The Guards at the Gate Quote

[I'm A Banana]

As I believe has been posted....multiple times...of course giving DM's advice to skip the boring stuff is useful advice.

HOWEVER, Wyatt directly says to skip some specific things that not everyone finds boring.

Which means what Wyatt wrote isn't that advice. The words he actually wrote say that talking to guards and exploring caverns and detailing equipment are almost categorically un-fun things that no one in your game will want to do, and that the encounter (with its attack rolls) is the fun thing that everyone wants to do.

It's not exactly unreasonable to have a problem with those words, even if you're being generous and saying that what he MEANT to say was "skip the things you think are boring."

 

[pauljathome]

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.

For D&D, no it is not enough.

For a random game being created by somebody unknown to me, yes it would be enough.

The quote makes it significantly less likely that the game will be to my personal tastes. It also somewhat predisposes me to read the game in a way that is more likely to find flaws. Like absolutely all humans I have prejudices and they'll affect my enjoyment and interpretation of things in often subtle and unnoticed ways.

D&D is (or, at least, was) the giant standard in the industry and as a result I'm going to spend more effort trying to see what it really is as opposed to what the creators claim that it is.

 

[Holy Bovine]

I gather that a lot of players feel that the sort of activities labeled in the quote as "not fun" actually help with a feeling of simulation, that the game world is realistic. Some have taken this quote as emblematic of the notion that 4e is all about combat, with no role-playing. If you skip over all of the "not fun" parts, what's left? Just a bunch of fights? Where's the role playing?

I'm not saying this is MY perspective, mind you, but it's what I gather some other people feel from reading these threads.

Ah - the 'I don't want to understand this so I'll take it to a ludicrous extreme' internet meme. No wonder I ignored so many people back when this quote was making its rounds.

 

[Mark CMG]

Ah - the 'I don't want to understand this so I'll take it to a ludicrous extreme' internet meme. No wonder I ignored so many people back when this quote was making its rounds.

The problem is you can either take the quote explicitly or you can assume some intent other than what was explicitly stated. Taking it explicitly means he said that it was badwrongfun to enjoy gate guard encounters. Assuming some intent, other than explicit intent, seems to be where the argument arises. You obviously assume some other intent and think it means something that suits your style of play and condemn others who either take it explicitly or assume it doesn't support their style of play. I'm not sure your dismissive false quote helps either argument.

 

[Hussar]

Again, context is everything. The quote comes from the end of a two page essay on designing the encounter mix. Let's look at the opening of the section shall we? See if that sheds any light:

When you're building an adventure, try to vary the encounters you include, including combat and non-combat challenges, easy and difficult encounters, a variety of settings and monsters and situations that appeal to your players' different personalities and motivations. This variation creates an exciting rhythm. Adventures that lack this sort of variety can become a tiresome grind.

Right there, that puts the whole thing into perspectives. The two guards at the gate in the example aren't a challenge, thus, we skip over them. Everyone who is up in arms over the quote is ignoring that fact. If the guards were a challenge in some way, appealing to the players motivations (detailed at length earlier) then you would of course include it.

But, it's much easier, of course, to take a single line or two out of a an entire section and ignore context because that makes for better quips on message boards. :/

 

[I'm A Banana]

The two guards at the gate in the example aren't a challenge, thus, we skip over them.

That's bad advice, though. There's plenty of fun to be had when there's not a challenge involved. Some players love nothing more than in-character "faffing about."

Also, you only read four pages, but [MENTION=9213]ShinHakkaider[/MENTION] already went over the overall context a few pages back. So we've had this discussion.

YOU! Guy who hasn't read the thread! Lurk Moar!

 

[Mark CMG]

Again, context is everything. The quote comes from the end of a two page essay on designing the encounter mix. Let's look at the opening of the section shall we? See if that sheds any light:



Right there, that puts the whole thing into perspectives. The two guards at the gate in the example aren't a challenge, thus, we skip over them. Everyone who is up in arms over the quote is ignoring that fact. If the guards were a challenge in some way, appealing to the players motivations (detailed at length earlier) then you would of course include it.

But, it's much easier, of course, to take a single line or two out of a an entire section and ignore context because that makes for better quips on message boards. :/

Except that some folks enjoy RPing encounters simply for what they are without them needing to be "challenges" per se. I think that's part of what you're still not grasping, Hussar. Something can be an RP encounter simply to set tone, mood, the stage, to pass information along without it requiring some sort of "challenge." From what I am reading from those who take the quote as onerous, this is what is lost in that directive of playstyle. The context you provide doesn't change that position.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Let's pretend D&D only consists of the following scenes:

1. Mundane Travel w/ encounters
2. Mundane shopping
3. Mundane NPC interactions (the boring gate guard)
4. Social Manipulation of NPCs
5. Getting Information from NPCs
6. Solving Problems
7. Traps
8. Combat

While many have indicated that their group likes scenes 1-3, do they really prefer them over the other types?

For many groups, I think it depends on when. Yesterday (my weekly session), my players did a few things. The session spent about an equal amount of time in two areas.

One was while they were in town for three days. They spent the time talking to shop owners, setting themselves up to make some money in the meantime. They spent time telling me what they would be doing (one PC used the Evasion skill to tumble around), how they were augmenting it with their other skills (instead of just saying "I got a 20 on my check" he included Move Silently to shadow people without getting noticed to amuse on-lookers, Climb to climb up the shop and backflip off [with permission on the understanding that he'd then direct people into the shop], etc.), and interactions with on-lookers.

This PC directly competed (across the street) from another PC who was juggling, who also described how he was using skill to augment himself (Martial Prowess to juggle knives and drawing them very quickly and sheathing them very quickly, Evasion to backflip between knife throws, Jump to hop onto and off of empty wooden boxes while juggling the knives, etc.), and his interactions with citizens.

Another PC went into a tavern and tried to get in good with the tavern owner (role-play conversation, then the Empathy skill). He felt it went okay, then tried to convince him to let him play in his tavern/inn for a free room (role-play, then Negotiation skill), and didn't get the room, but got some free drinks instead. The next day he asked for a free room if he played all day, and the guy agreed, as long as the bard brought business in. The bard spent the day trying to convince the townspeople to go to the inn/tavern tonight, where he'd be playing, and everyone would have a good time (role-play, then Leadership and Negotiation checks). When people did show up, he rolled his Perform (telling me how he was using the skills [storytelling, harp, flute], and what he was singing about), and then got his room for free, as promised. The player also tried to chat up a woman (Empathy skill) before leaving the next day.

I have six players, but I'll stop at three (well, one stayed outside, but he did sum up what he was doing in the meantime, including watching the horses and the bodies they were hiding [the party has a necromancer]). While these activities involved some die rolls (the players wanted to make these actions succeed as reliable as possible), none of it was necessary. It was just them having fun. And they did have fun.

Sure, later on they tracked down a former mentor in the woods (mostly role-play [literally no rolls other than a Spot and Listen when he first approached]), got some advice and help, then tracked down an enemy and killed him (finding more clues to who he's working for). And yes, they're now looking for a man they don't know (that the clue indicated) who also serves "The Master" (who they think they've identified as Hadraccan, a long-dead mage's apprentice). While this basically took up the other half of the session, the mood was less jovial than the town mood was (though the necromancer took a perverse joy in killing his major enemy and reanimating him).

My players get different types of enjoyment out of different things when they role-play. The first part is interacting with the world in a mundane but meaningful way. This lets them know what the world is like, how their character fits into it, what their reaction or mindset is, etc. It's carefree, fun, and simple. There's also a lot of fun and enjoyment to be had with my group in laying the beatdown on some bad guys. Or looking for clues on who to go to next. Or intrigue. Or investigation. Or interactions with old friends or enemies. Or "advancing the story" of whatever they're currently pursuing.

Really, often times it's simply just looking for ways to advance character motivations (it's a sandbox). But, my players can have a lot of fun in a lot of different ways. I don't think labeling "the mundane events that are a waste of time" as "unfun" is particularly wise in the DMG (or in general).

To answer your question ("While many have indicated that their group likes scenes 1-3, do they really prefer them over the other types?"), I'd say that sometimes yes, and sometimes no. Sometimes, they want to explore their character's motivations in ways that are lighthearted. Simple. Mundane. Real. It helps connect them to their characters, to get into their heads, to learn something about them. And I think that's totally fine.

Trumpeting non-challenging mundane events as "unfun" or "a waste of time" is extremely dismissive and objectively wrong for many groups. It is not advice worthy of being in the DMG, in my opinion. As always, play what you like

 

[The Shaman]

 

[S'mon]

Wyatt: An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn't fun.
Hussar: He's not saying that two guards can't be fun...

LOL