The Guards at the Gate Quote

[jonesy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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


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


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

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]

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]

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...

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]

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!!!