"Fun"

[Amphimir Míriel]

Dude, no need to go into "gettoffmylawn!" mode...

The scriptwriting tip I linked to dates from the end of the nineteenth century! (Anton Chekhov died on 1904!)

Never did I say that action scenes should be followed by more action scenes until the end of the session.

I only said that plot-meaningful scenes should be followed by plot-meaningful scenes until the end of the session. Sometimes that meaningful scene will be a combat, some other times it will be a conversation with the innkeeper...
Sometimes you don´t even break out the dice, but you don´t bog down the game on meaningless wandering around...

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I can think of films where the whole thing was dialog and yet the film was utterly capitvating.

So, a movie can't be dseep if it isn't wall to wall dialogue?

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Another thing to remember about RPG's that differ from book and film is this:

A book is slimmed down, things sliced out (some things that the author wanted to stay too!) and things altered.

Good stuff hits the cutting room floor?

Why? Expense, and limits. For a book, word limits, for a film, time limit.

It does NOT have to expand the action, characters, or setting, in a D&D game. In a D&D game you have the guards say hello every time, so that the one time a guard does say hello, it doesn't raise gigantic red flags to the players.

See, that's the thing. Avoiding talking about everything that does not equal an encounter, a skill check, an important dialog, or combat, just raises red flags whenever someone steps out of the shadowy gray mass that has become the background.

But, once again, it all comes down to GM playing style and player preferences. What I like isn't what you like. What you like may not be what I like.

What people are objecting to, is the new books (while the system is neat) does not tell the GM's to decide what is fun for their group, but rather tells them what fun is, and specifically TELLS them what is and isn't fun.

That's what people are complaining about.

 

[Lanefan]

I only said that plot-meaningful scenes should be followed by plot-meaningful scenes until the end of the session. Sometimes that meaningful scene will be a combat, some other times it will be a conversation with the innkeeper...
Sometimes you don´t even break out the dice, but you don´t bog down the game on meaningless wandering around...

However, I don't necessarily want them to know right away what's "meaningful" and what isn't until and unless they figure it out for themselves or it rears up and clubs 'em in the head.

If everything I ever bothered describing was meaningful, the dots would be just too easy to connect.

Besides, to use the gate guards example, while the guards may be meaningless to the overall plot, having them interpose when the party first gets to Burytown and subject the party to a full search pretty handily gets the point across that Burytown is lawful with a capital L. Never mind the entertainment that can ensue if the characters react badly to said search... The guards, therefore, are more of a scene-set in movie terms than a plot point.

Advice like what the 4DMG gives here is the exact opposite of what I might have written were I its author; mine might go something like:

"Detail. The richness of the game lies in the detail. As far as possible, the first time anythng occurs - be it arriving in a new town, a new spell getting cast, travel through a new land - present the details. Describe the scenery, the people, the activity, etc., and give the players-characters a chance to interact with such in as much (or as little) detail as they like. But when something becomes old hat, such as arriving in a given town for the fifth time, feel free to skip over the fine details unless the players ask for more."

Lanefan

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

However, I don't necessarily want them to know right away what's "meaningful" and what isn't until and unless they figure it out for themselves or it rears up and clubs 'em in the head.

If everything I ever bothered describing was meaningful, the dots would be just too easy to connect.

Besides, to use the gate guards example, while the guards may be meaningless to the overall plot, having them interpose when the party first gets to Burytown and subject the party to a full search pretty handily gets the point across that Burytown is lawful with a capital L. Never mind the entertainment that can ensue if the characters react badly to said search... The guards, therefore, are more of a scene-set in movie terms than a plot point.

Redherrings are meaningful. They are a plot point, they are the twist or the blocker that the player characters have to overcome.

Advice like what the 4DMG gives here is the exact opposite of what I might have written were I its author; mine might go something like:

"Detail. The richness of the game lies in the detail. As far as possible, the first time anythng occurs - be it arriving in a new town, a new spell getting cast, travel through a new land - present the details. Describe the scenery, the people, the activity, etc., and give the players-characters a chance to interact with such in as much (or as little) detail as they like. But when something becomes old hat, such as arriving in a given town for the fifth time, feel free to skip over the fine details unless the players ask for more."

Lanefan

See, all these details. I don't really want them. D&D is game that utilizes imagination - if you fill out every detail, where can I use my imagination? A short general description of the activities are enough for me. And it's not like I could actually keep all the details you described.

I once got Thomas Mann "Der Zauberberg" as a gift. It's the first novel in my life that I couldn't complete, because that man dwelled on details and details and details forever. If after 70 pages I still don't know what the story is even about (but know how the three rooms the character passed look like), I just can't go on. I gave up and never looked back. I understood that I am more a "instant gratification" type reader. Give the the action, the plot, the mystery as soon as possible.

 

[fiddlerjones]

Good stuff hits the cutting room floor?

Why? Expense, and limits. For a book, word limits, for a film, time limit.

This is very clearly the case in D&D. My friends and I don't have infinite time to play the game, and any given session is usually 2-4 hours long, including intermittent off-topic digressions and time to look up the occasional rule. The point is that a D&D needs editing just as a TV show or movie or book. If you don't like what that paragraph claims is fun, then ignore it. Yes, it was poorly worded, but the advice is sound if taken in the context of a suggestion.

 

[Treebore]

I am amazed how everyone has ignored how that is THE blue print for Railroad gaming. Skip past everything, just take them immediately to the next encounter. Railroading in its purest form.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Redherrings are meaningful. They are a plot point, they are the twist or the blocker that the player characters have to overcome.

If you knock out the background NPC's, then the players know that the NPC's that speak to them are either red herrings or plot points.

What if you pulled out all the characters from books or movies that do not directly advance the plot? You don't even do that in books or movies, as long as the centerpiece characters are advancing the plot.

Saying: "The city guard, who looks a little tired, nods to you and waves you through the gate." isn't massively time wasting.

But, once again, I'm beginning to think we're just having a disconnect of ideas, and are probably talking about the same thing, just coming across differently so it looks like we're not.

I just don't understand why the Core Books pretty much preach the one thing that ENWorld hates....

Railroading.

 

[Lanefan]

See, all these details. I don't really want them. D&D is game that utilizes imagination - if you fill out every detail, where can I use my imagination? A short general description of the activities are enough for me. And it's not like I could actually keep all the details you described.

Quite likely; I probably couldn't either. But you'd have a pretty good general picture in your mind, even if the details escaped you.

And I don't often go into ridiculous detail when I'm DMing, unless the players want me to...but I will try to give some description of what the characters are seeing when they travel through a new land. But I do throw in red herrings on a frequent basis...on the odd occasion, the players fall so hard for a red herring that it ends up becoming the adventure, instead of what they were originally (in theory) going to do!

That said, I do expect low-level types to track their ammunition, food, and light sources. By mid level, with access to "Continual Light" and "Create Food and Water" on a regular basis, only ammunition remains to be accounted for. I also prefer if the players at least have a vague recollection of the names of the towns they've passed through, particularly if something happened there. (having our game map - such as it is so far - online has proven a huge help in this)

I still heartily disagree with the 4DMG advising DMs, particularly new DMs, to skip the details and get straight to the encounter. (exception: if you're playing with a real-world time limit or a one-off, the advice holds merit)

Lanefan

 

[hong]

What people are objecting to, is the new books (while the system is neat) does not tell the GM's to decide what is fun for their group, but rather tells them what fun is, and specifically TELLS them what is and isn't fun.

That's what people are complaining about.

If these people really have been around for long enough to know that sweating the small stuff is fun for them, they have also been around for long enough that they know how to do what works for them, whatever the book tells newbies to do.