The Guards at the Gate Quote

[caudor]

Imagine, if in the name of what is good-real-fun, the novels you read cut everything but the combat scenes. A nice read? Hum, ever tried to read the 4e PHB1?

One of my most memoriable moments in D&D was our party holed up in a creaky barn, simply to rest. The farmer who invited was friendly but kinda creepy too (one eye held wider than the other).

Then the storm comes, and lighting flashes through the crack in the barn. Our DM was simply setting up an atmosphere for the early part of the adventure, but we did not know that. If was fun, scary, and not boring. I skipped a lot of details that added to the dread.

No combat happened that night, but I sure remember it.

 

[technoextreme]

Well, 12 year old S'mon had no trouble understanding the 1e AD&D PHB & DMG. I must have just ignored the bits like the Initiative rules, that literally do not make sense.

35 year old S'mon could not make head nor tail of the 4e D&D PHB & DMG. I was flummoxed. I found the presentation indecipherable.

I think... I think the chatty, discursive style of the 1e stuff is just inherently much easier for me to engage with than the business-briefing style of the 4e stuff. I have the same issue with Law textbooks; the supposedly 'simplified' business-briefing presentation approach rapidly becomes completely incomprehensible.

You probably haven't picked those books up in a while. The older AD&D DMG I had started off with a ing math lesson. Hell at one point it even states you are an idiot if you play the game a certain way.

I don't think anyone's arguing you have to follow his advice. The OP asked why people didn't like the quote and that's what I've tried to answer.

See the issue I have with the quote is how badly, IMO, it's worded. IMO, if you skip past the guards, as the DM, then you give both the cue that they shouldn't be interacted with as well as lessening the opportunity the players have to instigate a conversation with the guards becoming an encounter... IMO, it's badly (worded) advice.

That sounds a lot like railroading.

 

[Reynard]

..see, if it's the same campaign twelve levels later and the DM is still going on about the damn guards at the gate.. and I've been there. Oh boy. That was so much fun.

Well, there's your problem. After 12 levels, those gate guards should not be responding to you in the same way they did that first time you sulked up to the gate, too cash poor to pay the toll. They should be astonished by or envious of or frightened by or suspicious of these skilled, powerful figures sauntering through the gate, these heroes who have vanquished dragons and slain giants and saved princesses and overthrown tyrants. I'd be bored and call it unfun too if the character I had nursed to Hero status was still treated like a Zero by the guards (and, by extension, the DM).

Of course, assuming I didn't have one of those DMs that scaled everything to my level, I'd burn the frakkin place down. That'd get their attention.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Again reading the whole quote I read it as, don't spend a lot of time with stuff that doesn't add to the game feel free to move on. (Especially in light of the fact that in other areas of the book he talks about encounters that aren't combat.)

The real point is: I believe that we can all agree that spend time with stuff that doesn't add to the game does no good. The problem with the quote is not that part of the message, but the one where he tells us what experiences add to the game. Personally, I see that talking to the guards at the gate adds much more to my own experiente than killing things and taking their stuff.

In the end of the day, that's my big issue with 4E: lots of different people play D&D for a lot of different reasons, and it's really bad when they tell us that the only playing style worth supporting is the encounter-based/combat-focused one.

Cheers,

 

[GSHamster]

Imagine, if in the name of what is good-real-fun, the novels you read cut everything but the combat scenes. A nice read?

I'm of the opinion that almost all modern novels and movies need more rigorous editing. That they would be better if they cut a little more, were less indulgent. Especially fantasy novels, which have become inordinately spoiled by the trilogy and series format.

I guess I apply that same view to gaming. You only have so much time to play, so you need to choose what events and scenes to emphasize.

(And possibly I'm still upset at that cart of tomatoes.)

I read "guards at the gate" as shorthand for encounters where the outcome is not in doubt, which don't really advance the plot, and generally where the purpose they serve does not match the cost in time.

However, I really like the interpretation of some posters here that the guards at the gate are symbolic of the city's atmosphere and personality, and provide a concise introduction to that city for players. It's still an encounter that I would only ever play in detail once, but now I feel that one time is worth the cost.

 

[Iosue]

I enjoy the scene in Lord of the Rings where Gandalf and company encounter Hama guarding the doors of Meduseld. I also enjoyed the slightly different feel of the movie version. As a Beowulfian, I have great appreciation for the ultimate inspiration of this scene: Beowulf's encounters with the Danish coastguard and Wulfgar before the doors of Heorot, for their nuanced expression of world and character. As a player and DM, I've played and run encounters like this and will undoubtedly do so in the future.

I read the Wyatt quote and didn't think anything of it. As I read it, his point was the DM shouldn't overburden themself with needless minutia. Sure, he used as an example a kind of encounter I've enjoyed, but he also used the example of encumbrance, something I've happily handwaved. My take was that these weren't definitive examples of "not fun", but examples of things that might bog things down, depending on the game.

I dunno. It never struck me as badwrongfun finger-wagging. There are much stronger examples of that in the 1e and 2e DMGs.

 

[haakon1]

The guards at the gate is a classic roleplay encounter. It's classic because the PCs are in a situation where they MUST get in, but they absolutely CANNOT afford to use force, because the entire weight of the city's power is focused at that point. The PCs are there beneath the mighty walls of the city, watchful archers above, heavily armed guardsmen below. Fighting would likely be suicidal, and certainly doom whatever mission the PCs are on. Then, the nature of the interaction - whether the guards are corrupt, brutal, honest, jovial, (in)competent - allows the GM to really set the tone of the city in a very immediate, very effective manner.

Great post, as usual, which means no XP to spare for you.

To me, the most memorable encounter in D&D -- because it was my first -- was the gate guards at the Keep on the Borderlands asking my name and why I was there -- so I was forced to get in character right away. The DM's detailed description of the murderholes in the tunnel between the doors and the portcullis at the back has stayed with me for 30 years. He told me later he got the description from visiting Edinburgh Castle, so when I finally visited there (about 12 years ago, we're Americans), it was really cool to see the real deal, and how well he described it and I saw it in my mind. Hooked on D&D ever since.

That's a gate guard encounter, Wyatt.

 

[Thagdal]

It isn't. In the context of a plot driven story interactions that really don't do anything are pretty dumb.

But lots of games use interactions as red herrings and also to allow room for players to create interactions.

On OP: The quote doesn't overly bother me, but I have the perception that WoTC take the easy approach to marketing by saying 'old way unfun, our new way better'. Saw it with minis when that changed additions, and saw it with 4th ed when it started it's advertising trail.

 

[haakon1]

Well, there's your problem. After 12 levels, those gate guards should not be responding to you in the same way they did that first time you sulked up to the gate, too cash poor to pay the toll. They should be astonished by or envious of or frightened by or suspicious of these skilled, powerful figures sauntering through the gate, these heroes who have vanquished dragons and slain giants and saved princesses and overthrown tyrants. I'd be bored and call it unfun too if the character I had nursed to Hero status was still treated like a Zero by the guards (and, by extension, the DM).

With you here. INTERACTIVE NPC's and environment = good DMing, from my DM chair.

Of course, assuming I didn't have one of those DMs that scaled everything to my level, I'd burn the frakkin place down. That'd get their attention.

Not with you here. I don't scale things (a gate guard is typically just a gate guard), but I'd be annoyed at this behavior.

 

[Thagdal]

I'm going totally off-topic here, but you raise an interesting point.

I completely agree that a good game book should present options, help the DM think about different ways of handling things, and so on. I'm on your side there.

But a completely separate question in my mind is whether the book should be written at an 8th-grade level. What grade level SHOULD the DMG and PHB be written at?

Honestly, given that a lot of RPGers got into the game around ages 10-12, I would think that the books should be accessible to someone at, say, a 6th-grade reading level. Right?

I just never thought about what "reading level" D&D books were written at before. It feels to me like they should be kept at middle school level if they're going to work for the target audience of new players.

And I say this as someone who got into D&D at age 31, just to be clear!

IMO The younger you are when you start playing, the less the actual rules bother you. Younger than ten can use the pictures and bolded headings just like I did :0