The Guards at the Gate Quote

[Janx]

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]

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.

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.

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.
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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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)

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]

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]

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]

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.