![]()
Bunnies! Look, over there!
What an awesome image! Where it that from? Sorta looks like a choose your own adventure / lone wolf sort of thing.
![]()
Bunnies! Look, over there!
You're new in this thread, aren't you?What an awesome image! Where it that from? Sorta looks like a choose your own adventure / lone wolf sort of thing.
Who reads a contemporary RPG guidebook and gets offended by being told that something they like in their games - non-encounter, non-action driving scenes with gate guards - aren't fun? If you disagree, note the disagreement and move on!
What I don't get is the complaints that it's "terrible advice." What does it matter to anyone that some stranger - whose GMing practice is being shaped by the 4e DMG - might be running games in a different style? And if those strangers really want to run exploration-heavy games with free-floating colour, I'm sure they'll find there way there regardless of what they might have read in the 4e DMG.
It would be terrible advice if it was prone to produce games that were actually inferior in some way. But where's the evidence for that? I haven't seen any.
![]()
You will answer my question! And understand this: how you answer is just as important as correctly answering...
Does this armor make my butt look big???
These aren't bad (at least in my view) because they don't involve peripheral encounters with gate guards. They're bad because the actual encounters they present are failures - little thematic content, little integration with player interest as expressed via their PCs, etc.Keep on the Shadowfell <etc>
He did say it's a "crashing bore for most participants" (DMG p 92). He also said that equipping the PCs "should be done before play begins, for it is time consuming, and the readying of a party can require several hours if there are more than six characters involved" (PHB p 107). As I read it (and I've reread it to try and ensure against misreading) this is both (i) a diagnosis of a particular playstyle as unfun, and (ii) an instruction to leave something out. No RPing through 6 hour shopping trips at the 1st ed AD&D by-the-book table!You're misreading it. He said to balance challenge against reward (ie not Monty Haul), and that the game isn't designed to challenge Christmas Tree PCs. He didn't actually say Monty Haul was Not Fun (for the players).
I'm not objecting to his advice (at least with respect to Monty Haul - personally, I follow it, but I've known groups who didn't and who nevertheless have fun). I'm trying to rebut the contention (express or implied by some (many?) of the critics of Wyatt's advice) that the 4e DMG somehow crosses a new line in D&D by trying to prescribe a playstyle based on a conception of what makes for a fun game.This is a particularly silly objection to EGG <snip> if you use the 1e DMG treasure & NPC gear tables as written you get 5th level PCs running around with +5 swords and belts of storm giant strength.
I'll let you start that thread, but am happy to participate - I have some views! (And I think there are very interesting differences between Moldvay Basic, which I started with, and Gygaxian/Pulsipherian AD&D.)I don't see how the merits of Gygaxian advice is relevant to whether Wyatt's advice is bad. If we want to critique Gygax's advice maybe we could have a new thread? I'm running a semi-Gygaxian 1e Yggsburgh campaign right now, it might benefit from such a discussion.
I've never been a big one for running pure colour "encounters" (I'm using inverted commas because, in 4e's sense of the term, these aren't encounters, and these days - with fewer and shorter sessions - even less so. I do sometimes use "encounters" which are not (in 4e's sense) encounters in order to frame or prelude or perhaps foreshadow events.Do *YOU* run games in which encounters with two guards at a gate are a de facto example of "not fun" and therefore you NEVER do that?
I'm happy to concede - as I've frequently contended in other threads in the past - that big chunks of the 4e DMG could be better written. But the quote from Wyatt isn't - in my view - any where near the worst example, and it's general thrust (especially in the context of the other advice in the DMG and the PHB) is pretty clear to me, and I would imagine to most other intelligent readers.Yeah, but it is just a really poor choice of words. There is a lot of 4E text out there and they didn't say what they meant.
My advice if you want to see an interesting movie this summer in Australia (I'm not sure what the release schedule in the US is): Lars von Trier's Melancholia. Or Almodovar's The Skin I Live In.Because it will produce inferior games if followed for many groups. It would for my group. It would for others in this thread.
<snip>
Why you can't see that as terrible advice is beyond me. He's giving advice that would actively hurt Fun for a lot of people if they followed it
I'm one of those who has never found D&D to support these multiple styles very well. AD&D isn't very pluralistic in its text (as I've quoted upthread). I don't remember 3E being pluralistic in its text, but am happy to be reminded!I have no problem at all with strong advice in a game that is intended for one play style (I used Feng Shui as my example).
But I think that 4th edition D&D should have better tried to support multiple styles.
Fundamentally, I believe THAT is what got people upset. D&D went from openly supporting multiple playing styles to being presented as strongly favouring a subset of those playing styles.
The first quote is qualified with a "for most participants". That is, he allows for exceptions (though it's definitely a somewhat debatable point). The second is advice on pacing, as far as I can tell, not a comment on what is or is not fun.He did say it's a "crashing bore for most participants" (DMG p 92). He also said that equipping the PCs "should be done before play begins, for it is time consuming, and the readying of a party can require several hours if there are more than six characters involved" (PHB p 107). As I read it (and I've reread it to try and ensure against misreading) this is both (i) a diagnosis of a particular playstyle as unfun, and (ii) an instruction to leave something out. No RPing through 6 hour shopping trips at the 1st ed AD&D by-the-book table!
From your two quotes, above, it looks like he did something different than what Wyatt did. Gygax qualified his statement of what is fun to applying to most people, leaving room for exceptions. Additionally, he gave his view on pacing, which is not an objective value judgement on what Fun is.But I'm not here trying to critique Gygax. I'm just pointing out that he did the same thing as Wyatt does, and hence that giving playstyle advice and prescriptions is not new to 4e.
Then again, you didn't say "documentaries aren't fun, don't watch them" or the like, did you? In fact, you said "for some people those movies may not be fun" and allowed the possibility to exist. Wyatt didn't. Wyatt didn't say "this play style will result in a satisfying and compelling style of situation/encounter-oriented gaming" or the like. He said something wasn't fun. You're comparison is off, in my opinion.My advice if you want to see an interesting movie this summer in Australia (I'm not sure what the release schedule in the US is): Lars von Trier's Melancholia. Or Almodovar's The Skin I Live In.
For some people those movies may not be fun. But objectively speaking, they are well-made movies by leading directors with good actors and interesting themes and plots. Even if you happen not to like those films, my advice is not, in any objective sense, "terrible advice". Neither of them is a stinker.
That's definitely a different take on it. I mean, if any of those players would have fun talking to that guard with nothing on the line, he's given terrible advice. Because, by following it, it'd be actively hurting their enjoyment.And non-exporation-focused, situation-based RPGing is not inherently flawed or "unfun".
The real issue is whether Wyatt's advice is bad advice for actual and prospecive D&D players.
The 3.5 DMG, under Style of Play on page 7, talks about "Kick in the Door", "Deep-Immersion Storytelling", "Something in Between", "Serious versus Humorous", "Naming Conventions", and "Multiple Characters". Later, it goes on to talk about Motivations on page 43, where it talks about "Tailored or Status Quo" "Event-Based Adventures", "Site-Based Adventures", and the like.I'm one of those who has never found D&D to support these multiple styles very well. AD&D isn't very pluralistic in its text (as I've quoted upthread). I don't remember 3E being pluralistic in its text, but am happy to be reminded!
The change of focus isn't terrible, calling people's fun "not fun" is terrible advice, because it'll make the game worse for people he's leaving out. He's not saying "these things are not fun for most players" (which would be debatable enough already). He's saying "these things are not fun; skip them and roll some dice! That's what's fun!"So for me it seemed not a narrowing of focus but just a change of focus, from exploration (especially dungeon exploration and adventure-path-plotline exploration) to situation. If that's a "terrible" change of focus, the bad-ness consists not in the change in aesthetic focus per se, but in the miscalculation of market consequences. (Which is how I read [MENTION=59506]El Mahdi[/MENTION]'s post above.)
Please clarify. Are you saying that "An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun." is a de facto true statement in your games or not. That was the question and your answer is a little cagey.I've never been a big one for running pure colour "encounters" (I'm using inverted commas because, in 4e's sense of the term, these aren't encounters, and these days - with fewer and shorter sessions - even less so. I do sometimes use "encounters" which are not (in 4e's sense) encounters in order to frame or prelude or perhaps foreshadow events.
I have very little pure exploration in my game.
Hey, again, you are playing a bit of bait and switch. I made no claim that this was the only example or that it was even the worst. Frankly, I wouldn't consider myself adequately expert in every detail of what is written in 4E.I'm happy to concede - as I've frequently contended in other threads in the past - that big chunks of the 4e DMG could be better written. But the quote from Wyatt isn't - in my view - any where near the worst example, and it's general thrust (especially in the context of the other advice in the DMG and the PHB) is pretty clear to me, and I would imagine to most other intelligent readers.
Please clarify. Are you saying that "An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun." is a de facto true statement in your games or not. That was the question and your answer is a little cagey.
Hey, again, you are playing a bit of bait and switch. I made no claim that this was the only example or that it was even the worst. Frankly, I wouldn't consider myself adequately expert in every detail of what is written in 4E.
What I DID say was that you can't defend THIS quote without turning it into something that isn't actually there and THIS quote also speaks directly to what many people find really lacking in 4E overall.