"Fun"

[Byronic]

Well, regardless of what these people say, remember the old axiom.

Feel free to disregard any advice. Including this one.

I myself will ignore the designers fixation on combat and develop the most immersive world possible to make the story as important, if not more so then the combat.

And if WotC agents disagree with that, I have a bag full of dice and a belt in martial arts. Come and get me and I'll TPK you!

I've seen enough Yugioh episodes to know that dice are a lethal weapon in the hands of an expert.

 

[hong]

Well, regardless of what these people say, remember the old axiom.

Feel free to disregard any advice. Including this one.

I myself will ignore the designers fixation on combat and develop the most immersive world possible to make the story as important, if not more so then the combat.

And if WotC agents disagree with that, I have a gun and a belt in martial arts. Come and get me and I'll TPK you!

You know, they ARE telling you to make the story important. There is nothing at all about that "fun" paragraph relating to combat, not even in an indirect manner. The point is to gloss over things that do NOT contribute to the story.

Ppl seem to be under some spell that makes them see "encounter" and translate that to "combat". An encounter just means an opportunity for significant interaction with the game world, whether via violence or not. The PHB goes to some length to clear up this misapprehension (pp.258-259), where it explicitly breaks encounters into combat and noncombat. The DMG goes to even greater length, where you have an entire chapter titled "Noncombat encounters". So pls ppl stop equating encounters and combat, kthxb.

 

[Ginnel]

You see I tend to think of the guards on the gate or a random peasant someone talks to as an encounter.

I think the advice isn't that dangerous and won't lead to 1,000,000's of people missing out on actual roleplaying, The DM is encouraged to speed up not fun stuff, as a DM you should always be trying to gauge how interested the players are in the current "encounter" if only 2 people out of 5 are participating try hurrying it on a bit (that said if 3 people deliberately don't participate in any RP encounter have a chat with them about what type of game they want and what type of game you are running)

I try and help out as a player when this happens as well trying to get my bit of RP where I go pray at the temple out of the way quick as possible with maybe a couple of questions for the priestess, I also try to instigate roleplay with player's characters who aren't currently the focus of the action (e.g. Player A has gone to the mansion to see if he can chat with the Duke meanwhile the rest of the party are at the tavern queue a chat about a recent fight/the gods/whatever)
minding that I don't distract the player (or the DM)who is interacting with the DM (or player)

 

[delericho]

... or you could just kill the monsters and take their stuff. Saves an awful lot of faffing around.

I can do that in WoW. I can do that in WoW without spending hours reading rulebooks, further hours preparing adventures, without having to coordinate my schedule with that of my players, and without having to drive for an hour to get to the game. I can do that in WoW with far faster combat resolution, much better graphics, and at least as much variation in encounter types.

If that's all there is to D&D, why on earth would I ever play it?

 

[hong]

I can do that in WoW. I can do that in WoW without spending hours reading rulebooks, further hours preparing adventures, without having to coordinate my schedule with that of my players, and without having to drive for an hour to get to the game. I can do that in WoW with far faster combat resolution, much better graphics, and at least as much variation in encounter types.

If that's all there is to D&D, why on earth would I ever play it?

1. Monsters that are more dynamic, unpredictable, and adaptable to changing circumstances

2. The ability to play out a storyline other than that provided by the programmers (who have to deal with an audience of millions, whereas I only have to satisfy 6 people)

3. A more immediate feedback loop including the ability to communicate directly with other players without electronic intermediation (very important)

4. A DM who can tailor encounters and challenges to the idiosyncrasies of this particular group, rather than having to tailor the group to the challenges

5. The ability to tweak the rules where they don't fit our desires (and not get banned)

6. Not having to deal with a million nutcases online (present company excepted of course)


... or was that a rhetorical question?

 

[med stud]

When they say that you should skip the trip through miles of dwarven tunnels, I don't think they mean that you shouldn't describe the tunnel at all. I think they mean that you shouldn't go on and on about the tunnel. "You travel through the tunnels, following the map Svante Stålhammar gave you. The tunnels are dark and damp, seeming to go on forever." Here you ask if the players want to do exploring in side passages. If not, "After a long time you arrive at a runecarved door set directly in the cave wall." To me, that's enough. You describe the tunnel, set a mood, give an opportunity to take a tunnel-hike.

The same thing with the guards. Don't skip them, but just say "The guards of Skövde are unshaven with dirty armours. They eye you suspiciously but don't give you any trouble as you enter." There, you set the mood. Skövde seems to be a place with poorly disciplined guards that don't like armed people around.

If we go back to the dwarven tunnels, if you whipped out a map and described every step of the way through a bunch of eventless tunnels there is a large chance of you just being boring. If the guards hold up the PCs, start asking them questions about who they are and behaves like asses without contributing to the story, you also risk just being boring.

I think that's what the DMG-advice is about. Not teleporting PCs between encounters.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

For better or worse 4e isn't built for players that enjoy chewing scenery or managing minutiae. It is built for players that enjoy action (in the dramatic sense). The basic conceit is that focus should be on meaningful drama and edge of your seat excitement (the parts most films focus on) with occasional forays into more mundane matters to help provide context to the characters' adventures. You skip past the dialogue with the guards if that dialogue doesn't serve to propel the action of the game forward, not because it involves talking.

Exactly.

There's always one..maybe two... players in a group that want to search every 5ft square, want to roleplay buying rope, want to pull a "I wake up, I open one eye, what do I see?" scenario.

These things, generally, do nothing for the plotline. I've got, maybe, 4 hours a week to actually run a game...if 2 hours (or even 30 minutes) of that time is taken up by ONE player's trip to the general store and their discussion with the clerk behind the counter about the current weather, that's not fair to me as the DM nor is it fair to the other players in the group.

Such situations are, perhaps, better handled through a "downtime" sort of deal..play it out in email or on a messageboard or just let the player blog the experience somewhere.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

Rope trick = save point.

+10 Internet Points.

 

[mmu1]

... or you could just kill the monsters and take their stuff. Saves an awful lot of faffing around.

...but I thought it wasn't all supposed to be about combat?

Though in all fairness, everyone else - including the people who apparently made the game - seem to be confused as well.

 

[el-remmen]

My objection to the excerpt is that it seems to eschew "sandbox" style play where the player/characters determine what is important by exploration of and interaction with an environment.

Talking to the guards may not be important to "the story," but they might become important to the game if it is something the players/characters want to spend time/energy on.