The Guards at the Gate Quote

[BryonD]

But like many of the complainers you seem to ignore the OP's example of a fun roleplaying encounter. You gloss over that part and insist that immersion requires talking to the guards about your cart of tomatoes and any other style must then focus on combat. It seems that way to me anyway.

This is not a fair reply.

The "complainers" are responding to James' quote, not to additional information that isn't part of the quote. And the additional information changes the merit of the quote into something the quote alone does not hold.

And, as others have pointed out, the unmodified quote is a very accurate bullet point for very real shortcomings that 4E has *for meeting many people's personal expectations for quality gaming.*

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

This is not a fair reply.

The "complainers" are responding to James' quote, not to additional information that isn't part of the quote. And the additional information changes the merit of the quote into something the quote alone does not hold.

If you take my quote out of context, sure. And I did not say "the complainers" I said "many of the complainers." My point was that the focus of outrage was placed on a single comment and that some of the people complaining are adding details that do not exist. People in this very thread complain that Wyatt is telling them to skip all NPC interactions and get onto the combat or skill challenges. The word Wyatt uses in his text is Encounter, not Combat. So people are glossing over what he actually said to complain that 4E is all about fighting and skill challenges when those are not the totality of encounter types listed in the 4E DMG.

And, as others have pointed out, the unmodified quote is a very accurate bullet point for very real shortcomings that 4E has *for meeting many people's personal expectations for quality gaming.*

Yet people have no problem with pre-4E encounters, like encountering gate guards. But call it an Encounter in 4E and suddenly it's bad? I don't have my 4E DMG in front of me, but I recall it discussing Encounters as Combat, Skill Challenges, Interactions, and Exploration.

I have no issue with anyone's personal expectations. But, as you point out, the quote should be left *unmodified* - not turned into the mantra of "James Wyatt says only combat is fun."

 

[DEFCON 1]

"There's a court jester floating in the air behind me? Oh, and I'm now supposed to turn around and LOOK, so that you can sneak past me, is that it? Just how stupid do you think I am, sir?"

 

[delericho]

I don't really understand why this quote is so objectionable that it keeps coming up years later. To me it seems like common sense. Time is a relatively scarce resource when gaming, so why not spend it on pivotal encounters, and handwave the mundane?

There are a couple of reasons.

The first, and probably the reason why it attracts quite so much vitriol, is that some people were simply pre-disposed to dislike 4e. When they encountered something that they could object to, they then objected to it in the strongest possible terms.

However, the second reason is that that quote is simply badly written advice at best, or bad advice at worst. The advice it's trying to get across, "skip things that aren't fun", is good advice, but it doesn't say that. The quote singles out specific types of encounters are declares them not fun. At The Auld Grump says, the simple addition of the word "if" would make a huge difference to that quote, but it is missing.

 

[Imaro]

If you take my quote out of context, sure. And I did not say "the complainers" I said "many of the complainers." My point was that the focus of outrage was placed on a single comment and that some of the people complaining are adding details that do not exist. People in this very thread complain that Wyatt is telling them to skip all NPC interactions and get onto the combat or skill challenges. The word Wyatt uses in his text is Encounter, not Combat. So people are glossing over what he actually said to complain that 4E is all about fighting and skill challenges when those are not the totality of encounter types listed in the 4E DMG.



Yet people have no problem with pre-4E encounters, like encountering gate guards. But call it an Encounter in 4E and suddenly it's bad? I don't have my 4E DMG in front of me, but I recall it discussing Encounters as Combat, Skill Challenges, Interactions, and Exploration.

I have no issue with anyone's personal expectations. But, as you point out, the quote should be left *unmodified* - not turned into the mantra of "James Wyatt says only combat is fun."

You do realize Wyatt calls the guard situation an "encounter" in the quote and then continues to say it should be skipped to get to the fun. So I'm not sure your railing aganst people assuming what he means by "encounter" is actually justified. IMO, the issue is Wyatt's assumption of what is fun (since from the wording of his quote he doesn't think all encounters are necessarily fun), and his assumption that his preferences are applicable to everyone. Honestly I think this is one of those things that falls under preferred playstyle, and should have been stated as to make it's subjectivity clear.

 

[Reynard]

That's what happened to Wyatt's 'Greenbriar Chasm' campaign - many months planning it in Dungeon Magazine from levels 1-30, with the 'good stuff' planned for Paragon Tier, then he burned out on it after 2 levels, got bored and stopped running it. IMO that's a huge danger with that approach.

And someone pays this guy to hand out advice to us unwashed masses? Amazing.

 

[Bullgrit]

Anecdote from one of my campaigns in recent years, (I was DM):

The party had just traveled to a city and were headed in through one of the gates. The city was essentially Lawful Evil, and was in the middle of a "difficult situation," so the gate guards were attentive and a bit strict. This was all part of the adventure plot the party was coming into.

The guards were giving everyone a thorough check before letting anyone come and go through their gate. I didn't intend this "encounter" to play out as anything more than just a demonstration of the tension of the city.

Now, one of the party was a "dervish"-style knife-fighter, with robes over his chainmail, and a wrap around his face and head. I knew this was the character's look, as we were about two dozen game sessions into the campaign. As far as I knew, this was just a look/dress style thing, nothing more.

When the gate guards told the fighter to show his face before entering the city, the fighter refused. Turns out, the face wrap was a religious thing, and he couldn't show his face to infidels. I, as the DM, didn't know this, and the other Players didn't know this. <sigh>

Now, as I'm sure many of you have already thought of, there are many ways of overcoming this encounter. Social skills, bribery, magic, finding another way into the city, etc. What did the party come up with? The masked fighter opted to just camp outside of the city while the rest of the party went in.

Holy crap! So that Player ended up basically sitting out part of the adventure, (most of a whole game session), because we played through an encounter with the city guards.

So, although I like playing out a "non-exciting" scene if it sets a mood or sets up an adventure, but this kind of thing teaches me that every such scene gives the Players a chance to totally screw up an adventure. I've also seen adventures break down based on the initial role play encounter with the quest giver. If the DM doesn't play the NPC just right, someone takes offense or gives offense and the whole thing falls apart.

Also, from what I've seen, the people who most like to play through the "non-exciting" scenes tend to be the ones most likely to skew that scene into more problem than it was intended to be. They stretch what could have been a 5-minute encounter out to an hour-long drama that cripples the rest of the game session.

Bullgrit

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't really understand why this quote is so objectionable that it keeps coming up years later. To me it seems like common sense. Time is a relatively scarce resource when gaming, so why not spend it on pivotal encounters, and handwave the mundane?

Some people are smart enough to know what they do and do not find fun.
YMMV.

 

[delericho]

And someone pays this guy to hand out advice to us unwashed masses? Amazing.

Actually, even that's pretty useful, in a salutory "here's what not to do" kind of a way.

 

[Weregrognard]

I used to be a Guard at the City Gate... then I took an arrow to the knee.

I took a kitchen knife to the foot last night. True story. I'm home w/ a stitched & bandaged foot

----

I think what is key here is to go with the player's wishes. If they find it fun to interact with the world then as the DM you should oblige. If they just want to get back to the dungeon then do that.

I was reading some of Gary Gygax's threads on here and Dragonsfoot and he mentioned something similar in regards to identifying magic items (can't remember where the quote is.) When the players just wanted to gloss over parts in town, he would just charge the appropriate gp and move on.