The Guards at the Gate Quote

[the Jester]

The problem is, saying "X is unfun, skip X, and fill in the value for x that works for you" is not listening to the wisdom of Wyatt's words because he isn't acknowledging that X is a variable.

I mean, I could write, "When you run a D&D game, you should skip all the stuff where npcs tell the pcs their names. All that talking with npcs is not fun! Skip to the fun part, get to the encounter!" That doesn't make it good advice, and it doesn't mean that the primary point of my statement is "Skip to the fun part"; the primary point is, "Interacting with npcs isn't fun." Which is something I'd wager a vast majority of D&D players disagree with.

James Wyatt has a very specific playstyle that he often pimps. He's not pimping "the playstyle you find fun," he's pimping the playstyle he finds fun. That's why people take issue with him on these things (IMHO).

 

[Janx]

Then we are all intelligent enough to take his ideas with a big grain of salt. The founder of the game had strong opinions on the 'right' way to play the game too. I took his advice, Wyatt's, and anyone else's and applied my own group's likes and dislikes to them.

Obviously, I agree with this, but to back up a little to Jester's valid point about the way Wyatt phrases things.

That's life. People do talk in absolute terms as if their way was the only way.

It's blunt. It's at times undiplomatic. That doesn't mean they don't have a point. As often, people who speak with few qualifiers really do cut to the point.

But like some dude on page 1 said about customer service training. Read the message and get the user's point. Seperate it from their presentation. What is the point they are making.

James Wyatt is saying, don't waste an hour of game time to deliver some tomatoes and talk to the gate guard when NONE of that had any impact.

I suspect the difference in value for that statement is when the DM inflicts a meaningless encounter on you (you MUST haggle with the shop owner to buy your supplies, you MUST go through the dialog with the gate guard to enter the city despite the fact that the default situation implies you will ultimately be granted access).

Skip those scenes. Talk past them.
"You buy your supplies from Bob the shop keep. Give the the total of the cost and the items you bought."
"You get to the gate and the guard asks the typical questions, and then lets you through"

Wyatt's advice is to the DM to not waste time. If the PCs want to stop and ask Bob questions, or talk to the gate guard about anybody else passing through, the scene control passes to the players.

 

[pauljathome]

The point is, you need to cut the speaker some slack and see the wisdom in his statement and not the literal choice of wording.
.

He is a professional writing in the prime work aimed at GMs. One can presume that he chose his words carefully. I don't know the WOTC process but I also will presume that at least one or 2 other people looked at his words prior to them being published (if WOTC didn't review every word in the PHB and DMG several times then they're idiots).

As the AuldGrump pointed out the addition of a single word ("if") would have changed that quote immensely.

Pretty much every defence of his quote that I've seen here implicitly assumes that he meant to put that "if" in that quote and are reading it as if that word was present.

I basically see two alternatives.

1) He (and the reviewers of his prose) DID mean what they said. They purposefully did NOT put in the word "if"
2) He (and the reviewers of his prose) badly worded that paragraph so as to significantly obfusate the intended meaning. Ie, they were basically incompetent

Now, we all make mistakes and its hard to read the actual words when you know what they "mean". But that is exactly the kind of mistake that I'd expect reviewers to catch (and yes, I've both reviewed documents and had documents that I write be reviewed)

I tend to agree with Auld Grump due to memories of the roll out and believe that it was deliberate. But I could be convinced it was incompetence. I've always liked the quote "never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence".

But it pretty much is one or the other. Either Wyatt MEANT BadWrongFun or he and WOTC chose sufficiently bad prose that I believe that calling them incompetent is justified.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

The point is, you need to cut the speaker some slack and see the wisdom in his statement and not the literal choice of wording.

Frak that the author is talking about gate guards and talking to them is unfun. That's just HIS example.

the POINT is that he recommends not wasting time with encounters that don't actually have anything of merit happen.

You are each smart individuals. The application of the idea to your unique campaign is what you are supposed to be doing. James Wyatt is not responsible for inserting IFs and lawyer speak to qualify every godsdamned thing he says.

You the readert hold that responsibility.

Then in a text that's meant for experienced and NEW players alike he should have been clear and concise in what he MEANT to say and not leave it up to interpretation. As the 'SPEAKER' in this case for a reference book, it's not our job as readers to extrapolate and try to figure out what he actually meant. It's not a piece of literature, IT'S GORRAM REFERENCE BOOK. Be clear. Say what you mean.

In that context, from that approach I see him saying that "X is not fun" as you shouldn't do X. Not as "some people prefer to do X and some people prefer not to do X. Personally I dont like doing X so I skip it". He's saying X isn't fun. DEFINITIVE. Skip it. DEFINITIVE.

It's not lawyer speak, it's basic communication. Especially in a reference book. Get the point across in away that people will CLEARLY understand what the hell you're saying.

 

[I'm A Banana]

James Wyatt is not responsible for inserting IFs and lawyer speak to qualify every godsdamned thing he says.

Actually, in his capacity as the writer of the DMG, he is, precisely, responsible for everything he says.

Him. Personally. He wrote it. If he didn't want to be responsible for everything he wrote, he shouldn't write books.

Of course, he's not the one saying he shouldn't be held responsible for what he says. He's not really taking a stand one way or the other. There are plenty of other folks apologizing for him, though, saying that, no, it's not him who said these things, it's all these other people who are deliberately misinterpreting him.

Well, no. It's entirely possible to have a problem with his quote based either on the fact that it's really bad writing, or based on the fact that it actually says some very questionable things. It's also entirely possible NOT to have a problem with it, if you don't care about his bad writing, or agree with his questionable things.

much like people are saying Wyatt should have done in his quote, you should type what you mean

The author of the DMG should probably be held to considerably higher standards than some random d00d on a message board.

 

[Janx]

He's saying X isn't fun. DEFINITIVE. Skip it. DEFINITIVE.

So let's take him literally.

wyatt thinks basic gate guard scenes and supply shopping scenes are not fun and are a waste of time.

I hope we all can agree that Wyatt said that, and that it is probably his preference to not spend much time on those activities.

I agree with him.

I do not want to sit around while the GM makes each player role-play his shopping for supplies before we head out to the dungeon.

I do not want to sit around while the GM makes us answer the gate guard's questions when ultimately he will let us through and nothing else will have happened from it.

I do expect that anybody who agrees with Wyatt will also accept that SOME shopping scenes do need roleplaying out and SOME gate guard scenes do need to be roleplayed out.

Note, I am pretty sure Wyatt is talking about generic gate guard challenges, generic shopping trips, and generic travels to places that nothing of import happens. These are activities where the outcome is certain and spending time on them is where he advises skipping them.

I'm also pretty sure that Wyatt isn't saying the only fun encounters are combat. Traps are fun. Roleplaying meaningful discussions is fun. Chases are fun. Complex problems are fun.

Burning realtime for mundane activities where the outcome is certain and can be summed up is not fun for me. Not fun for Wyatt. Not fun for most people.

That last statement is what I take from Wyatt's intent. Seperate it from the specifics of "talking to gate guards".

If you are GMing for me, in a 4 hour block (because I work about 80 hours a week and thats about how much time I can spare and still have room for my family and chores), do YOU really think YOU can justify WASTING my time.

this isn't about me being a jerk and never being in your campaign. For each player, their time is as limited as mine is. As a GM, do you really have a RIGHT to waste my time? Do you think it would be COURTEOUS to respect my time? Isn't the GM's time just as valuable and worthy of respect?

Therefore, if time is FINITE, out of all the elements in the game, why would you prioritize mundane activities where the outcome is certain as something to spend TIME on as compared to the other encounters that have uncertain outcomes?

The term fun is just an expression of value. If you prioritize all the types of encounters in the game, you could expect differing lists from each player. But I should hope that "Spending time on Mundane Activities where the outcome is certain" is not on the top of anybody's list.

I suspect there is not an RPG in existence (please do not prove me wrong) about mundane people doing mundane things. Every one I've heard of is about PCs doing exceptional things like fighting, casting spells, solving big problems, sneaking and stealing, and talking important NPCs into doing what you want.

Not a one of them has as an emphasis, buying carrrots, delivering tomatoes to the market and getting a good price for them, or getting past the TSA checkpoint with correct ID and no contraband in your luggage. None of them detail the random 2 people you get seated next to on the airplane and have to talk to on your 3 hour flight.

Because RPGs are about the interesting stuff. Not the mundane stuff.

So minimize the time spent on mundane things where the outcome is certain.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Stuff...

I've addressed alot of this in my earlier post.

And I did so without politely telling someone that the way that they play was stupid and a waste of time. Yes I know that you didn't say that but and I quote:

Read the message and get the user's point. Separate it from their presentation. What is the point they are making.

So thanks for that. Let's feel free to ignore each other from here on in yes? GRRRRRRRRRRRREAT....

 

[Janx]

Actually, in his capacity as the writer of the DMG, he is, precisely, responsible for everything he says.

Him. Personally. He wrote it. If he didn't want to be responsible for everything he wrote, he shouldn't write books.

Of course, he's not the one saying he shouldn't be held responsible for what he says. He's not really taking a stand one way or the other. There are plenty of other folks apologizing for him, though, saying that, no, it's not him who said these things, it's all these other people who are deliberately misinterpreting him.

Well, no. It's entirely possible to have a problem with his quote based either on the fact that it's really bad writing, or based on the fact that it actually says some very questionable things. It's also entirely possible NOT to have a problem with it, if you don't care about his bad writing, or agree with his questionable things.



The author of the DMG should probably be held to considerably higher standards than some random d00d on a message board.

The other dude used the word "Incompetent". I think that's a pretty harsh assessment. A man flying a plane who doesn't actually know how to fly is incompetent. A man who knows how to assemble sentences in a way that makes sense to others and conveys his meaning and intent, yet still offends some subset of the audience does not define incompetence.

A mistake, surely.

Having been paid for writing and editing proposals for business worth considerably more than what James Wyatt go paid for his words, I can see how the mistake can happen.

We can try to hold the WotC crew to some high standard of communication, but seriously, these guys get paid less than teachers.

If we're lucky, there are english or journalism majors involved in the editing process.

And none of that means any experts in communicating and phrasing of intent were involved.

So Wyatt wrote a piece that expressed his opinion on certain game elements. And his editor saw no typos or grammar errors. And the tone seemed OK to him. Probably because he also agreed with Wyatt's point.

Thus, it got published.

 

[Reynard]

If you are GMing for me, in a 4 hour block (because I work about 80 hours a week and thats about how much time I can spare and still have room for my family and chores), do YOU really think YOU can justify WASTING my time.

this isn't about me being a jerk and never being in your campaign. For each player, their time is as limited as mine is. As a GM, do you really have a RIGHT to waste my time? Do you think it would be COURTEOUS to respect my time? Isn't the GM's time just as valuable and worthy of respect?

Therefore, if time is FINITE, out of all the elements in the game, why would you prioritize mundane activities where the outcome is certain as something to spend TIME on as compared to the other encounters that have uncertain outcomes?

I certainly hope you are paying that GM, because otherwise you are the one being discourteous, making demands on someone who has, with almost 100% certainty, more than those 4 hours he or she is also going to be at the table, trying to have a good time.

You may be better off with a CRPG or MMO if you expect to be catered to in such a manner and to such a degree.

 

[Janx]

I've addressed alot of this in my earlier post.

And I did so without politely telling someone that the way that they play was stupid and a waste of time. Yes I know that you didn't say that but and I quote:



So thanks for that. Let's feel free to ignore each other from here on in yes? GRRRRRRRRRRRREAT....

I read page 1. Your post was on page 4. I did not ignore your post as I did not know your post existed.

And it was a nice post.

To answer that post's final question, why not play a boardgame?
I play D&D because the GM acts as a parser to my described actions that a mere boardgame cannot hope to handle.

Take your example of the guard. Your example is NOT a waste of time. You made the guard encounter impart meaningful information through roleplay.

A less saavy GM just has the guards there as a nuisance time wasting encounter to show the city has a gate and it is guarded by guards. That information could have been conveyed in one sentence with the next getting to the PCs destination.

So, if an encounter is a waste of time, the GM has 2 suggestions: skip it or make it have value.