The Guards at the Gate Quote

[Aberzanzorax]

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.

<some snippage>

Agreed.

I said it earlier, but this is more succinct. 4e Wasn't fun for me when I viewed it from this perspective.

When I learned it wasn't just this limited view, I got to like it somewhat (not my game/edition of choice, but I have fun with it).

 

[Hussar]

Ok, I apologize, I only read the first four pages of this.

The whole problem in a nutshell is because the quote in the OP ignores the first line of the actual quote of the section, which is:

(underline mine)

Fun is one element you shouldn't vary. Every encounter in an adventure should be fun. As much as possible, fast forward through the parts of an adventure that aren't fun. An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn't fun...

He's not saying that two guards can't be fun. He's saying that pointless encounters aren't fun. If you want the gate guards to be fun, then have some meat there. The guards are encountered for a reason. That might be just to provide local color. Cool. But, don't screw around - get to the fun.

Is this really bad advice for a new DM?

 

[Aberzanzorax]

There's another factor at play.

As the creator of a product, the creator has a vision on its use. Some evidence exists that indicates Creators define what products a Consumer needs, not the other way around.

Thus, the customer is NOT always right. (nor is the Creator, which is why their product fails).

<some snips>


Okay.

Sure.

BUT!



I'll certainly agree if this were a NEW product...but it isn't (or shouldn't be, in the way I'm using the word "new").

This is an "edition" of an existing game.



Feel free to say whatever you want about a new game to sell it however you want. "Fantasy gaming isn't fun....let's get into sci-fi space!"



But this is edition number four of Dungeons and Dragons. Most people expect to see a new edition of a product to have resemblance fo prior editions (the x year ford model versus the y year ford model of the same car). There is some concern and discrimination that 4e "isn't D&D (to me)".

My overall point here is that a "creator" is someone who makes a product. Wyatt is not a creator of D&D...but is a creator of 4e D&D, in part. Maybe a "restorer"?

He can have license with his own game...but this isn't his game...it has history, it has tropes that he is specifically denying as fun, despite their inclusion (and marketing as adventures...see my prior posts in this thread). Wyatt says that a major chunk of D&D isn't fun...a major chunk THAT HAS BEEN SOLD BY HIS EMPLOYER, WOTC, AS FUN...isn't fun.

W.T.H.?

 

[D'karr]

How about giving DMing advice about (part 1) assessing what your group likes and then (part 2) delivering it?

Don't tell ME what is "fun" and "not-fun"...help me develop a toolbox of DM abilities/skills/resources/motifs/etc.... and then give me info on how to gauge a given group (i.e. my group) so that I can THEN make it fun.

That's a helpful DMG paragraph/chapter....assess your group and cater to them.

To be fair the game does go to great lengths to provide exactly what you have asked for. The DMG is very methodical in doing just that. That is the reason that I don't view the quote as a problem. Because the "evidence" of every chapter up to there basically puts that quote in context.

Give your players an exciting time based on each of their motivations, and those things that are not exciting fast-forward through them or skip them.

 

[BryonD]

He's not saying that two guards can't be fun.

Actually, yes he does. He says exactly that.

He's saying that pointless encounters aren't fun.

And he provides two guards at the gate as an example of a defacto not fun encounter.

Is this really bad advice for a new DM?

Yes. It is terrible advice.
It is much better to make some mistakes and learn from them than to start building boundaries from day 1.

There are whole masses of good to outstanding DMs who grew up running two guards at the gate encounters. The old way worked. I predict that this advice, if taken fully to heart, would detract from the overall quality of DMing skills.


All that said, I do think what you claim he said IS what he MEANT to say. But saying he didn't say exactly what he DID say is silly. And writing it off as poor choice of words just cuts it down to "Why the heck didn't HE notice how poorly it was said?" and "Why didn't ANYONE else at WotC notice before it wet out the door?"

And if the literal face value didn't have such synergy with the fundamental changes of 4E and the things that many people find so lacking in it, then it wouldn't be nearly as big a deal.

 

[Reynard]

Ok, I apologize, I only read the first four pages of this.

The whole problem in a nutshell is because the quote in the OP ignores the first line of the actual quote of the section, which is:



He's not saying that two guards can't be fun. He's saying that pointless encounters aren't fun. If you want the gate guards to be fun, then have some meat there. The guards are encountered for a reason. That might be just to provide local color. Cool. But, don't screw around - get to the fun.

Is this really bad advice for a new DM?

Even with your quote he is saying exactly that adventures should have nothing but fun in them, and that doesn't include gate guards. It's quite explicit right there in the text.

 

[ExploderWizard]

He's not saying that two guards can't be fun. He's saying that pointless encounters aren't fun. If you want the gate guards to be fun, then have some meat there. The guards are encountered for a reason. That might be just to provide local color. Cool. But, don't screw around - get to the fun.

Is this really bad advice for a new DM?

How exactly is a pointless encounter defined?

Yet another room full of mooks designed to chew up game time and provide XP fodder? I would say yes to that. Actually that is the perfect example. Oh wait, thats the fun that we are supposed to get to, right?

If you have to define fun for the audience then your game has failed.

 

[broghammerj]

I have one question then I think that maybe I should walk away from the thread because people here aren't even trying to reach a anything even remotely resembling a middle ground. Just people talking past each other and constructing straw men and moving the goal posts in order to win the thread.

With Wyatt declaring what the definition of "fun" is for 4E D&D and how the game should be played. Is that alone enough for someone to be turned off by the system and write the entire thing off as something they'd just as soon not be bothered with?

No lengthy explanations (there have been enough of those in this thread), just YES or NO.

Short answer: "No"

Long answer: If you try to "win" a thread you have already lost because it is a conversation and not an argument.

The point is Wyatt's statement exemplifies some of the problems people have with the design, development, marketing, and mentality of 4E. That statement is just a small representation of the rift that has developed with the DnD community. The tip of the iceberg to the edition wars is represented in that very simple statement.

 

[Jasperak]

With Wyatt declaring what the definition of "fun" is for 4E D&D and how the game should be played. Is that alone enough for someone to be turned off by the system and write the entire thing off as something they'd just as soon not be bothered with?

No lengthy explanations (there have been enough of those in this thread), just YES or NO.

Yes.

If the Dungeon Master's Guide suggests what will be fun in the game, and those suggestions do not match with what I find fun, then I would expect to be much less likely to enjoy the game.

[sblock]
Hypotheticals aside, I played 4e for around three months when it first came out. His definition of "fun" as quoted matched my experience with 4e--zipping along to each new hour long tactical combat encounter separated by quite a few d20 rolls that eventually pointed to the next fun encounter area. The game did not emphasize what I find fun about RPGs; I did not like my immediate feeling that the game was more based around tactical and encounter concerns. And numerous d20 rolls in non-combat challenges.

After more than 20 years, I still find value in fairy rings and wandering encounter tables and maybe even roleplaying my character trying to by a mule for an expected two month hex crawl.[/sblock]

 

[SteveC]

He's not saying that two guards can't be fun. He's saying that pointless encounters aren't fun. If you want the gate guards to be fun, then have some meat there. The guards are encountered for a reason. That might be just to provide local color. Cool. But, don't screw around - get to the fun.

Is this really bad advice for a new DM?

I think your answer is spot on, and I'll say: it's great advice to give to a new GM. Put things in your game because they're interesting or fun, not because they "ought" to be there. We gloss over a lot in a typical game session: when was the last time you tracked when your character had to use the bathroom for instance? I think it's excellent advice for a new GM to concentrate their efforts on things that will make for a better game. If the town guards are interesting in their own right, bring them on, but if you're just putting them there for an attempt at "realism," I can definitely take a pass on that.

When someone is starting to play an RPG, they have no idea how things should be paced, and I've seen more than a few games fizzle because too much time was spent on things that no one really cared about.

Now I'm all about roleplaying that guard encounter out, but only if it's interesting.

So, no, in my opinion, it's not bad advice to give to a new GM. As they gain experience, they'll certainly pick up on the packing that's right for them and they're players, but to start with? Get to what you find interesting.