"Fun"

[Reynard]

You have a lot of GMs, especially novice GMs, who look at the rules as hard-and-fast lock-step recipies (heh) that they have to follow in some bizarre induced OCD-like state or everything goes to hell. They just to be point-blank told it's OK to loosen up and make sure things move along at a pace that's comfortable for everyone.

Which would be fine if that is what they were actually being told, but in this case they are being told that these 3 specific things are not fun and should be avoided (well, sometimes counting rations is okay, apparently, but never talking to guards or exploring dungeon corridors). Again, I like the DMG. This paragraph sucks, though, and shouldn't be there.

 

[hong]

There's one point I'd like to make that I haven't seen yet:

"Encounter" does not equal "Fight", though some people are making that assumption.

In the way the 4e DMG uses it, "encounter" means "important scene that moves the plot or action of the game." That's why the DMG focuses on cutting out stuff not important to the "encounter". If the example gate guards serve no purpose to the adventure, if it doesn't matter whether the PCs pass the guards now or 2 hours from now, then what the DMG is saying is not to dwell on that interaction too much. If on the other hand, the guards stand between the party and the prince who's gonna get murdered in the next hour, then it's an important scene or "encounter", and worth using a skill check/challenge on, or an encounter or daily utility power, or, at the bottom end of the rung, FIGHT past the guards and try to save the prince with the CITY GUARD on your tail.

Henry is ignoring meeeee

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.

 

[apoptosis]

I think the best advice is to follow the lead and wishes of the players.

I think focusing on encounters is a good idea but let the players determine what is a specific encounter. This does require metagame thinking but I think that is a good thing.

Maybe the books should have spelled out a little better what an encounter is (maybe the book does). For my thoughts, an encounter is an interaction that should either create a conflict, resolve a conflict (and hopefully create a new conflict) or increase drama.

In general given that most people have a limited time gaming, the game should be filled with "fun" (however that is determined). So things that are boring should be minimized. Many indy games talk about using "cut scenes" where the players can advocate just cutting to the next scene (so that the game does not try and emulate things in a second by second, hour by hour way). This is controlled by the players so they can focus on what they consider fun.


If there is a conflict that involves getting into and out of the town (or getting into and out of the town discreetly) that is important to the overall plot/story then encounters with the guards would probably be part of the fun.

I think oftentimes combats can be pretty friggin boring particularly long or unimportant ones. I think that same advice should be used for these. Just skip past combats that are unimportant (based on the players desires).

Just my .02 dollars

 

[CleverNickName]

If this section of the DMG were functioning as a technical document, you might have a point.

What else could it be?

 

[hong]

What else could it be?

"DMing for dummies" is not a technical document.

 

[Imaro]

I realise that you have to be told everything at least 2 times, but there is more to being a non-adversarial DM than ensuring everyone enjoys the game.

First off let's chill with the snark, where did you explain exactly what you meant... or am I suppose to be a mind reader. In fact you still aren't clear by what you mean. I mean, are you not "adversarial" when you play the monsters in encounters? What, do you play them substandard so there is no risk to your players? Or is it the fact you don't allow death...because both are possible in Descent

There is more to heaven and earth, Horatio, than a dungeon.

Yeah, that's why I gave you a link to that review... that expansion allows you to interact with the above world...buy equipment, training in skills etc.

Psst. Noncombat as well as combat.

See above, the review talks about benign encounters as well as temples you can be healed at, etc.

... you can't be serious.

Yeah, I am... each person has a part in creating the adventures the rest go on. That sounds like cooperative to me, in fact more cooperative than some D&D games.

So. Why don't you play Dogs in the Vineyard?

I have, I don't limit myself to D&D, if a different game gives me a better experience for what I'm looking for at the time. I guess that's why I don't expect everyone to be in line with my view of what constitutes fun.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

There's one point I'd like to make that I haven't seen yet:

"Encounter" does not equal "Fight", though some people are making that assumption.]

Henry gets a cookie!

 

[hong]

First off let's chill with the snark, where did you explain exactly what you meant... or am I suppose to be a mind reader. In fact you still aren't clear by what you mean. I mean, are you not "adversarial" when you play the monsters in encounters? What, do you play them substandard so there is no risk to your players? Or is it the fact you don't allow death...because both are possible in Descent

The non-adversarial bit comes in by how there is no preset victory condition for the DM to achieve. If anything, you lose if the party loses. Is this clear?

Yeah, that's why I gave you a link to that review... that expansion allows you to interact with the above world...buy equipment, training in skills etc.

Somehow, picking a character at random from a bunch of cards does not seem very RPGish to me, unless you were stuck in 1974. See 4) previously.

See above, the review talks about benign encounters as well as temples you can be healed at, etc.

I guess this really means Descent is an RPG.

Yeah, I am... each person has a part in creating the adventures the rest go on. That sounds like cooperative to me, in fact more cooperative than some D&D games.

One more time. Cooperative, in this context, is something that is to be applied within a single campaign. Being cooperative across multiple campaigns makes a nonsense of the term.

I have, I don't limit myself to D&D, if a different game gives me a better experience for what I'm looking for at the time. I guess that's why I expect everyone to be in line with my view of what constitutes fun.

So. Since Descent is an RPG, why aren't you playing it?

 

[The Little Raven]

When Paizo publishes it, it must be true, but, when WOTC says it, it must be false.

Didn't you get the memo? Third parties are saints who can do no wrong, while Wizards are sinners who can do no right.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Which would be fine if that is what they were actually being told, but in this case they are being told that these 3 specific things are not fun and should be avoided (well, sometimes counting rations is okay, apparently, but never talking to guards or exploring dungeon corridors). Again, I like the DMG. This paragraph sucks, though, and shouldn't be there.

Having reread the section on page 105, I think you're misinterpreting it. The way I see it the paragraph is NOT saying X is always fun, Y is always not fun. As you say, that contradicts points made in earlier chapters about different players enjoying different elements of the game.

Rather the section is saying - IF your players are finding this part to be not fun, fast forward. And giving some examples of things a lot of players are likely to find unfun.

The particular sentence you take issue with - "An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn't much fun" - is not, imo, saying all encounters with guards aren't fun. It's shorthand for "You are DMing a game and your players are finding a *particular* encounter with guards to be not fun. What do you do?" To which it gives the answer "Tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun."

And surely the overwhelming majority of players would find long treks through endless corridors (one assumes these are empty and featureless here) to be not fun? I doubt there is a DM anywhere who plays through every journey and all day-to-day activity, the unfun parts of the PC experience, in real time detail. So it's not terribly controversial. But spending too long on boring parts of the game is definitely a mistake noob DMs could make.

That's all the paragraph is saying - always be aware of whether your players are enjoying an encounter. If not, then move on. Hence the advice "Fun is one element you shouldn't vary."