking in 4E overall.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 8, 2012)

BryonD said:


> Please clarify.  Are you saying that "An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun." is a de facto true statement in your games or not.  That was the question and your answer is a little cagey.
> 
> Hey, again, you are playing a bit of bait and switch.  I made no claim that this was the only example or that it was even the worst.  Frankly, I wouldn't consider myself adequately expert in every detail of what is written in 4E.
> 
> What I DID say was that you can't defend THIS quote without turning it into something that isn't actually there and THIS quote also speaks directly to what many people find really lacking in 4E overall.




I certainly agree strongly with your first paragraph.  He said what he said.


----------



## the Jester (Jan 8, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I'm not objecting to his advice (at least with respect to Monty Haul - personally, I follow it, but I've known groups who didn't and who nevertheless have fun). I'm trying to rebut the contention (express or implied by some (many?) of the critics of Wyatt's advice) that the 4e DMG somehow crosses a new line in D&D by trying to prescribe a playstyle based on a conception of what makes for a fun game.
> 
> >snip<
> 
> But I'm not here trying to critique Gygax. I'm just pointing out that he did the same thing as Wyatt does, and hence that giving playstyle advice and prescriptions is not new to 4e.




Has someone actually argued this in this thread? If so, I've missed it.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 9, 2012)

the Jester said:


> Has someone actually argued this in this thread? If so, I've missed it.



A couple of people upthread said it was new for D&D rulebooks to be prescriptive in their approach to playstyle. Reynard, in particular (post 236), said it was offensive and not D&D to do so.



JamesonCourage said:


> The 3.5 DMG, under _Style of Play_ on page 7, talks about "Kick in the Door", "Deep-Immersion Storytelling", "Something in Between", "Serious versus Humorous", "Naming Conventions", and "Multiple Characters".



This sort of stuff is in the 4e DMG, which at pp 6-13 talks about player preferences (storytelling, powergaming, etc), game "mood" (gritty, humourous, etc), and the like. Naming conventions are discussed on p 14. 

4e is not prescriptive as to this sort of stuff - except perhpas a certain interpretation of "Deep-Immersion Storytelling", namely, exploration-focused immersive play.



BryonD said:


> Please clarify.  Are you saying that "An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun." is a de facto true statement in your games or not.



Well, that's a tricky question, isn't it. _Were I to run such an encounter_, for whatever reason, then I would endeavour to make it entertaining for my players. But if the question is - Do I tend not to run such encounters, on account of finding them boring, then the answer is that I do not tend to run such encounters, because I find them boring.

The last time that I remember actually framing and engaging in an encounter with gate guards was several years ago - probably about 2005 or 2006. The PCs (a group of high-level samurai plus entourage) were trying to establish control over a pirate city. The NPC captain of a group of soldiers at one of the city ward gate houses challenged one of the PCs when he tried to enter the ward. A duel was fought and the PC won. This contributed to the PCs' endeavours.

More recently - about six months ago or so - the PCs were pursuing an enemy and followed her to a city. As per the module I was using (Night's Dark Terror) I had notes on what they might learn from talking to the gate guards, but no such talking took place. I think the exchange with the guards was limited to a "who goes there" from the guards, and a "Lord Derrik, warpriest of Moradin - make way for him and his entourage" in reply from the PCs self-appointed herald. The PCs had just reached paragon tier, and it was an opportunity to flag this with a bit of colour.

Do you think this is an instance of "telling the players they get through the gate without much trouble" (as per Wyatt, p 105) or not? I do, but am happy to be contradicted.

The time before that when the PCs entered a city - with many refugees from goblin-ravaged villages and homesteads - I don't remember if gates were even mentioned. I do recall that the whole town episode - arranging with temples to care for the refugees, shopping and inventory matters, talking to the baron of the town and getting horses, etc - was confined to two hours or so of play, which I was very pleased with given past experiences of such things blowing out.



BryonD said:


> What I DID say was that you can't defend THIS quote without turning it into something that isn't actually there



You mean by reading in a "usually" or "typically" (as appears in the following sentence)? Or a more dramatic reading in? Am {I allowed to read it in the contex of PHB p 9, "Whenever you decide that your character wants to talk to a person or monster, it's a noncombat encounter"?

To me, this _is_ illustrative of the inadequacies of the guidelines in the 4e rulebooks. The DMG, and most of the PHB, is written under the apparent assumption that while either the GM or the players set quests, the GM sets the encounters that feed into those quests (in Forge terminology, the books seem to assume that the GM has situational authority). But page 9, in saying that whenever a _player_ decides to have his/her PC talk to an NPC it is an encounter, seems to be giving the _players_ a degree of situational authority.

There are ways of sorting this out. Here are three, each of which I sometimes use:

*the extreme metagame approach, of telling the players "move on, there's nothing to see here";

*the traditional ingame approach, of making it very clear fvia interaction with a quest-irrelevant NPC that the NPC has nothing useful to offer (there are variants here, too, like requiring Insight checks and the like, or feeding the players the relevant signals without requiring such checks);

*the "no myth" approach of changing the backstory behind the scenes so that the NPC the players are interested in suddenly gets dealt into things, sending the game off in a new direction.​
But the 4e books don't even canvass these sorts of options, let alone advise which ones the designers envisaged the players of their game actually using.



BryonD said:


> THIS quote also speaks directly to what many people find really lacking in 4E overall.



Of course. Because this quote speaks to 4e's character as a non-exploration-focused game. Which is what, it seems, many dislike about 4e. S'mon put it like this, and I agree:



S'mon said:


> No, he was saying to skip exploratory play to get to the Encounter - which could be combat, a skill challenge, or a puzzle, AIR from the DMG.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jan 9, 2012)

pemerton said:


> This sort of stuff is in the 4e DMG, which at pp 6-13 talks about player preferences (storytelling, powergaming, etc), game "mood" (gritty, humourous, etc), and the like. Naming conventions are discussed on p 14.
> 
> 4e is not prescriptive as to this sort of stuff - except perhpas a certain interpretation of "Deep-Immersion Storytelling", namely, exploration-focused immersive play.



That's good. It should be in the DMG. Wyatt's quote in the OP shouldn't be, at least not in the form it's in.

Keep in mind, though, that I was replying to your statement that you didn't remember 3e being pluralistic in its text. I was reminding you, like you asked for.

I'm also kinda noting that you didn't reply to the rest of my post. Do you understand the difference between what you're defending (situation-focused play being explicitly supported), and what's being attacked (Wyatt calling people's fun "not fun")? And, do you really feel like you need to defend that style when it's not being called "terrible"?  As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Jan 9, 2012)

Aberzanzorax said:


> But then a great thing happened...He had gotten a very cool bridge setpiece...it was BEGGING for an encounter. He'd shown it to us opon arrival and we were all looking forward to a bridge encounter.
> 
> He put the bridge out...the wizard and priest cast some buff spells, we changed our marching order, the thief hid, etc.
> 
> ...



I don't mind the sort of metagaming you describe. In fact, these days I almost actively encourage it! I find it helps he game run more smoothly.

It depends a bit on the game system coping with metagaming. 4e's low-scrying, low-buff set of PC abilities works better for this - when the bridge comes out, for example, the players anticipate a fight but there's nothing in particular their PCs can do that provides a mechanical benefit from the metagaming. (Not that I use minis or terrain, just paper maps and boardgame tokens - but when I pull out "a map that I prepared earlier", my players start warming up their dice!).



Aberzanzorax said:


> The other important component of empty rooms is adding flavor and a sense of security. It's done in horror movies all the time...the excitement level (or fun level in gaming) must wax and wane



I find real life does this adequately - between non-play stuff like food and toilet breaks, wrangling kids, shuffling through papers, etc, and also the record-keeping aspects of play like rests, equipping, the players comparing notes on whose PC has the highest skill bonus, etc, I don't feel much need to play through fictional down time as well.



Aberzanzorax said:


> I'll use a thanksgiving dinner analogy for this. Encounters may be the main dish...the roast turkey, if you will. But no one wants JUST turkey on thanksgiving. There are usually numerous side dishes. Overdoing the best thing without interspersing other interesting (even if they're not AS interesting) flavors results in a bland and boring experience.



For me, this just highlights the difference between real, lived life, and the ficitonal life of the PCs. I'm sure _the PCs_, in their imaginary world, enjoy some down with their up. But my players, in our real world, come to the game for a bit of up. They don't need to play through their PCs' down.

Once upon a time, as a GM, I used to keep my best or most dramatic in reserve. I've since formed the view that that was a mistake. I think my game has improved since I've done my best to maximise the dramatic (within my own limits as a creator of dramatic situations).



Aberzanzorax said:


> Also, experienced dms will give the advice that "empty rooms _matter._" This is more than just empty rooms, it includes an attack from lvl 1 brigands when the players are lvl 10, or a moment describing the music playing in the bar to set atmosphere, or perhaps even a 2 hour journey into a mountain tunnel (where there is maybe 5 minutes of description of the incredible depth to which they've travelled, the lack of light, the feelings of heaviness above them, etc.



Personally I don't do too much of this stuff. I try to move through empty rooms pretty quickly. And I don't do a lot of verbal description of the sort you mention - I'm not a particularly skilled narrator, and I tend to find it gets lost on the players - if I want to convey this sort of stuff, I try to pick it up and make it matter in the context of action resolution. 



Aberzanzorax said:


> No one wants to walk into a room and it's truly just "you see an empty room...noting else, just an empty room." An empty room can be thick with dust (or have been recently swept), it can be damp and dank and smelly, or scented like fresh loam.



In my session yesterday, the PCs finished exploring "The Tower of Mystery", a slighly-modified version of the last section of H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth (modified to 14th level, to fit a change in Paldemar's motivation from the slightly boring module backstory, and because I made a mapping error in drawing up my battle maps).

There were five empty rooms. One was an empty bedroom. Because the PCs went into it first, it created a nice contrast with the other bedroom which had enemy mages in it - in an earlier encounter one of the players had worked out that there were mages firing spells through magical pillars, and once the PCs had examined the empty bedroom this player worked out that the other unexplored door must lead to the room with the mages. He was right, and it made for an interesting little encounter.

It was only good fortune, though, that the PCs went to the empty room first. In retrospect, I should have been prepared to run it so that, whichever door the PCs went to, the empty room was behind that (in order to create the build up to the mage enconter).

One empty room was a storeroom. It was in there just for verisimilitude, and took probably two minutes of play to resolve. Another was a straw-filled holding pen. The module writer hadn't put anything useful in there, so I ad-libbed that it smelled still of Thunderhawk (the tower is floating in the Elemental Chaos). Now the wild mage PC wants to track down and tame that Thunderhawk. This took probably about five minutes of play to resolve.

The other two empty rooms were a library and a laboratory. Both of these were really noncombat encounters - the library being a source of information, but with the puzzle of bypassing the secret page on the books, and the challenge of phsycially getting all the books out of the tower and back to the PCs home base; and the laboratory containing a Fluxx Slaad head floating in a vat of acid with various mechanical, chemical and arcane processes going on, which again was a source of information and puzzles (and speculation, also, as to whether it could be moved out of the tower and back to home base).



Aberzanzorax said:


> As has been stated, it's the extremity of the statement, but beyond that, it's ignoring a more exploratory (some might say sandboxy) style of play that D&D has always done quite well. There is no reason 4e can't do this just as well as any other edition, but the quote posits that this isn't the right way to play.



My own view is that 4e doesn't do exploratory play as well as other games, because it doesn't give the mechanical support for such play in its action resolution mechanics, but I think my opinion on this may be a minority one.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 9, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> Do you understand the difference between what you're defending (situation-focused play being explicitly supported), and what's being attacked (Wyatt calling people's fun "not fun")? And, do you really feel like you need to defend that style when it's not being called "terrible"?



I don't think it's terrible to call "not fun" a type of play that some find fun. Just as I don't thin it's terrible to call "good" a film that some - including respected film critics like David Stratton - find "not good" (I'm thinking here of Melancholia).

To elaborate. The audience for Wyatt's comment can be split into two parts: those who already play RPGs, and those who don't. Those who do can interpret, adjust or ignore his advice based on their own prior experience. It seems unlikely they will be led astray by it. Those who are new to RPGs presumably will follow his advice in running their games. And given that it is good advice for a highly playable form of RPGing, they can expect to get highly playable games. This doesn't seem terrible to me.

If I've understood it rightly, your concern is that some who are new to RPGs, and who take his advice, might not find their way to a playstyle that, it turns out, they would actually prefer. My view is that is a risk in any activity whose purpose is primarily aesthetic. It's not terrible, in my view, for an author or critic to express a view. Particularly, in the case of 4e, when the playstyle that he describes as fun is the playstyle that the ruleset is aimed at supporting.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jan 9, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I don't think it's terrible to call "not fun" a type of play that some find fun. Just as I don't thin it's terrible to call "good" a film that some - including respected film critics like David Stratton - find "not good" (I'm thinking here of Melancholia).



I think there's a marked difference between saying "this is a good thing" in regards to your opinion, and "this isn't fun, this is bad thing, don't do it" when showing someone how to do something when it's known that many people find that particular action fun.



pemerton said:


> To elaborate. The audience for Wyatt's comment can be split into two parts: those who already play RPGs, and those who don't. Those who do can interpret, adjust or ignore his advice based on their own prior experience. It seems unlikely they will be led astray by it. Those who are new to RPGs presumably will follow his advice in running their games. And given that it is good advice for a highly playable form of RPGing, they can expect to get highly playable games. This doesn't seem terrible to me.
> 
> If I've understood it rightly, your concern is that some who are new to RPGs, and who take his advice, might not find their way to a playstyle that, it turns out, they would actually prefer. My view is that is a risk in any activity whose purpose is primarily aesthetic. It's not terrible, in my view, for an author or critic to express a view. Particularly, in the case of 4e, when the playstyle that he describes as fun is the playstyle that the ruleset is aimed at supporting.



I'm saying that if his advice actively hurts fun for players, it's terrible advice. And his advice would certainly do that for my group (at least in regards to gate guards, and not skipping the unfun stuff).

New players need guidance (preferably from people that already play the game and can show them). The DMG should provide them with fun ways to play. That should include nods to different styles (which the 4e DMG does, which is good), and it _should not_ include ruling out what might be fun for people (which the DMG does, which is terrible advice).

The advice most certainly will lead many people to play a very enjoyable gaming experience that the system supports. There's no justifiable reason, however, to say "you're having fun wrong" while trying to talk about a style the game mechanics support. Absolutely none. Say, "the game wasn't made to support this style" if you want to, or "we didn't intend the game to support this style" if that's more accurate. Saying "this style isn't fun, don't do it", however, is just plain inexcusable.

I guess you disagree, but I feel like you keep making comparisons that aren't lined up at all, and keep defending a point that's not being attacked. That makes it hard to tell what you think on this, honestly. As always, play what you like


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 9, 2012)

pemerton said:


> There were five empty rooms. One was an empty bedroom. Because the PCs went into it first, it created a nice contrast with the other bedroom which had enemy mages in it - in an earlier encounter one of the players had worked out that there were mages firing spells through magical pillars, and once the PCs had examined the empty bedroom this player worked out that the other unexplored door must lead to the room with the mages. He was right, and it made for an interesting little encounter.
> 
> It was only good fortune, though, that the PCs went to the empty room first. In retrospect, I should have been prepared to run it so that, whichever door the PCs went to, the empty room was behind that (in order to create the build up to the mage enconter).




Before I say anything else, I wanna say this:

I kinda, sorta, consider you my 4e mentor.


I think you "get" 4e in the way I need to "get it" and have yet to find it. Every single time I read a post of yours, it benefits me in understanding something akin to a foreign language. 

I've only ever played 4e, and never DMed it for reasons of not feeling comfortable as well as reasons of taste.


Here, now, is the something else: 
While I think you understand gaming as well as (in fact better than) I do, I don't think you'd do well in meeting the needs of myself and my gaming group unless you were to adjust your style.


I appreciate your candor with the inclusion of (and importance of) the empty room.

The real difference between our gaming styles is one that our players would never notice on game one, or game two....but certainly by game 20.

I strongly disagree with intentionally putting the empty room earlier as pacing in order for players to potentially benefit later. I think it is excellent in a gaming/storytelling/cinematic movie style, and don't begrudge that.

I would allow for the potentiality of stumbling on an awesome clue, having an ability to get that awesome clue (e.g. find secret doors, dwarven stone sense, good thief roll, total dumb luck, whatever).

I find my games more exciting and fun when players feel as though they've discovered something as PLAYERS (see also the charasmatic player thread et al) rather than as story pacing for their characters.

It's even better for them when this discovery is enhanced by their character roles, personalities, and attributes (i.e. Dr. Radiana Jonessa discovers a clue because of her abilities rather than because of pacing dictating it).

I'm not saying pacing is BAD...but I'm saying it's a part of a different gaming style. 

Thing is, all games deserve good pacing, but the heavy or light handedness of it, and the degree to which it impacts the "game" versus the "story" is a variable.



Pemerton, I always assume the best about your games, because, frankly....I have no reason not to, and because it always seems like your games are grounded in a lot of good creativitiy, theory, and fact.


I'll just argue against the importance of placing the "clue room" ahead of the "real room" every time, as a part of my own style.

I think it is more rewarding for players when they find a clue room if it's a bit less (forgive me here) spoon fed to them.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 9, 2012)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I kinda, sorta, consider you my 4e mentor.



That's very generous. (And so is the rest of your post.)

I only came into this thread because you mentioned me in an earlier post.



Aberzanzorax said:


> While I think you understand gaming as well as (in fact better than) I do, I don't think you'd do well in meeting the needs of myself and my gaming group unless you were to adjust your style.



That could well be true. I think it's very hard to judge these things on a messageboard, and I swing back and forth.

Sometimes I think that these discussions about playstyle exaggerate differences that may not be so apparent in the real world of playing a game at a table. But then I read posts (although I haven't got any particular posts in mind at present) that make me think that some people really do have different ways of playing.

The main difference for me, between the way I GM 4e and the way I've GMed more "mainstream" (simulationist, exploration-focused) RPGs in the past, is that in 4e I have to exercise less discretion as a GM in toggling the mechanics on and off in the interests of pacing/structure. In all sorts of ways (the rest rules are just one example, the skill challenge rules another) it facilitates the "closing" of scenes without them dragging on with no natural, mechanically-delivered stopping point. (And I don't like the GM-override aspect of just suspending the rules. It also tends to produce the metagaming issues your model bridge example discussed.)

This is what I was hoping for from 4e when the preview conversations were happening, and as far as I'm concerned the game has delivered. And so it was with these sorts of hopes and expectations in mind that I read Wyatt's DMG, and it is with the confirmation of experience that I reread it. And one thing I see him saying - and, for me, the most important thing - is that not everything that happens to the PCs is part of play. Not everything engages the action resolution mechanics. Some things are just colour, and the GM should cheerfully (and quickly) free-narrate through them. The implication - cashed out in other parts of the rules - is that this will not disempower but _empower_ players, because they will get to make the choices where the real action is - and those choices will contribute colour, but not only colour.

(There _is _the incoherence I mentioned in response to BryonD about who has authority over framing situations. I don't think I've ever said that the game as presented is perfect!)



Aberzanzorax said:


> I appreciate your candor with the inclusion of (and importance of) the empty room.



No worries. I'm always happy to talk about my play experiences. (Naturally, I try to present them in a favourable light! - in particular, I edit out most of the kid-wrangling, which can spoil all structure and pacing. Of course, Wyatt's DMG tells me to hire a babysitter, but having the kids with me has become integral to my RPG experience - for me and two other players, taking the kids with us is part of the quid quo pro for the "RPG widowhood" of our partners.)



Aberzanzorax said:


> The real difference between our gaming styles is one that our players would never notice on game one, or game two....but certainly by game 20.



For my group, game 20 is a year later, and in that time there will have been enough variation in encounter/scenario structure, tropes etc that any recognised resemblence will serve the purposes of nostalgia rather than repetition.



Aberzanzorax said:


> I strongly disagree with intentionally putting the empty room earlier as pacing in order for players to potentially benefit later.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I agree with all this except for the first paragraph. It makes me revise my earlier comment - _given that one of the players had worked out there were hidden mages behind one of the two unexplored doors_, I should not have left it to chance that the doors be inspected in the suspense-building order.

The discovery was made by the player - who paid attention to how the spell-channelling pillars worked in the earlier encounter. And it was part of that player's PC's role/character - he is the scholar-mage who is the weakest PC in combat but their out-of-combat go-to-guy for all things mysterious and magical.

All of this, as you say, contributed to the nice way in which the sequence played out. If it had been different - no anticipation, or anticipation due to a different player working out, the pacing considerations would have been different (and, on the whole, less urgent, because less would have been at stake for just the reasons you give).



JamesonCourage said:


> That makes it hard to tell what you think on this, honestly.



I think what I'm saying - that the Wyatt quote is not terrible advice, and not outrageous.

As I posted a little bit above, I agree with BryonD that the quote captures what many don't like about 4e. But that is because of what 4e is. It's not anything specially objectionable about the quote.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jan 9, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I think what I'm saying - that the Wyatt quote is not terrible advice, and not outrageous.
> 
> As I posted a little bit above, I agree with BryonD that the quote captures what many don't like about 4e. But that is because of what 4e is. It's not anything specially objectionable about the quote.



In my opinion, there's something obviously wrong with giving objective advice on Fun that would actively hurt enjoyment for many players. If that doesn't affect your view at all, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Which is fine, of course. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Jan 9, 2012)

I guess I don't feel that it's _objective_ advice in any objectionable fashion. Most recommendations as to fun/pleasure are, in some sense, relative or otherwise open to reasonable disagreement. (Recommendations as to quality may be a different matter, though I'm not 100% sure. This is why I personally find the Gygax material, which talks about quality - "skill" - rather than pleasure - "fun" - stronger in their claims.)

I'm probably also a bit more doubtful about the amount of "hurting enjoyment" that is going to follow, because (i) I think most of those whose enjoyment might be hurt will ignore it either from the get go, or in short order as they work their way through the game, and (ii) I suspect the amount of new players who follow the advice slavishly, _and_ would prefer exploratory to situation-focused play to a signficiant extent, is not particularly large. Perhaps this intuition is just projection from my own case, however.


----------



## Iosue (Jan 9, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> In my opinion, there's something obviously wrong with giving objective advice on Fun that would actively hurt enjoyment for many players.



I agree, and I suspect just about everybody here would.  I think the point of contention is whether Wyatt's statement qualifies as the above.  First, I think we can largely agree that the overall point of that entire passage was, "Skip boring parts, go to fun parts."  That's not bad advice.  At least not advice that would hurt enjoyment for many players.  Okay, so he is says, in the course of that, "An encounter with guards at a gate is not fun."  I think we can generally all agree that the kind of encounter he's talking about is pure color and setting, not "adventure relevant".  So, now we have Wyatt specifically advising people not to role play color/setting encounters with guards.  Now the question is, how many are going to take that literally?  As in, for the entire time they play 4e, they completely fast forward all "gate guard" scenarios.  My guess is, probably not that many.  But let's assume many do.  Some will be folks who don't find that kind of color/setting roleplaying particularly interesting, so no fun ruined for them.  Some will be folks who do find it interesting, and I think pemerton's point is that if folks do find that interesting, _they will naturally put it in their game_, even if they follow Wyatt to the letter and never do it with guards.  So, I think it's highly unlikely they will miss out on a lot of fun.

Realistically, it was just one line out of a larger context on game pacing.  I don't imagine any new DMs took that specific example to heart, much less literally.  I can see a veteran player/DM just not liking the way the passage is written, as a subjective gut reaction.  I don't share that reaction, but I can understand it.  But I can't buy the passage, taken as part of the whole DMG, doing harm to newbie DMs, let alone that single line.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 9, 2012)

[MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION], agreed (but can't XP you at this time).

And what I think Wyatt is really advising against is a phenomenon I've encountered, and one [MENTION=37277]Mercutio01[/MENTION] appears to have encountered (judging from posts upthread) and one I think that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has also encountered (if I remember previous threads correctly), namely, of GMs "forcing" players to play though pure colour/setting encounters.

I put "forcing" in inverted commas because the degree of force, in a roleplaying context, naturally is limited - it's overall a consensual activity. But with that qualification on how forceful the force is, this is a real phenomenon that I've encountered as a player, and I think advising against it is good advice.

If everyone at the table (not just the GM) is up for it, then it will happen regardless of Wyatt's advice to GMs - are GM's who have read Wyatt's DMG, including the stuff about knowing and responding to your players, and who have players _expressing the desire_ to spend time on pure colour/setting encounters, really going to refuse to roleplay the guards, at least for a few minutes?


----------



## Hussar (Jan 9, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> Gygax never tried to tell me to leave something out of my game because it wasn't fun.




I'm sorry, but, have you actually read the AD&D DMG?  Because EGG tells you all sorts of things that aren't fun.  Acting in character, a la "amateur thespianism" is a good example of something that isn't fun according to EGG and should get kicked to the curb.

I'm sure others with much better knowledge of the AD&D DMG can find lots more quotes of things that I personally find enjoyable in RPG's being called unfun by Mr. Gygax.

-------------

At the risk of bringing up yet another touchy quote from WOTC, I have to think that if the most fun thing you did in your last gaming session was talk to a guard at the gate, your game is perhaps not as fun as it could be.  Now, I could be totally off base here.  Perhaps the guard was as entertaining as our mascot picture in this thread, a source of scintillating wit worthy of Oscar Wilde.  

Maybe.

But, I'm more inclined to think maybe not.

And, really, think about the real world for a second.  Think of the last time you went through a security check, maybe at an airport trying to fly out on holidays.  Would you describe the experience as:

a) fun
b) exciting
c) interesting
d) somewhere in the vicinity of Purgatory and about as fun and interesting and exciting as watching paint dry

So, why would you think that the same experience in someone's fantasy game would be any different?  Sure, if it's a three minute thing no problem - it adds color.  But, as Pemerton mentioned above, I've played in way too many games where this scene could easily take an hour of game time.

No thanks.

Although, funnily enough, I just did a scene with a gate guard in our last D&D game.    But, it was a planned encounter.  It was the first session of a new campaign and I needed a way to introduce the characters and give the players a chance to describe themselves and establish a bit about their characters.  So, entering the gate and having to talk to the guard solved that need and gave me a chance to inject a bit of local color at the same time.

And, it did take a bit of time.  But, you can be guaranteed that it won't happen again.  I will not force them to play through passing through the gate the next time.  It will be hand waved and no problem.  The encounter served its purpose.

So, I'm following Wyatt's advice.  And, y'know what?  It works pretty well.  Skip the stuff that doesn't really matter and get to the meat.  Maybe if I played longer sessions I might have a different opinion, but, I doubt it.  

Like I said earlier, if the most interesting thing you did in last night's session was talk to the gate guard... well, if it's fun for you, go for it.  But, I'd never advise a new player to follow in your footsteps.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 9, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I'm sorry, but, have you actually read the AD&D DMG?  Because EGG tells you all sorts of things that aren't fun.  Acting in character, a la "amateur thespianism" is a good example of something that isn't fun according to EGG and should get kicked to the curb.
> 
> I'm sure others with much better knowledge of the AD&D DMG can find lots more quotes of things that I personally find enjoyable in RPG's being called unfun by Mr. Gygax.




I don't have a bunch of quotes at the ready, but you are absolutely correct that Mr. Gygax had all kinds of issues with "right and wrong" ways of playing.  And it even gets to points that he seemed to contradict himself at times depending on the mood or target audience.

I say that with a ton of respect for the groundbreaking that Gary brought us.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 9, 2012)

pauljathome said:


> In 1980 odd D&D was very definitely still massively dominated by dungeon crawls. Compared to today there was comparatively little roleplaying, comparatively little urban or nature oriented adventures. Heck, most groups would never even find a town let alone a guard .




I find your generalizations to be inaccurate.



JamesonCourage said:


> However, if I only had the DMG for advice to go on, and I followed the advice that he gives there, I'd be missing out on a type of fun I find fundamentally improves the game for my group. So, in my mind, if advice on Fun actively hampers the Fun I'll be having, it's terrible advice. The logic seems simple to me.




Logically, if *all* you had was Wyatt's advice to go on and decided to follow his advice literally, you would miss out on a type of fun your group _would_ enjoy. But since you wouldn't have the other formative experiences that shape what you like in a game today, you wouldn't realize the fun you're missing. Your game could still be 100% fun for your group, even if you omitted other types of fun.


----------



## LurkAway (Jan 9, 2012)

After reading the 5E announcements and a focus on inclusivity, this now feels like kicking a dead horse.








_"Have you heard the news? There's a new mayor in town, and I might be fun again!"_


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jan 9, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I'm probably also a bit more doubtful about the amount of "hurting enjoyment" that is going to follow, because (i) I think most of those whose enjoyment might be hurt will ignore it either from the get go, or in short order as they work their way through the game



As I said, I tend to look at the quality of advice from the perspective of "what would happen if I followed this?" and not "what would happen if I ignored this?" If I followed that advice, it'd actively hurt my fun (and a couple others in this thread), so I consider his fairly objective value statement on Fun pretty terrible. More on objectivity below. As always, play what you like 



Iosue said:


> I agree, and I suspect just about everybody here would.  I think the point of contention is whether Wyatt's statement qualifies as the above.  First, I think we can largely agree that the overall point of that entire passage was, "Skip boring parts, go to fun parts."  That's not bad advice.  At least not advice that would hurt enjoyment for many players.



I agree that's what he's trying to get at, and I agree that it's pretty good advice. When asked about the OP, however, he _says what's not fun_ (which _is_ an objective value judgement on Fun).



Iosue said:


> Okay, so he is says, in the course of that, "An encounter with guards at a gate is not fun."  I think we can generally all agree that the kind of encounter he's talking about is pure color and setting, not "adventure relevant".  So, now we have Wyatt specifically advising people not to role play color/setting encounters with guards.



This also assumes a play style of "going from adventure to adventure." My players are currently in a sandbox, and interacting with the setting is extremely important to our style (I've made two posts in this thread where the players spent time engaging in activity in the setting when there was nothing on the line whatsoever, and they did so proactively).

I have no objection to him saying "here is this style of play, and here's what works for it." I _do_ object to him saying "play in this style; this style isn't fun. Skip it."



Iosue said:


> Now the question is, how many are going to take that literally?  As in, for the entire time they play 4e, they completely fast forward all "gate guard" scenarios.  My guess is, probably not that many.



I'd posit that you don't need to take it literally for it to actively harm fun. He's saying the play style that includes interacting with the setting / color just for the fun of it _isn't Fun_, and that _you shouldn't do it_. If we're not taking him literally (he's not talking about only gate guards), then that's what he means by those examples. "There's nothing on the line, so it's not fun; skip it and get to a place where something is on the line, where dice will get rolled, where the Fun is!"

I just can't disagree enough with this being seen as good or even mediocre  advice.



Iosue said:


> But let's assume many do.  Some will be folks who don't find that kind of color/setting roleplaying particularly interesting, so no fun ruined for them.  Some will be folks who do find it interesting, and I think pemerton's point is that if folks do find that interesting, _they will naturally put it in their game_, even if they follow Wyatt to the letter and never do it with guards.  So, I think it's highly unlikely they will miss out on a lot of fun.



I just can't accept this line of reasoning. It's "if it applies, it'll help the game and it's good, and if it doesn't, it'll get ignored, so it's not bad." That doesn't line up, to me.

If I say "cut all ties to everyone you care about and you'll find contentment" then my advice is pretty terrible for everyone that it would actively hurt. Which would be many, many people. We judge the quality of advice on what it would do if we followed it, and I find applying that to one group and not the group that it would hurt to be... misleading, I guess.

There's a difference between harmless advice and terrible advice. They are by no means mutually exclusive, however.



Iosue said:


> Realistically, it was just one line out of a larger context on game pacing.  I don't imagine any new DMs took that specific example to heart, much less literally.  I can see a veteran player/DM just not liking the way the passage is written, as a subjective gut reaction.  I don't share that reaction, but I can understand it.  But I can't buy the passage, taken as part of the whole DMG, doing harm to newbie DMs, let alone that single line.



Again, I don't know who's asserted that it's greatly harming new DMs. I'm saying that if followed, it'll hurt many groups have a more enjoyable experience. I'm saying that it hedges into "terrible advice" territory when the advice is laid out as an objective view on fun ("this play style is bad [interacting with the setting / color for the fun of it], skip to this style, where it's fun!").

So, I'm not trying to convince you that it's hurting a lot of new players. I'm saying -in response to the OP asking how the advice is objectionable- that it's terrible advice because of what it is on its face. As always, play what you like 




Hussar said:


> And, really, think about the real world for a second.  Think of the last time you went through a security check, maybe at an airport trying to fly out on holidays.  Would you describe the experience as:
> 
> a) fun
> b) exciting
> ...



To be fair, most people wouldn't consider fighting for their lives as a lot of fun, either. Or killing people. Or losing. All of these things are valued in D&D, and in RPGs in general.



Hussar said:


> So, I'm following Wyatt's advice.  And, y'know what?  It works pretty well.  Skip the stuff that doesn't really matter and get to the meat.  Maybe if I played longer sessions I might have a different opinion, but, I doubt it.
> 
> Like I said earlier, if the most interesting thing you did in last night's session was talk to the gate guard... well, if it's fun for you, go for it.  But, I'd never advise a new player to follow in your footsteps.



I don't think anybody here has said that it won't be fun for any groups (or even many groups). I'm glad following the advice works for you. I'm also positive that, on average, new players would very much enjoy my game, and my play style, as every new player has enjoyed it quite immensely (again, I've never had a player leave because of it, and I've kicked a few out).

I'd think that making an objective value judgement on how to achieve Fun not being in the DMG should be base. Saying, "many people find this style fun, and this is what we'd suggest" is fine. Saying, "this style is fun, play it; this style of fun isn't fun, skip it" is not fine, in my opinion. It's fairly inexcusable. As always, play what you like 



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Logically, if *all* you had was Wyatt's advice to go on and decided to follow his advice literally, you would miss out on a type of fun your group _would_ enjoy. But since you wouldn't have the other formative experiences that shape what you like in a game today, you wouldn't realize the fun you're missing. Your game could still be 100% fun for your group, even if you omitted other types of fun.



... is that really a defense? If a child gets to play with string because he has some fun, but is never introduced to playing outside and getting dirty, riding a bike, playing with other kids, video games, or any recreational activity, it's fine, because he doesn't know better? Especially if my reasoning to all children is "don't do those things, because they're not fun"?

It's a pretty extreme example that is certainly filled with hyperbole (the "string = situation-focused play" is certainly unfair), but that's kind of the point: _don't say one style is Fun, and these styles aren't_. You'll be wrong to many people. Saying, "well, they wouldn't know any better anyways" is laughable reasoning, to me (I do apologize for saying your line of thought is "laughable", but I find no better word describes it).

You shouldn't be told what isn't Fun. There's really no excuse to say that. As always, play what you like


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 9, 2012)

5e is going to be _all_ about us Gate Guards - we're putting the jacuzzi right over _there._

5th Edition: Guards at the Gates.

The Auld Grump, Guards & Gatehouses? Advanced G&G?


----------



## S'mon (Jan 9, 2012)

There's now been 50+ posts on this thread where I've been dinged by "Must spread XP..." - including the last 3 posts.  Well done guys!


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 9, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> ... is that really a defense?




No, just commenting on the appeal to logic.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 9, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I'm sorry, but, have you actually read the AD&D DMG?  Because EGG tells you all sorts of things that aren't fun.  Acting in character, a la "amateur thespianism" is a good example of something that isn't fun according to EGG and should get kicked to the curb.
> 
> I'm sure others with much better knowledge of the AD&D DMG can find lots more quotes of things that I personally find enjoyable in RPG's being called unfun by Mr. Gygax.




Name one, with an actual quote. Gygax tells the reader to do a lot of things, and tells the reader to avoid doing lots of things. But I dare you to find a quote that has Gygax telling you that something *isn't fun* so you shouldn't do it; the closest example I can think of is when he tells the reader that "you cannot have a meaningful campaign without proper timekeeping" which is not the same things as telling them not to engage in anything Wyatt thinks is "boring."


----------



## Janx (Jan 9, 2012)

something somebody noted in some other thread and subforum on the topic of flamewars, is that the way to get people to notice a topic is to state an exagerated position.

Wyatt says gate guard encounters are not fun and that you should skip them.

Some of us, having sat through unfun gate guard encounters, see his point and have stricken them from our games.

Others, always made sure their gate guard encounters had a purpose and thus did not need to remove them from their game.

I think Wyatt has acchieved his purpose.  If you read his words and continue to have unfun gate guard encounters, then you suck.  If you made them fun or breezed past them, problem solved.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 10, 2012)

BryonD said:


> I don't have a bunch of quotes at the ready, but you are absolutely correct that Mr. Gygax had all kinds of issues with "right and wrong" ways of playing.  And it even gets to points that he seemed to contradict himself at times depending on the mood or target audience.
> 
> I say that with a ton of respect for the groundbreaking that Gary brought us.




Oh, hey, I totally agree here.  And, many apologies, I was trying to posrep your post and accidentally reported it, maybe.  I didn't realize they'd turned off the posrep.  Totally my bad.  

But, yes, what you're saying here is 100% accurate.  EGG was never shy in telling people exactly how he thought the game should be played.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 10, 2012)

Janx said:


> something somebody noted in some other thread and subforum on the topic of flamewars, is that the way to get people to notice a topic is to state an exagerated position.
> 
> Wyatt says gate guard encounters are not fun and that you should skip them.
> 
> ...



Good post, but XPing seem to be disabled.



Reynard said:


> Name one, with an actual quote.



I did, upthread. Gygax describes Monty Haul games as "a crashing bore for most participants".


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 10, 2012)

See that word 'most'?

It is what we like to call a 'qualifier'. It means that he is saying that it is usually true, not always true.

Read Mr. Wyatt's quote again. See what isn't qualified? There is no qualifier.


If I say that 4e is a crashing bore then I have not added a qualifier. 

If I say 4e was a crashing bore for _me_, then there is a qualifier. 

These two statements are not the same things. One is a general statement that 4e is a crashing bore. The other is particular to _me._

One can easily demonstrate that not everyone always finds 4e a crashing bore. The statement claiming such is therefor false.

I can easily demonstrate that _I_ found 4e to be a crashing bore, and give a long and boring diatribe as to why.

Mr. Gygax used a qualifier. Mr Wyatt did not.

So no, not the same thing.

The Auld Grump


----------



## pauljathome (Jan 10, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I find your generalizations to be inaccurate.
> .




Were you playing in 1980 odd? I was. 

I don't (and didn't) have access to any surveys or the like so my opinion is (perforce) based upon my memory of Dragon articles, Dungeon adventures, and what was actually being published for sale (or, at least, the subset available in the VERY good gamestores here in Toronto) as a reflection of what the community was doing.

But I'll stand by my opinion. Note, I'm NOT saying that Dungeon Crawls were the only thing going on, I stated that they were a much larger part of the game than when 4th Edition was launched.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 10, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Oh, hey, I totally agree here.  And, many apologies, I was trying to posrep your post and accidentally reported it, maybe.  I didn't realize they'd turned off the posrep.  Totally my bad.



UGH!!!  After more than 10 years of posting someone has complained about something I said??!!??  It is going to take me some time to cope with this.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 10, 2012)

pauljathome said:


> Were you playing in 1980 odd?




Yes, I started in 1982. The Basic set at that time featured B2 Keep on the Borderlands, which covered all the elements you generalize as missing. And my experiences with various groups at the local gaming clubs (first my Junior High Library After-School Club, then the Gamemasters' Guild of Waukegan at my FLGS) and annual visits to GenCon supported this balanced view of city, wilderness and dungeon with roleplaying. Bree-yark.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 10, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Yes, I started in 1982. The Basic set at that time featured B2 Keep on the Borderlands, which covered all the elements you generalize as missing. And my experiences with various groups at the local gaming clubs (first my Junior High Library After-School Club, then the Gamemasters' Guild of Waukegan at my FLGS) and annual visits to GenCon supported this balanced view of city, wilderness and dungeon with roleplaying. Bree-yark.



Hear that guys? Bree-yark! They're surrendering! 

The Auld Grump, Hell, I ran that for Pathfinder a year back....


----------



## Hussar (Jan 10, 2012)

TheAuldGrump - are you saying that EGG was reticent in making strong claims on how the game should be played?  That he was always careful to take into account everyone's possible playstyle?  Really?

Look at his reactions to the idea of adding in Critical hits to the game.  Or many, many quotes from Dragon or White Dwarf.  Never mind stuff straight out of the PHB or DMG.  Heck, reread the section on finding secret doors and tell me that that's not telling people straight up how the game is meant to be played.

As I said earlier, EGG was brilliant and I respect the heck out of him.  But, he was never shy about telling people exactly how the game was meant to be played.

Knew I could find that bit about finding secret doors with a bit of effort:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ilers-spoilers-everywhere-22.html#post5693495

Are you saying that this isn't exactly the same as what Wyatt did?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 10, 2012)

Hussar said:


> TheAuldGrump - are you saying that EGG was reticent in making strong claims on how the game should be played?  That he was always careful to take into account everyone's possible playstyle?  Really?
> 
> Look at his reactions to the idea of adding in Critical hits to the game.  Or many, many quotes from Dragon or White Dwarf.  Never mind stuff straight out of the PHB or DMG.  Heck, reread the section on finding secret doors and tell me that that's not telling people straight up how the game is meant to be played.
> 
> ...



Yes, really, at least in regards to the core three books.

Again, that thing called a 'qualifier'.

Hey, guess what? Wyatt _did not use them_. And, yes, really, they _are_ that important. So, yes, I _am_ claiming that they are different. Clear on that now? You can disagree if you want - but the lack of qualifiers is something that can be empirically proven in the case of Wyatt's quotes, and qualifiers can be empirically proven to exist in the quote from the great demon Gax that is being hauled out.

I would also be more forgiving of Gygax than Mr. Wyatt - at the time Gygax _wasn't_ up to the standards to which game designers are held today - there were too dang few to compare them.  

It is likely that you actually have _more_ respect for E.G.G. than I do - the one time that I met him (C. 1981) I was not impressed, he was by turns condescending and pseudo-unctious, filled with self importance. (A sin that I am, of course, completely free of....)

I can find plenty of quotes by him that annoy the heck out of me, including some in the DMG (the one about using only _official_ D&D miniatures comes to mind), but that one flaw of unqualifying dismissal of playstyle is not one that I can lay to his door.

The Auld Grump


----------



## pemerton (Jan 10, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> See that word 'most'?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So no, not the same thing.



Well, I didn't say they're the same - and certainly not in all respects. I did say that the Gygax passage is an example of Gygax saying that something isn't fun and therefore shouldn't be done, and the presence of the word "most" doesn't vitiate my claim. The presence of the word "most" is a stylistic device. It doesn't change the content of the advice, which is that the thing in question - Monty Hauling - isn't fun and therefore shouldn't be done.

And as I also posted upthread, there is also the characterisation of such campaigns as jokes, which are rightly - at least to some extent which, again due to stylistic devices used by Gygax, is not entirely specified - are objects of ridicule.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 10, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Well, I didn't say they're the same - and certainly not in all respects. I did say that the Gygax passage is an example of Gygax saying that something isn't fun and therefore shouldn't be done, and the presence of the word "most" doesn't vitiate my claim. The presence of the word "most" is a stylistic device. It doesn't change the content of the advice, which is that the thing in question - Monty Hauling - isn't fun and therefore shouldn't be done.
> 
> And as I also posted upthread, there is also the characterisation of such campaigns as jokes, which are rightly - at least to some extent which, again due to stylistic devices used by Gygax, is not entirely specified - are objects of ridicule.




Disagree strongly.  "Object of Ridicule" =/= "Not Fun".  

Back in Gygaxian days, there was a lot of debate over whether or not the aim of playing D&D _should be_ fun, at all.  Gygax never commented on that AFAIK, and he seems to have liked 'funhouse dungeons'.  But Lewis Pulsipher certainly wrote strongly _against_ Fun as the purpose of play!


----------



## pemerton (Jan 10, 2012)

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], I think we are in agreement on this particular point. I agree that the ridicule point is different from the boring (= unfun, in my view, but I think you agree with that) point.

Upthread, I distinguished between judging fun and judging quality. The boring point is a judgement of fun. The ridicule/skilled play points are judgements of quality.

Btw, what Pulsipher piece do you have in mind? In the 5-part "what is D&D" series, he talks about charming a dragon being elegant, but blowing it up being more exciting. Excitement seems closely related to fun, and not something that he is averse to. But he was certainly against "lottery D&D" for campaigns (although seemed prepared to tolerate it for one-offs).


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 10, 2012)

I seem to remember a thread a while back...


4e isn't D&D 

versus

4e isn't D&D to me.


#1 was deemed unacceptable to say.
#2 was deemed acceptable.

Seems to me that the qualifier was very important there. I think there might be a parallel here as well.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 10, 2012)

Aberzanzorax - it would be, unless you also proceeded to expound your view (presuming #1) with 300 pages of text giving context and additional meaning.

Of course, if I choose to completely ignore the other three hundred pages of advice and whatnot and only read one single sentence, completely stripped of any context, then, yes, the qualifier might be important.

OTOH, I don't do that, so, I don't really think the qualifier is all that necessary.  It's pretty bloody obvious what's meant here, even if the wording might be taken a different way.  But, because people refuse to actually read in context and focus only on single lines, it's an impossible conversation.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 10, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Btw, what Pulsipher piece do you have in mind?




I'd have to dig out my White Dwarfs and page through them for the quotes, but AIR he was a big proponent of coherent worlds, balanced risk vs reward, slowish advancement, and against throwing stuff in just because it was 'fun', the funhouse dungeon style.  He also came across a bit snooty towards other styles as being juvenile, immature etc.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 10, 2012)

Given that 5e is now twinkling on the horizon, with admissions that some of the attitudes propounded in 4e were mistakes, I think that we can lay this to rest - Wyatt's attitude, deliberate or not, _did_ alienate a fair number of people.

I do not think that he dismissed other styles of play accidentally, but it does not matter now, one of the stated intents for 5e is to be more inclusive. Wyatt is not on the design team, but is instead over at the board games area, so we don't need to worry about whether he will somehow offend in his presentation. WotC is trying to recover from those errors of presentation, and from the design philosophy that led to them.

I hope that they can take the good parts of 4e but manage to lose the hubris that offended far more than the rules themselves.

I am sure that the Gate Guards are happier with that. 

Rather than picking at the scabs, let us let the matter go - it no longer _matters_. I actually hope that 5e makes 4e players happy, more than I hope for those that prefer the 3.X architecture.  We have something that fills the niche for many of us.

I hope that WotC keeps 4e Essentials in print as a separate property, at least during the transition period, and perhaps longer. A I mentioned before, it does not need to compete, and the paperbound books have a low enough production cost to be worth keeping.

I have liked Mearls, back when he was doing OGL material - City Works is one of my most used D20 books even today, and I have liked Cook, both on official D&D material and OGL.

The Auld Grump


----------



## pauljathome (Jan 10, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Yes, I started in 1982. The Basic set at that time featured B2 Keep on the Borderlands, which covered all the elements you generalize as missing. And my experiences with various groups at the local gaming clubs (first my Junior High Library After-School Club, then the Gamemasters' Guild of Waukegan at my FLGS) and annual visits to GenCon supported this balanced view of city, wilderness and dungeon with roleplaying. Bree-yark.




Youngsters and their newfangled Basic Set    

Ok, so we have different memories and impressions of games back then. I guess that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this as clearly your personal and anecodatal evidence is exactly as valid as my personal and anecodatal evidence .


----------



## pemerton (Jan 10, 2012)

S'mon said:


> AIR he was a big proponent of coherent worlds, balanced risk vs reward, slowish advancement, and against throwing stuff in just because it was 'fun', the funhouse dungeon style.  He also came across a bit snooty towards other styles as being juvenile, immature etc.



I'm not sure about the "coherent worlds" bit - I find that hard to judge, particularly in the context of an assumed megadungeon norm, which for me has already scattered coherence to the four winds - but the rest is right according to my recollections.

My own experience with Pulsipher was, on the whole, probably negative. I enjoyed his pieces, which are well written in a very authoritative tone, and attempted to implement that style in my own game. I wasn't very good at it and my players didn't really enjoy it, but it still took me at least a couple of years, and the influence of Oriental Adventures, to find my way to a style of scenario design and GMing that was better suited to what I and my players wanted.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 11, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Given that 5e is now twinkling on the horizon, with admissions that some of the attitudes propounded in 4e were mistakes, I think that we can lay this to rest - Wyatt's attitude, deliberate or not, _did_ alienate a fair number of people.



From my perspective, that has never been in doubt.



TheAuldGrump said:


> I do not think that he dismissed other styles of play accidentally



I agree with this too. At least to me, 4e comes across as the most deliberately focused version of D&D, when the mechanics, the scenario/encounter design advice, the adjudication advice, etc are read together as a whole.



TheAuldGrump said:


> one of the stated intents for 5e is to be more inclusive.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



As has come up on other threads, there were already signs of this in Essentials - not in its mechanics, which are straightforward updates and additions to 4e, but in some of it's advice, which (for example) framed the GM's authority in slightly more traditional terms.

In the PHB, for example, at p 8, the GM is described as:

*Referee:* When it's not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules and adjudicate the story.​
In the Rules Compendium, at p 9, the corresponding text on the GM's role says:

*Referee:* The DM decides how to apply the game rules and guides the story. If the rules don't cover a situation, th DM determines what to do. At times, the DM might alter or even ignore the result of a die roll if doing so benefits the story.​
It will be interesting to see how 5e frames these sorts of issues, and how it tries to achieve inclusiveness. Judging from the tone of the Legends and Lore columns, I'm not expecting a clear framing of the various playstyles and the way that mechancs and GM adjudication can be adapted to produce them, but it may be that I'll be happily surprised!



TheAuldGrump said:


> I hope that WotC keeps 4e Essentials in print as a separate property



On a recent thread (I can't remember which one - maybe the "Do you love 4e thread" on the 4e board) someone suggsted that Essentials would be better as a single RC-style book - there is a huge amount of redundant text across the two HotF* books, the DM book and the Rules Compendium.

That editing would cost money, though, which would detract from the 5e efforts. But Essentials seems to me at least to be a bit of a hopeless shambles in its current form (not from the mechanical point of view, but in its presentation).


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 11, 2012)

pemerton said:


> As has come up on other threads, there were already signs of this in Essentials - not in its mechanics, which are straightforward updates and additions to 4e, but in some of it's advice, which (for example) framed the GM's authority in slightly more traditional terms.
> 
> In the PHB, for example, at p 8, the GM is described as:
> 
> ...



I have been curious about that - glad to see that my suspicions were correct, that WotC _had_ tried to mend the fences with Essentials.

I think that hubris, more than anything else, led to the failures of 4e, that WotC believed that, no matter how radical the changes, folks would follow the new system, then tried to downplay previous editions in an effort to force the issue.

Given that the whole point of 3e was that the folks then in charge of WotC had realized that the biggest competitor for D&D was, well, earlier versions of D&D, the more current management should have known better.

Wyatt should _certainly_ have known better. Those who do not learn from history, and all that.

Add to that the arrogance inherent in the first rendition of the GSL, and well....

There would likely have still been a schism, but it would have been lesser. 

I do not know how much of that apparent arrogance was panic due to the shake up at Hasbro, but the result was schism, rebellion, and a sundering of nations.... (My homebrew is based on the wars of reformation/counter reformation, does it show?  )

I think that WotC would have been better served keeping both 3.X and 4e running in parallel. They did not need to compete.

Rather than the glut of 3PP from the 'golden days' of 3.X, the glut for 4e was entirely of WotC's own doing, with an overly aggressive release schedule. (And that, almost certainly, _was_ a result of panic.) Something that TSR had also suffered through.

The Auld Grump - those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, those that do learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it....

*EDIT* My biggest grievance is that WotC had a tremendous amount of good will that had been built up during 3.X, and they _squandered_ it!


----------



## haakon1 (Jan 11, 2012)

OnlineDM said:


> So, here's at least one case study for a person learning to run the game from the book, who read that quote and did not take it literally




Reading advice, absorbing, and doing what you think best as DM, regardless of the what the experts literally said?  Priceless.

May I quote Obi-Wan Kenobi: "You've taken your first step into a wider world."


----------



## S'mon (Jan 11, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure about the "coherent worlds" bit - I find that hard to judge, particularly in the context of an assumed megadungeon norm, which for me has already scattered coherence to the four winds - but the rest is right according to my recollections.
> 
> My own experience with Pulsipher was, on the whole, probably negative. I enjoyed his pieces, which are well written in a very authoritative tone, and attempted to implement that style in my own game. I wasn't very good at it and my players didn't really enjoy it, but it still took me at least a couple of years, and the influence of Oriental Adventures, to find my way to a style of scenario design and GMing that was better suited to what I and my players wanted.




I guess rather than 'coherent worlds' in the sense of Tekumel or Glorantha, it was more just 'makes sense in context' and definitely Not Silly.  I can't recall him being a big influence on me, I think most of his work was before I started buying White Dwarf (#84, 6 months before the beginning of the end), though I did get all the back issues I could acquire.  I never ran a megadungeon campaign, most of my adventures were small surface dungeons.  I'm a bit claustrophobic IRL and frankly have always tended to avoid the Never Go Outside campaign!


----------



## S'mon (Jan 11, 2012)

pemerton said:


> That editing would cost money, though, which would detract from the 5e efforts. But Essentials seems to me at least to be a bit of a hopeless shambles in its current form (not from the mechanical point of view, but in its presentation).




Yeah, in hindsight it was one of those bright ideas that really didn't work out. A year after release no new would-be player had heard of Essentials, they were all still turning up at the Meetup with fresh PHBs.

I do love my Monster Vault softback though, it's small enough to fit in a nook in my game stroller bag between the wheel hubs and the minis case, so I effectively get a 'free' monster book!


----------



## pemerton (Jan 11, 2012)

S'mon said:


> I can't recall him being a big influence on me, I think most of his work was before I started buying White Dwarf (#84, 6 months before the beginning of the end), though I did get all the back issues I could acquire.  I never ran a megadungeon campaign, most of my adventures were small surface dungeons.



I encountered his stuff through the Best of White Dwarf collections that I got around 1984.

And I also have never tried the megadungeon, but was influenced by his verions of "skilled play" (which I encountered before I got into AD&D - and I found his presentation of the idea much clearer than Gygax's, which I didn't really notice at the time and have only become very conscious of in retrospect). This is stuff like setting up dungeons to reward sensbile use of detect spells, skilled mapping, scouting, etc.

In fact some aspects of that approach to play have come to loom large in my later gaming years, but always in the context of means to ends rather than ends in themselves. I enjoy GMing "skilled players" provided they don't take it too far (and one thing I like about 4e is that it puts a break on how far that sort of play can be taken) but I enjoy GMing other sorts of players too.



S'mon said:


> I do love my Monster Vault softback though



Monster Vault is a very honourable exception to my comment upthread. An excellent book with a clear function. And, as you note, nicely portable.


----------



## Ranes (Jan 13, 2012)

Forgive me for not having read all of this thread but the thing I like about DMing an occasional brush with the guards at the gate (or similarly ostensibly mundane encounter) is that it presents an opportunity to set up a variation on the 'Lewton Bus' device.

For those unfamiliar with the Lewton Bus, allow me to paste the paragraph from Wikipedia's entry on the 1942 film, Cat People:

"Lewton and his production are credited for inventing or popularising the  horror film technique called the 'Lewton Bus'. The term derives from  the scene in which Irena is following Alice. The audience expects Irena  to turn into a panther at any moment and attack. At the most tense  point, when the camera focuses on Alice's confused and terrified face,  the silence is shattered by what sounds like a hissing panther—but is  just a bus pulling up. This technique has been used many times since.  Any scene in which tension is dissipated by a mere moment of  startlement, a _boo!_, is a 'Lewton Bus'."

_Startlement_? Okay... Anyway, I'm using the term 'Lewton Bus' loosely here, because I'm not talking about startling the players necessarily but, if I start playing out a scene with the guards at the gate, it's usually so unexpected as to engender some unease or trepidation on the part of the players, who reflect this through the actions of their PCs. Thus, it serves to distract them just enough for me to stage the dramatic encounter or event I really want to deliver without them seeing it coming.


----------



## jonesy (Jan 13, 2012)

Ranes said:


> For those unfamiliar with the Lewton Bus, allow me to paste the paragraph from Wikipedia's entry on the 1942 film, Cat People:



Oooh. Dueling dictionaries.

Cat Scare - Television Tropes & Idioms

_..the Cat Scare trope is also called a "bus" in commemoration of Cat People, which has one of the first uses of the trope in cinema._


----------



## haakon1 (Jan 17, 2012)

*Lotr*

Or as I like to put it, "Lord of the Rings" just isn't the Lord of the Rings without the Shire.  Having the Shire grounds us in the story, and gives the protagonists something worth fighting for.

Mundane encounters -- or just putting effort into the setting and the background -- achieves this goal for me as a DM, and makes me happy as a player.


----------

