The Guards at the Gate Quote

Sorry, I assumed you had moved into the core books since I don't recall skill challenges being mentioned in the preview being discussed in the OP.

Oh, that was sarcasm and it was specifically pointing out how silly the wording of this quote is in comparison to the stuff in DMG and DMG 2... I even mentioned in a previous post the fact that DMG 2 has a player type that would love this type of situation... the "Actor" player type.

Regardless, if we restrict ourselves to Wyatt's quote, he only mentions Encounters, not Fights and Skill Challenges, so an encounter with the gate guards at the PCs request is not out of the realm of thought. I took his meaning to be not to force a mundane encounter upon the players. I also take anything any game designer says as opinion and guidelines, since the Rule Zero days of first edition.

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

A plot cannot drive a game. I think the difference each of you is imagining is whether the plot is driven by the players or the DM. Both of the games mentioned are probably character-driven plots, while Imaro, you are most likely railing against DM-driven plots. It really boils down to semantics and we've been through many long threads talking past each other on the exact meanings.

Hey, I'm not the one claiming dungeon crawls are plot driven... ;)

I'm not really railing against anything, I'm just saying that both styles exist amongst the D&D player base so it shouldn't be assumed that one or the other is the default.
 

An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun. Tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun.

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.

For that reason, it's an encounter that comes up frequently in adventures, and IME always works very well. It is, for instance, the very first encounter in the classic City of Thieves Fighting Fantasy gamebook. It's inherently exciting - and scary! Much moreso than 5 enemies in an XP-balanced combat encounter.

Thus, to me Wyatt's statement came across as gobsmackingly stupid. Maybe it was just a brainfart, but it certainly had me wondering what the Hell he was talking about, and where he was coming from, to say such a thing.

tumblr_lswvxwRV8L1r1g40zo1_500.jpg


Edit: Behold - the Gate Guard of Port Blacksand!! :D
 
Last edited:

Interesting.

In my games sometimes PC's get information from skill checks but there needs to be some sort of actual interaction to get those skill checks rolling. If a PC says to me "I need to find out where the black market is and I'm trying to be discreet." I'm gonna ask that player if he wants to RP it or roll it. Depending on the situation in the city at hand it's entirely possible that he's going to get more information out of RPing that interaction than he/she would from just rolling the dice.

And by more information I mean that they get the base information that they would have from rolling the dice. BUT if they RP the encounter depending on how the conversation goes it's possible that instead of getting the information from shady no-name d00d's it's possible that they chatted up one person (lets say Kaltos the teamster) in particular and started the beginnings of a valuable contact which could come in to play later on.

Bringing it back to the guard at the gate encounter, those guards are often the first face of the city that the PC's encounter. Now granted if your PC's aren't going to be in the city long then maybe it wont matter. But if they are going to be in the city their first encounter with those guards at the gate has the option to impart a lot of information to the PC's.

Do the guards make any of the PC's as spell casters? If so how are they addressed? Are they viewed as trouble makers? A particularly friendly/ flirtatious guard may be a valuable contact or source of information later on. An antagonistic guard might be an antagonist later on informing the constable that the PC's look like troublemakers and gave him lip at the entrance. What if the town or city is in need of a healer or healers or extra sword arms? and why? Would the PC's be approached by the guards upon entering the city and how?

Wyatt's approach (IMHO) works if you're on really limited time like a convention game or RPGA type game, which honestly I see 4E really catering to with it's streamlined and balanced rules for ease of play. On the other hand one of the many arguments that so many 4E proponents have made when someone says something like "You can't RP in 4E." or "4E is a miniatures combat game that minimizes RP" is that the people who DO say that are dead wrong. That you can RP in 4E. And I dont doubt it. D&D is still a role playing game and should be treated as such WHEN ACTUALLY PLAYING.

Just because there are skill challenges doesn't preclude actual role-playing or eliminate it altogether. Skill Challenges as they are presented lean heavily more toward the GAME end of the RPG spectrum. But as noted in a few articles by Robert J. Schwalb on his blog it doesn't have to be that way. and the way that he chooses to run them is pretty much how I would run them if I were running 4E.

That intro encounter with the guards can help immersion. It helps build the world. If you're eschewing these types of encounters because they're not fun for you or in lieu of skill challenges (as they are presented in the core book) or going directly from encounter to encounter and you're not playing a RPGA or Convention game, then (and I ask this not to be snarky or deride anyones play style here) but why are you playing D&D? There are a many other types of boardgames or miniature war games that cut right to the chase. Including the WOTC 4E Boardgames, two of which I own and have played and have had fun playing. If time is an issue where actual RP encounters should be ignored wouldnt those types of games be a better more efficient option?

Again don't mistake what I'm asking or saying as a slam. I'm asking an honest question.
 

That intro encounter with the guards can help immersion. It helps build the world.
It can, and it can. If that's how the DM uses them. And there are many different uses for them. But there are also many other ways to provide immersion. And other ways to build the world.

But that's about arriving somewhere for the first time. And the reaction I got had to do with something else. Maybe I was jumping to conclusions too.

And I'd like to to take a moment here to clarify where I'm coming from..

..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. :hmm:
 

Two questions.

1) Is this quote from the DMG? Or is this from a comment Wyatt made on a webpage?

2) What's the purpose of this thread? No on is going to be convinced. Those that are offended/se badwrongfun will see it, and those that don't don't, and no middle ground will ever be reached.
 

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?

It should vary somewhat, by purpose. I'd say most of the range needs to be 8th to 12th grade reading level. The original D&D was written for college and older. Bright, younger students managed with it just fine, however. You don't want to deliberately exclude younger kids, but you do want them to aspire to greater understanding. (And as C.S. Lewis pointed out long ago, we really shouldn't condescend to kids when we write to them.)

Keep in mind that "8th grade" level is already pretty basic, because that is an average. Any reasonably bright 6th grader is going to be able to at least make do with some 8th grade text. If you start writing technical materials (i.e. game rules) any more basic than that, you have to dumb it down.

If they want to put a short section of introductory advice at the 8th grade level, fine. In that section, say, "Do this. Then do this other thing. Try to ham it up a bit. Give XP. Repeat." (Several pages, and more detailed, but you get the idea.) But the bulk of the advice should be written to a functionally grown person, with appropriate nuance. If a bright 15 year-old doesn't believe that Dick and Jane might like slightly different things, telling him in newspaper speak that they do is not going to help, anyway. If he does believe it, he needs more advice than what he gets now.

See Dick. Dick is a fighter. He fights monsters. Fight Dick, fight! ...

Yes, that was pretty much my reaction to some of the text in the 4E DMG, too. One of these days, when I have some time on my hand, and am feeling sufficiently snarky, I think I will write a marriage advice essay that mimics the style of the 4E DMG advice. :p
 

...And I'd like to to take a moment here to clarify where I'm coming from..

..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. :hmm:

That was pretty much my reaction, too. Any time I've spoken disparagingly of PCs spending a lot of game time "shopping in town"--that is more or less what I had in mind. I say that as someone that has had to bite my lip and endure it at times, too, because while I was jaded by the umpteenth shopping trip, I had a relatively new gamer that still thought it was fun. But there is definitely a limit, like the number of times you can see, say, Gone with the Wind before it transitions from a good flick to pure camp. :D
 

And I'd like to to take a moment here to clarify where I'm coming from..

..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. :hmm:

See this I understand. I dont use the guard encounter over and over UNLESS I have a specific information that I need to pass to the PC's via the guards in question and depending on the relationship with them, if any.

Otherwise then yeah, we can just breeze past that encounter if it's the umpteenth time and serves no real purpose.
 

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?

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.
 

Remove ads

Top