"Fun"

[ExploderWizard]

The passage in the DMG is a bit silly and not really needed but they needed to fill up the space with something. Once everyone is convinced that this playstyle is the only way to have fun then Hasbro can trademark "fun".


I mean, if TSR can trademark (Nazi) then anything is possible

 

[delericho]

I like the new DMG.

I don't. It's good on general advice, and talks about all the right topics, but as soon as we get down to specifics, it seems remarkably quiet.

This is stuff straight out of the pre-release hype machine that badwrongfun'd pretty much everything about earlier editions. This is stuff that says that Mearls and Co. know fun, and your ain't it. This is stuff that just plane pisses me off.

I'm afraid I'm forced to agree. Those little flourishes that they've just written off as 'not fun' are involved in the process of building a world, and hence immersion into the game. The game is poorer without them.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I mean, if TSR can trademark (Nazi) then anything is possible

That's an urban myth.

From uk.games.roleplay FAQ -

It may seem bizarre to include such a specific question in a FAQ, but the number of times the thing comes up really does justify it.
The quick answer is "no." What seems to have happened is that TSR's old "Indiana Jones" game included an illustration or cardboard figure of a Nazi soldier (as a villain), with a "TM" symbol next to the word. The myth grew from there. However, what was being trademarked was NOT the word, but the associated image. Furthermore, the trademarks in that product were claimed, not by TSR, but by Lucasfilm (makers of the Indiana Jones movies).

 

[med stud]

I want to add that thinking that newbies will do everything that is in the DMG is selling newbies way short. I have never in my life as a GM been following GM- tips from RPGs. I don't think many GMs will change what they consider fun because a book told them otherwise.

I can understand complaints about things that bother you (in the generic sense), but complaints about how a nameless newbie will have his game destroyed is wasted energy in a way...

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

It's not railroading, it's control over pacing. The DM isn't stopping PCs from talking to city guards. He's deciding how much time he spends on it.

To argue the reverse, that a DM should not be able to control pacing, would be bizarre. It would mean for example that if a player wished he could play out every event of the day - eating his dinner, going to the toilet, cleaning his weapons - in perfect detail.

 

[BryonD]

They'll be welcome at my table any time.

But don't let anyone suggest that D&D doesn't play the way it used to....

It must be nice to be able to have it both ways.

Sheesh

 

[TerraDave]

I like the new DMG. I like the fact that it is both geared toward new DM's, actively teaching them how to run a game of (4E) D&D, and that is full of useful material like traps and monster creations rules and diseases and the like. However, I found something in it that irritates me ...badwrongfunism

83 posts in and I will just agree with Reynard.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Ppls, forget the rules of ancient Greek drama, movies, WoW and how kids today all have ADD. This is very, very simple:

It's a matter of taste. Some people like fast pacing, some people like slow. The DMG assumes the large majority like fast, hence the advice. I don't know whether that's true, I haven't done any market research. And nor have you. But I suspect WotC have.

 

[Cadfan]

Well if the DMG isn't giving us a prime example of badwrongfunism, Cadfan sure is. "If you like X (where X is something that D&D has always had, by the way), go play a boardgame."

Classy.

Its not badwrongfunism to acknowledge the limitations of the system. Resource management in D&D (not counting spells) has never been more complex than ticking off iron rations on a character sheet, counting gold pieces, and buying bags of holding. Sometimes these things are necessary, but they're necessary because they serve the larger context of the game. They're NOT fun in their own right. This is why every edition of D&D ever has had more rules for monster-killin' than for buying mundane goods.

If you want them to be fun in their own right, I wasn't kidding. I can recommend COUNTLESS incredibly awesome boardgames that do all of these things better. I play them all the time. Probably more than I play D&D these days. Start yourself with something medium weight (you're a gamer, you can skip light weight if you like) like Settlers of Catan, and eventually move on up to Agricola.

 

[Schmoe]

Ppls, forget the rules of ancient Greek drama, movies, WoW and how kids today all have ADD. This is very, very simple:

It's a matter of taste. Some people like fast pacing, some people like slow. The DMG assumes the large majority like fast, hence the advice. I don't know whether that's true, I haven't done any market research. And nor have you. But I suspect WotC have.

Then how about, instead of telling us carte blanche that it's not fun, they tell us how it could be fun, and how to identify if it's not fun for the people you're playing with? Something like this would have been a lot better for my taste:

"Talking to the two guards at the gate when you enter a city isn't always fun. However, even a simple encounter like this can be made fun or can be very important to the story. Perhaps the guards have some key information about the political situation within the city. They might give a tip about local taverns, allowing the DM to point the players to where the action is. It could be an opportunity for the party to bribe the guards to overlook the weapons they're carrying and avoid the stiff weapons tax. The important thing is that you are able to gauge the player's reactions to encounters, and that you don't force the encounter if they aren't interested. If the player's response is simply "We pay the fee and walk in," let it go and move on. The game is a give and take between you and the players, so that you spend more time on what they are enjoying and quickly move past what they are not."

Instead, we are given the commandment "Though shalt not have fun in this way." I don't like it. Furthermore, I think it does a great disservice in teaching new DM's how to pace a game for their particular players.