The Guards at the Gate Quote

[haakon1]

Why the smurf would you want to spend those 4 hours shopping for adventuring supplies from the PH as roleplayed, versus 10 minutes to look up prices, subtract the gold, and get to the dungeon or talking to the Duke about his trade agreement?

Some play for the storytelling or the roleplaying. For both types of gamers, the setting and the NPC's are a large part of what the game is about. So, for example, buying a horse can be an interesting encounter, not a boring one, if the players and DM want to make it interesting.

(BTW, "War Horse" has two scenes of merely buying a horse, but it's probably going to win Best Picture this year.)

 

[the Jester]

And I can accept some variance in what folks percieve as fat.

Not every gate guard scene is fat. Not every shopping trip is fat.

But surely, some situations can be summed up in a sentence, rather than expounded on as a drawn out roleplaying encounter where nothing was at stake, and the outcome was certain (I am going to buy that 50' of rope at PH cost).

Sure they can. But what if your group enjoys roleplaying those situations out? I have had groups like that- where they would play out the whole process of going from store to store for different types of goods and love the crap out of it.

No, it's not for every group. But why would you try to talk groups that enjoy it from playing that way?

As a case in point, I used to break up a quest to dungeon X into the travel part, before the actual dungeon part. This meant I had an entire session devoted to the random encounters along the way. Usually this meant going day by day, checking their guard rotation, and determining when the monster would be discovered and who was on guard.

This whole exercise got them some XP, spent some of their resources (healing, HP, spells), and didn't really advance the plot, other than they ultimately get to the dungeon in potentially worse shape than they started.

That style of play isn't invalid. But was it really fun? I could have said, "you arrive at Dungeon X four days later." and gotten to the part where the players make real decisions about how to explore the dungeon.

Rather than less critical decisions about how they guard their camp along the road, to avoid being robbed or attacked by wolves in the middle of the night.

Now there could be a way to skim the travel, yet still introduce an encounter in the middle. My point though is, why make the entire trip take an entire session, when the real objective is to explore Dungeon X.

The real reason to make the trip take an entire session is because the group enjoys it. Perhaps they like how a full session of travel makes the wilderness feel dangerous; perhaps it helps them build their image of how remote the dungeon is, or helps them to 'feel' the world better. Perhaps they don't care where they are or what they are doing so much as how rich the immersion is. Bottom line, it's all about playstyle preference. Advice that suggests discarding most of the stuff that some playstyles really enjoy is bad advice for those playstyles.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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.

Not my defense. My defense is that Wyatt, like many other RPG publishers, inserted his opinion into the 4E DMG. When reading opinion and applying its message to yourself, you have to examine what parts of the advice work for you. So, you can easily insert "combat" in the place of Wyatt's opinion on "gate guards" and still end up with useful advice.

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

I respectfully disagree. He is human and people on message board should resist the urge to stoop below that level.

"Hey, you! Am I too late late to audtion for the role of gate guard to the Neighborhood of Make-Believe?"

 

[Janx]

What if your group enjoys roleplaying such scenes?

If those scenes are fun for you, then keep doing them.

It's not a terrible logical stretch to ignore what disagreed activity Wyatt says is Unfun, but accept the idea of not wasting time on Unfun things. Find out what is Unfun to your group and spend less time on it.

If any kind of scenes are unfun, don't spend so much time on them, making them drag out.

Let's say your group really likes roleplaying and talking in character through everything. They don't like fiddly tactical combat so much.

As a GM, I'd be prepared with lots of talkative NPCs and motiviations and all that stuff.

I'd minimize how many NPCs resort to violence, instead, relying on threat of force and dialog so you can roleplay out of a combat (we've got you out numbered Duke Devious! Surrender!")

If I did have combats, I'd keep them simpler. The bad guys would not get all fancy with tactics and terrain and reinforcements and outsmarting the PCs through rules knowledge.

Because I'd recognize that the players do NOT want that kind of encounter. That's unfun to them.

That does not seem to be a huge deviation from Wyatt's core advice.

 

[broghammerj]

I think there is something deeper in this quote rather than Wyatt's simple words of what is fun and unfun and the surrounding debate around it.

To me it is the frame of reference from which we view the words. Unfortunately, 4E was marketed so heavliy as this new game is so "super-cool" and better than your current game, that many can't help but feel disenfranchised by it.

This quote represents the very essence of the marketing issue. Although, I think 4E is a great game for what it is designed for, I don't think it's what I consider DnD. When I am told my 3E game is bad just like gate guard encounters are bad, I just don't feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[Imaro]

Technically, the Freedom of Speech covers his right to say it.

Never argued it didn't.

People like Steve Jobs establish the precendent of overbearingly stating how things should be and having plenty of customers lining up to buy his product that they didn't know they wanted until his company made it.

That's great, but it can also backfire...

As to his what he really meant. I'm sure he meant what he said.
And that he liked the way he said it.

Then why not take it at face value as opposed to trying to argue what he meant or how others should interpret his meaning?

I don't know if he meant for some readers to get cheesed off by the way he said it. I suspect most people do not intend to make some people mad when they make statements. They probably assume that most people get their point and are surprised and then annoyed by the people who take umbrage.

This is irrelevant, people did and the OP asked why.

I don't think he meant it to be offensive to anybody, let alone people who value things he said were unfun. So saying he "meant what he said" has to be constrained to what he actually intended, rather than what offense the reader took.

This flies in the face of the argument that he is telling people how the game should be played. Which one is it? The simple fact is that I'm sure Wyatt is aware of other playstyles, and this in turn means that he is also aware that in promoting one particular playstyle for D&D over others he would in fact be offending or at least bugging the players of D&D who enjoyed the playstyles he is putting down in his examples.

I'm certain I extracted value from his statement as it influences my design considerations.

By your posts... you also seem to enjoy his particular playstyle... so I'm not surprised.

I think my interpretation is in line with what he said, rather than being some lesson by objection.

Again...
By your posts... you also seem to enjoy his particular playstyle... so I'm not surprised.

 

[GSHamster]

Believe it or not, even though yours may not, some groups enjoy playing those scenes out. The joy of roleplaying games includes, you know, the joy of roleplaying.

But the ultimate end of this line of thinking is that no one can offer any advice because some group somewhere might find the advised-against behavior fun.

You should not run Monty Haul campaigns ... some groups enjoy getting tons of treasure.
You allow each character to shine ... some groups might like playing Superhero and henchman.
You should make sure characters are compatible ... some groups like infighting and group PvP.
You should have more than just combat encounters ... some groups might really enjoy just blasting through monsters.
You should make each enounter meaningful ... some groups like wandering around and shooting the breeze with Joe Random.
Give the PCs interesting, non-magic item rewards like land grants ... some groups hate anything that does not increase their characters' combat prowess.

To me it seems that when you are trying to teach someone to DM, you need to take a stand on some issues. Certain rules tend to lead to better games for most players. Leaving a new DM to flounder because everything is relative does her no favors.

I suppose you could hedge every single thing you write with caveats to avoid people taking offence, but it leads to less forceful, wishy-washy advice, in my opinion.

 

[haakon1]

People like Steve Jobs establish the precendent of overbearingly stating how things should be and having plenty of customers lining up to buy his product that they didn't know they wanted until his company made it.

As to his what he really meant. I'm sure he meant what he said.
And that he liked the way he said it.

Steve Jobs was arrogant and sometimes obnoxious to the people who worked for him, or with him. That doesn't mean that aspect of his personality is something all other business people should strive to imitate -- it has a lot to do with why Apple nearly collapsed and he was fired as CEO the first time around.

 

[Imaro]

But the ultimate end of this line of thinking is that no one can offer any advice because some group somewhere might find the advised-against behavior fun.

You should not run Monty Haul campaigns ... some groups enjoy getting tons of treasure.
You allow each character to shine ... some groups might like playing Superhero and henchman.
You should make sure characters are compatible ... some groups like infighting and group PvP.
You should have more than just combat encounters ... some groups might really enjoy just blasting through monsters.
You should make each enounter meaningful ... some groups like wandering around and shooting the breeze with Joe Random.
Give the PCs interesting, non-magic item rewards like land grants ... some groups hate anything that does not increase their characters' combat prowess.

To me it seems that when you are trying to teach someone to DM, you need to take a stand on some issues. Certain rules tend to lead to better games for most players. Leaving a new DM to flounder because everything is relative does her no favors.

I suppose you could hedge every single thing you write with caveats to avoid people taking offence, but it leads to less forceful, wishy-washy advice, in my opinion.

IMO, the quote by Wyatt is akin to categorizing an "Actor" type player as a negative for DM's because Wyatt doesn't appreciate them in his particular playstyle. Perhaps instead of trying to force a new DM into a particular playstyle, Wyatt should be discussing the pros and cons of said playstyles, just like with the different player motivations in DMG 2. Then let the DM and group decide what style is fun for them.

 

[Reynard]

But the ultimate end of this line of thinking is that no one can offer any advice because some group somewhere might find the advised-against behavior fun.

No. It means you don't tell people what fun is. And more importantly, you don't tell them what isn't fun. Instead, you show them all the *possibilities* in the game. That's what RPGs are all about: possibilities. Possibilities make the genre and form unique, setting it aside (and above, IMO) board games and card games and video/computer games.

In the end, it's neither here nor there to me. 4E might have turned out to be the Best Game Ever, but Wyatt, in the DMG on the section on fun, made me dislike the game immensely. Gate guards aren't fun? Resource management isn't fun? Dungeon exploration isn't fun? Encounters are the only fun, and they are really only fun when there are lots of die rolls (usually to hit rolls)?

You know what's not fun? 4E, as described by James Wyatt.

I hope that answers the OP's question. *That* is why the selected quote rankles so many.