The Guards at the Gate Quote

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Gygax never tried to tell me to leave something out of my game because it wasn't fun.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

"GUARDS! GUARDS!!"

Let me guess, someone stole your sweetroll.

The Auld Grump, with the other Skyrim meme.

 

[jonesy]

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]

Skyrim schmyrim.

What do you want? Stop right there, criminal scum! Stop right there criminal scum! We're watching you. What do you want?

Vengeance!

The Auld Grump

 

[jonesy]

Vengeance!

 

[The Shaman]

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]

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]

Gygax never tried to tell me to leave something out of my game because it wasn't fun.

"Must spread XP".

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

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.

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]

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.