The Guards at the Gate Quote

[TheAuldGrump]

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?

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.