"Fun"

[Ruin Explorer]

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."

Considering the lengthy explanation you had to make for it, it's clearly saying it extremely poorly. I have to admit, when I read the DMG, I read it exactly as the OP did, and like him, was confused, given that I had been told whatever was fun, was fun. It's bad wording. It's not going to ruin a generation of players or anything, but it's bad wording.

 

[mmu1]

Henry is ignoring meeeee

Henry's always been my favorite mod.

 

[howandwhy99]

This whole thread feels like an argument for why new D&D players vastly prefer Hong's version of D&D.

"Hong, the taste of a new generation"

Calm down man. There are as many valid reasons to like the new edition as there are to dislike it. You don't have to sideline anyone else's "fun" to validate your own. I think the whole point here is something no one disagrees with. Namely, that the new DMG is very definitive in what it refers to as "Fun". I think we can all let up after that. The game satisfies one's type of "fun" or it doesn't. This is just more edition wars in disguise, isn't it?

 

[Rel]

I won't play 4.0 at all. I would sooner play The World of Synnibarr at the creator's table.

Do we know anybody who could arrange this?

 

[CleverNickName]

"DMing for dummies" is not a technical document.

Aaaaaactually, it is. [/Yakko]

 

[Imaro]

This whole thread feels like an argument for why new D&D players vastly prefer Hong's version of D&D.

"Hong, the taste of a new generation"

Calm down man. There are as many valid reasons to like the new edition as there are to dislike it. You don't have to sideline anyone else's "fun" to validate your own. I think the whole point here is something no one disagrees with. Namely, that the new DMG is very definitive in what it refers to as "Fun". I think we can all let up after that. The game satisfies one's type of "fun" or it doesn't. This is just more edition wars in disguise, isn't it?

Actually I don't think it's an edition war thread, or anyone jumping on hong's playstyle. What I do think is D&D 4e supports hong's vision of D&D very well, (whether that's the preferred style of a new generation or not has yet to be seen) however whenever someone has a complaint about it not supporting (or supporting poorly) an area or playstyle hong apparently doesn't enjoy (but others do) he often feels the need to show how their playstyle, or area of concern really isn't what D&D is about or how their opinions are wrong. The problem is that for hong this may be true but for others it is not, and they often have a valid concern. I have witnessed this in various threads and just felt like hong should perhaps take a minute to step back and understand not everyone plays or enjoys the style of D&D that can (mostly) be reproduced with a boardgame, some people are looking for more and perhaps the way you argue that it has no place in 4e can actually turn potential gamers off 4e rather than on to it.

 

[Obryn]

This is what comes of interpreting DM advice as game rules, then throwing it to rules lawyers.

-O

 

[Lackhand]

Considering the lengthy explanation you had to make for it, it's clearly saying it extremely poorly. I have to admit, when I read the DMG, I read it exactly as the OP did, and like him, was confused, given that I had been told whatever was fun, was fun. It's bad wording. It's not going to ruin a generation of players or anything, but it's bad wording.

Have you ever sat down and tried to define the word "because"?
Sometimes things that are perfectly meaningful and easy in use are hard to describe to someone who hasn't yet gotten the Magic Eye.

Not that reading is normally a Magic Eye.

 

[Cadfan]

Actually I don't think it's an edition war thread, or anyone jumping on hong's playstyle. What I do think is D&D 4e supports hong's vision of D&D very well, (whether that's the preferred style of a new generation or not has yet to be seen) however whenever someone has a complaint about it not supporting (or supporting poorly) an area or playstyle hong apparently doesn't enjoy (but others do) he often feels the need to show how their playstyle, or area of concern really isn't what D&D is about or how their opinions are wrong. The problem is that for hong this may be true but for others it is not, and they often have a valid concern. I have witnessed this in various threads and just felt like hong should perhaps take a minute to step back and understand not everyone plays or enjoys the style of D&D that can (mostly) be reproduced with a boardgame, some people are looking for more and perhaps the way you argue that it has no place in 4e can actually turn potential gamers off 4e rather than on to it.

You were doing so well.

 

[Imaro]

You were doing so well.

Hey, I did say mostly.