The Guards at the Gate Quote

[Mercutio01]

It's quite possible that the reason some folks aren't a fan of 4e has a lot to do with Wyatt's quotes, meaning it's not really a nit to pick, it's one of the core reasons they're not fans of the game.

Exactly - if the quote prevents someone from trying the game, or lessens their enjoyment in running the game, then it is not a 'nit'.

I have a very, very hard time believing anyone who says that one quote, which so far has been routinely taken out of context and ascribed meaning that it doesn't actually have, is the cause for people not liking 4E to begin with. It is far, far more likely that there is dislike first, and then the finding of fiddly bits to assign the dislike to. If that's ascribing a motive, then so be it. I don't think it's unfair to call out the anti-4E bias when discussing the nitpicking of, literally, one sentence. This whole thread is about one sentence. If that's not the height of nitpicking, I'm not sure what is.

If it is a symptom of a wider problem then it is not a 'nit'. It was a statement that our style of fun was not fun.

And for some of us it was only one of several such statements, including some on the animated cartoons for the game and the trailer. (Oh look, isn't it funny? The dragon is taking a crap on a troll that is complaining about our game. Ha ha ha....)

I do not know what percentage of the lines that ticked people off about 4e were Wyatt's, but he was not working in a vacuum. However, he certainly has some of the gems that are most prone to quotation.

I'm certainly not going to defend the whole marketing and execution of 4E. I do think highlighting this one quote and doing your darnedest to make it emblematic of a problem with all of 4E design is more than a bit silly. Especially because I think you are misreading the statement and drawing conclusions that aren't supported by the actual language.

The scenario I provided above is exactly what I think Wyatt was getting at. That's not a necessary or fun encounter with two gate guards, and that, no lie, has been far more my experience in playing D&D than fun roleplaying experiences talking to gate guards.

I wish more DMs and players that I've played with followed Wyatt's advice to skip the unfun, boring, unnecessary encounters. You all seem to have ideal gaming experiences playing with excellent DMs (or being so yourselves) and have never experienced the kind of crappy scenarios that Wyatt was specifically speaking against. I'm happy for you. I, unfortunately, have played with a number of groups and gamers over the 20+ years of gaming, and have experienced more than my share of "gate guard encounters" that should have been skipped over to get to the fun.

 

[Mercutio01]

I'll ask this as a neutral question, do you think in that one sentence Wyatt was telling you to skip all roleplaying opportunities to get to the combat?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I'll ask this as a neutral question, do you think in that one sentence Wyatt was telling you to skip all roleplaying opportunities to get to the combat?

Not exactly - I think that he means that the game should go from planned encounter to planned encounter.

If that encounter is a roleplaying encounter then fine - though most encounters aren't, they are in fact combat encounters. But do not bother with any extraneous encounters, because that would not be fun.

If that is not what he meant then it was badly worded, but really? It pretty much fits with the whole Dungeon Delve/Encounters feel that has been pushed for 4e from the beginning.

I think that the folks at WotC are trying to correct for this now, but I really do think that Wyatt did mean that the game should go from planned encounter to planned encounter.

Me, I'm a tourist. I want to stop and talk to the guards at the gate, maybe ask if there is any news on the war, and where is a good place to get some grub. If they're friendly, maybe give them some coin and tell them to get a drink after their watch, and stop at the pub, on me.

This is going on right now - my paladin knows most of the gate guards by name. And if the GM feels like using them as a means to funnel me information, or to give us a new place to look for adventure, then so be it. (One might even think that is why I am doing it.... )

The Auld Grump

 

[mudbunny]

Ascribing motives to anyone is not really useful. Remember, the person on the other side of the inter-tubes is an intelligent, rational, well-intentioned person, even if you disagree with them.

Just to jump off of that point...

Why do people not ascribe the same thing to Wyatt?? I think that it is very clear (to me at least) that throughout the rest of the chapter (and book) that the philosophy that they are espousing is "pick encounters that are fun for your players. Ignore things that your players find un-fun."

For me, reading that phrase in context with the rest of the chapter, it is clear that it was meant to be an example of something that is un-fun, not a definitive statement that all encounters at the gates of a town with guards are un-fun.

I can see how others would read it differently, but to do so, for me, requires a significant ignoring of the context contained in the rest of the chapter.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Exactly - if the quote prevents someone from trying the game, or lessens their enjoyment in running the game, then it is not a 'nit'.

If it is a symptom of a wider problem then it is not a 'nit'. It was a statement that our style of fun was not fun.

And for some of us it was only one of several such statements, including some on the animated cartoons for the game and the trailer. (Oh look, isn't it funny? The dragon is taking a crap on a troll that is complaining about our game. Ha ha ha....)

I do not know what percentage of the lines that ticked people off about 4e were Wyatt's, but he was not working in a vacuum. However, he certainly has some of the gems that are most prone to quotation.

The Auld Grump

Agreed.

I mean seriously? Pathfinder is my game of choice. And I've been DM'ing for over 20 years at this point so I'm gonna ignore Wyatt's advice anyway. I think it's fairly crappy advice because one of the reasons I play RPG's is beause youre not limited to THIS or THAT decisions. THIS is fun. THAT is not. Wyatt pretty plainly says this in the text.

When it should be: THIS is fun for some people. Here's why. THAT is fun for some people. Here's why.

Then a few posters brought up the argument of reading that line in context and you know what I thought that was a COMPLETELY fair point so I got my copy of the DM's guide and found the entries and typed out the relevant paragraph's. The description/definition of ENCOUNTER as defined for 4E and the description/definition of FUN as defined for 4E.

Now the goal posts have shifted yet again with posters saying

A) it needs to be read with context with the entire book or even with the Player's Handbook.

B) we're nitpicking be because those of us who have a problem with the quotes in question hate 4E because it burned down out ranch, stole our cattle, took our land and shot our dog. When obviously 4E only stole cattle we weren't really that all that interested in anyway because we decided to go vegan (no really I love steak, but I'll be vegan for the sake of the argument...). Either way, there are people who are proponents of 4E who also have issues with the quotes so...THWARTED!

C) I'm fully willing to admit that I might be alone in this but I dont read reference books cover to cover. Nor do I commit everything that I read to memory. I do remember things that stand out to me when I'm reading. That quote, despite the fact that the DM's Guide is probably my favorite of the 4E books (and remember I dont care for 4E all that much) stood out and annoyed me as I think it was really bad advice. DMing is combination of art and science. And there are times where if, as a game designer, you're going to seemingly dismiss a part of the game as overall NOT FUN you've got to understand that you might be dead wrong and just catering to your own preferences.

Which is fine if you're working on an indie game. But if you're writing for the flagship RPG, the granddaddy of all RPG's, the 800lb gorilla you need to be a little more inclusive. Especially if during the promotion for your game you're talking about inclusiveness and getting everyone under the big tent. That's not big tent talk guys. That's OUR WAY is FUN. Your way? Not so much...

Which brings me to my final point I think that no one on my side of this argument has said that you shouldn't at some point speed pass certain encounters that may have no purpose. Even I have admitted to that. We just dont want people to think that no encounter that isnt distinctly combat or a skill challenge or involved with dice rolling is worthless and NOT fun. Now several arguments have been made trying to say that's not what Wyatt was saying.

Again, with the goal post moving. The quote is there. Okay it needs to be looked at in context of more than just the quote. Okay take the entire paragraph. Quote is still there. Okay now we need to look at the entire book and maybe the PH too. Wait what about Gygax? he gave bad advice too! Wait? What the Deuce?!? who's talking about Gygax here?

If we disagree? well it wasn't written for you so you're nitpicky for reading into it. WHAT?!? Reading into what? I'm assuming he's saying EXACTLY what he wanted to say BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE WROTE IN THE GORRAMED BOOK.

Listen, we get it you dont want to give any ground, you dont want to admit that some us MAYBE, just MAAAAAAYBE have a point about how Wyatt wrote what he did. I think enough of us have said yes we see things from your side and we're not debating that much. But almost none of you are willing to see this thing from our point of view instead you find it easier to call us 4E haters, nitpickers (is that even a word) and other dismissive things.
So in closing good luck with all that. It still doesnt change the fact that Wyatt wrote what he wrote. It's there in the book. You cant say we're reading into something that's not there when IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE BOOK. If anything we're responding to something that's plainly stated (which should be the case for a reference book by the way...) and you guys are reading into his statements with stuff that's not there. I'm willing to live and let live though. So no hard feelings. Play how and what you want.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'll ask this as a neutral question, do you think in that one sentence Wyatt was telling you to skip all roleplaying opportunities to get to the combat?

In the spirit of neutrality, I'll answer this question without saying what I think he means (again): no, I don't think he's saying "to skip all roleplaying opportunities to get to the combat."

 

[Mercutio01]

For me, reading that phrase in context with the rest of the chapter, it is clear that it was meant to be an example of something that is un-fun, not a definitive statement that all encounters at the gates of a town with guards are un-fun.

I can see how others would read it differently, but to do so, for me, requires a significant ignoring of the context contained in the rest of the chapter.

This, exactly.

Not exactly - I think that he means that the game should go from planned encounter to planned encounter....I think that the folks at WotC are trying to correct for this now, but I really do think that Wyatt did mean that the game should go from planned encounter to planned encounter.

I think that is reading into the statement something that isn't there. I think it's your perceptions coloring how you read it. Not to minimize the idea, because after a few years of playing 4E, I've come to a similar conclusion, at least among the gamers I've played 4E with. But I definitely don't think that is either implied or meant to be implied in his words.

It's there in the book. You cant say we're reading into something that's not there when IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE BOOK. If anything we're responding to something that's plainly stated (which should be the case for a reference book by the way...) and you guys are reading into his statements with stuff that's not there. I'm willing to live and let live though. So no hard feelings. Play how and what you want.

And you're reading into it stuff that's not there either. It doesn't say what you think it says. It does not say, what The Auld Grump thinks it says. I've already parsed out the grammar for you, provided definition for "an" (an indefinite article usually referring to a nonspecific single noun that isn't meant as a generality), and explained that Wyatt did not, in any place, tell you to never ever ever ever talk to a gate guard because that's badwrongfun. He said to skip the unfun stuff, and used an example of something that is quite often unfun to illustrate the kind of mindless encounter you can safely skip over to keep the fun going.

You are the one reading more into it than it says, and The Auld Grump said exactly as much in his above post.

 

[Mercutio01]

In the spirit of neutrality, I'll answer this question without saying what I think he means (again): no, I don't think he's saying "to skip all roleplaying opportunities to get to the combat."

Okay. Then do you agree with The Auld Grump who thinks he means that you should skip by any and all encounters that are not pre-planned?

If not, what do you think he does mean, other than that unfun encounters are unfun and can be skipped over to get to the fun, wherein he uses an example of an unfun meeting with gate guards?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

This, exactly.

I think that is reading into the statement something that isn't there. I think it's your perceptions coloring how you read it. Not to minimize the idea, because after a few years of playing 4E, I've come to a similar conclusion, at least among the gamers I've played 4E with. But I definitely don't think that is either implied or meant to be implied in his words.

And you're reading into it stuff that's not there either. It doesn't say what you think it says. It does not say, what The Auld Grump thinks it says. I've already parsed out the grammar for you, provided definition for "an" (an indefinite article usually referring to a nonspecific single noun that isn't meant as a generality), and explained that Wyatt did not, in any place, tell you to never ever ever ever talk to a gate guard because that's badwrongfun. He said to skip the unfun stuff, and used an example of something that is quite often unfun to illustrate the kind of mindless encounter you can safely skip over to keep the fun going.

You are the one reading more into it than it says, and The Auld Grump said exactly as much in his above post.

And people have disagreed with the way you have 'parsed' Wyatt's statement - or, more accurately, how you have reinterpreted his statement.

He wrote what he wrote.

He did describe talking to the guards as not fun.

He did not have an 'if' in his statement. It was declarative.

And it was not the only time that he had made that kind of declaration.

The Auld Grump

 

[Mercutio01]

And people have disagreed with the way you have 'parsed' Wyatt's statement - or, more accurately, how you have reinterpreted his statement.

He wrote what he wrote.

He did describe talking to the guards as not fun.

He did not have an 'if' in his statement. It was declarative.

And it was not the only time that he had made that kind of declaration.

The Auld Grump

You don't like my terminology? Fine. I'll turn off my grammarian hat and my writing instructor hat, and my writer hat. Wyatt did not say what you think he says in that sentence. He simply doesn't.

I didn't reinterpret anything. He said "An encounter." That does not mean ALL encounters. It doesn't mean MOST encounters. It doesn't even mean SOME encounters.

And it certainly does not say that you should skip from one planned encounter to another.

He does say to skip encounters that are not fun, and calls out the meeting with gate guards as an unfun encounter. I happen to think that is among the best advice I've read in the DMG. Skip the stuff that isn't fun.

I don't see anyone arguing that food supplies and encumbrance are fun, and yet he says to skip those, too. Do you also disagree with him on that point? How about "long treks through endless corridors"? Are those also statements to call him out about?

Is that all some over-arching design philosophy meant to stamp out anything that isnt a prescripted, pre-planned encounter?

Or are they just examples of unfun play that can be skipped over to maintain the fun?