The Guards at the Gate Quote

[jonesy]

"The devil is in the details?"

The relevant details.

"It's the journey not the destination?"

Not every journey matters. Otherwise we'd never get to any of the destinations.

"A young bull and an old bull were up on a hill, looking over a pasture full of cows, and the young bull says . . ."

"Two guards meet you at the gates." That one gets really old really fast.

 

[Griego]

"The devil is in the details?"


"It's the journey not the destination?"


Or maybe, "A young bull and an old bull were up on a hill, looking over a pasture full of cows, and the young bull says . . ."

Yeah, but I would use gate-guard type encounters sparingly, unless I was really, really sure that's what my group was into.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

"The devil is in the details?"


"It's the journey not the destination?"


Or maybe, "A young bull and an old bull were up on a hill, looking over a pasture full of cows, and the young bull says . . ."

And the older bull looked down at the cows, then at the younger bull, and told him - 'This is my pasture, go someplace else.' So that younger bull, he hied himself off to find his own cows. It took him months to find his own herd, traveling from Montana to Ottawa. Which proves the old saying, a little bull goes a long way....

The Auld Grump

 

[Imaro]

Sorry, but that sounds really backwards.

You don't need to summarily discard something that you wouldn't need to put in in the first place.

If the players want to talk to the guards, they'll let the DM know.

If they don't, and the guards have nothing to do with the plot, why force it?

I think hopeless is saying that the players should decide... however that isn't what the quote says.

The quote says that... an encounter with two city guards isn't fun. It is not saying let players decide whether this will be a fun encoounter but instead to skip it on principle, which IMO is bad advice. I think much better advice would have been how to use this type of setup to pass along information, provide contacts or enemies, etc. would have been much better received.

The funny thing is it's kind of ironic given that the 4e DMG lists different types of players along with their motivations and what will be fun for them... the thing is this setup could easily be the type of encounter the "Actor" type player they list in the DMG would enjoy.


EDIT: Okay the info I was looking at was in the DMG 2.

 

[jonesy]

I think much better advice would have been how to use this type of setup to pass along information, provide contacts or enemies, etc. would have been much better received.

That's a different type of encounter. The type I think Wyatt was talking about is the standard one, where the guards inquire who the people entering the city are, what their business there is, yada yada yada.

Unless there is a reason why the guards wouldn't let them through anyway, if the guards aren't plot related, if they are just two guards and not an information source, then having them be an encounter is pointless and wastes everyones time.

 

[Mark CMG]

I wonder if any gate guard encounters can be fun based on some of the above posts?


I tend to believe that trying to make everything exciting eventually takes the excitement out of everything. There are more subtle things that can happen at the gate during what might seem to be a mundane encounter that might come into play later in the game: a clue you don't connect right away, some information that isn't of immediate importance, etc. Furthermore, some so-called mundane encounters can exist merely to mask other surprises. Of course, if everything that happens in game has to be obviously fun, then that sort of subtlety is unlikely to fit in such games.

 

[jonesy]

I just think people are reading way too much into Wyatts comment.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

That's a different type of encounter. The type I think Wyatt was talking about is the standard one, where the guards inquire who the people entering the city are, what their business there is, yada yada yada.

Unless there is a reason why the guards wouldn't let them through anyway, if the guards aren't plot related, if they are just two guards and not an information source, then having them be an encounter is pointless and wastes everyones time.

Then, again, why bring up the guards at all?

Wyatt did not say 'make every encounter interesting'. He did not say 'feel free to skip encounters that don't interest you'. He said 'an encounter with two guards at the gate is not fun'. The inclusion of a single word would have made all the difference - 'If an encounter with two guards at a gate isn't fun, tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun.'

He is trying to dictate what is fun and what isn't - that a GM should pull the characters through encounter after encounter, not bothering to have any detail, not to bother with immersion, just have encounters.

And that attitude was maintained throughout the unveiling of 4e. What you do isn't fun. What we do is fun. Do what we do. If you are having fun then it is bad-wrong-fun. Get outta here kid, ya bodda me....

And what I have seen of the Encounters program does not seem to fall far from that mark - an encounter, not an adventure, is the purpose of the game.

The Auld Grump

 

[Reynard]

That's a different type of encounter. The type I think Wyatt was talking about is the standard one, where the guards inquire who the people entering the city are, what their business there is, yada yada yada.

Unless there is a reason why the guards wouldn't let them through anyway, if the guards aren't plot related, if they are just two guards and not an information source, then having them be an encounter is pointless and wastes everyones time.

So many assumptions, so many rejected preferences, all in that one little statement.

I'll put it succinctly: James Wyatt doesn't know what is fun at my table with my players, and by extension he doesn't know what is not fun at my table. His job as a designed is to enable my fun, not define it or, worse, attempt to inhibit it. It's rude, over reaching and, quite frankly, the very quote that drove a wedge between myself and 4E.

What plot? Or, rather, which one? Is it the plot of the party thief who is trying to join the guild? Greasing guard palms might just be relevant and fun then, no? Or is it the plot of the party fighter who is looking to make some extra cash pulling guard duty between adventures? She might want to talk to the locals and find out how they are treated and how much they make? What about the plot of the party wizard, looking to hire some experienced but cheap muscle but doesn't want to get caught up with thug types? Maybe he'll off a guard double his salary.

And that doesn't even touch the rest of the stuff that James Wyatt has decided is not fun and you should not do, up to an including, in the game of Dungeons and Dragons, exploring the freaking dungeon.

 

[Imaro]

That's a different type of encounter. The type I think Wyatt was talking about is the standard one, where the guards inquire who the people entering the city are, what their business there is, yada yada yada.

No, IMO, it's not. It's the same encounter but where the DM determined that the PC's are the ones who decide to interact or not to interact with the guards. Whether through this interaction the guards become future contacts and allies, hindrances and antagonists, or fade into the background is emergent in play through the choices of the PC's. and note this in no way precludes the PC's from moving the encounter along by choosing not to fully engage the guards.

Unless there is a reason why the guards wouldn't let them through anyway, if the guards aren't plot related, if they are just two guards and not an information source, then having them be an encounter is pointless and wastes everyones time.

Well first, pre-supposing there is a "plot" is wrong, not everyone plays this way. Second, since none of the PC's actions are pre-determined whether they make friends with the guards or piss them off could come back to either help them or hinder them in the future. Finally it could just be roleplaying an opportunity for everyone to more directly establish their character through interaction with NPC's. So I'm really not understanding this issue where the guards have to be part of some pre-constructed plot or pre-determined by the DM as an information source in order to be useful or relevant to the players and/or the game in general?