The Guards at the Gate Quote

[JamesonCourage]

Okay. Then do you agree with The Auld Grump who thinks he means that you should skip by any and all encounters that are not pre-planned?

I don't personally think it has to do with pre-planned or spontaneous encounters.

If not, what do you think he does mean, other than that unfun encounters are unfun and can be skipped over to get to the fun, wherein he uses an example of an unfun meeting with gate guards?

I think he means skip over the unfun parts, to get to the fun. I think he is saying that guard encounters are unfun. Period; objectively. And that's simply incorrect.

He did say this in the context of "skip what isn't fun." That much is true, and that context is true. Then, in an attempt to communicate to newer players what is and isn't fun in a gaming session, he told them to skip to encounters ("Move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun!").

He is, as you say, telling people to skip the unfun parts. That's his real point. However, I feel he overstepped the line when he told people -new players in particular, so I'm told- that talking to the gate guards when it's not an encounter isn't fun. He seemed to imply that most things that weren't an encounter aren't fun ("Move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun!").

With the given definition of encounter (challenges that usually involve a lot of die rolling), I find this exceptionally bad advice. His definition of "fun" does not hold true for my group, and judging by many posts here (both 4e supporters and detractors alike), I'd say I'm not alone.

And, while I have a chance to reply to you, I'd like to take a moment to mention your "parsing" of the word "an" in regards to context. You said:

He did say "An encounter," not "The encounter," if we're going to get nitty on parsing the language. I think trying to read that as "ALL encounters with two guards aren't fun" is reading way more into that sentence than was intended. "An" implies one, not all, especially since "an" is the root word for "one." And if we go with that meaning, we can also come to the following: "This encounter with two guards at the gate isn't fun, but another one might be."

That's not how the context of "an" or "a" is usually used. I could say, "man, a steak dinner sounds really good right now." That does not imply that I generally might not like steak, but right now it sounds good. The implication is that I like steak, and that it sounds good right now. I've made a declaration of something (the steak; guard encounters) and my favorability towards it (I like it; it's not fun).

While "an" certainly does only refer to a single instance, I think it's pretty intellectually misleading to interpret that as not representative of what someone thinks. That's not what context has taught us in standard use of language. I can say, "an outing to go hiking isn't fun." That implies that the activity, in general, is not fun for me. It's not, "a particular outing to go hiking isn't fun" within the regular context of language.

And, just to clarify on the "not fun for me" part, I was speaking in regards to myself. Mr. Wyatt, however, was speaking about Fun in general, and made an objective value judgement of it. That was a mistake, and was, in my opinion, terrible advice to give to new players.

Thanks for asking my opinion, though. I see where you're coming from, but I really don't agree with it. As always, play what you like

Edit (and disclaimer: Mercutio01 XP'd me before I wrote this, so he may not feel this is fair enough ):

I don't see anyone arguing that food supplies and encumbrance are fun, and yet he says to skip those, too. Do you also disagree with him on that point? How about "long treks through endless corridors"? Are those also statements to call him out about?

Well, he said:

Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren’t fun, so don’t sweat them, and let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun.

Not my cup of tea, but he qualified it with a "usually". It's the little things where he doesn't objectively and unilaterally define what is and is not fun for everyone. He's wrong for my group, but probably right for most groups.

Long treks through endless corridors in the ancient dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren’t fun.

This is the same as his first example. Objective value judgments on fun are mistake. He made one here, too. Just my thoughts on these two sentences, though. For the record, my group does keep track of food supplies, ammo, encumbrance, etc. And, every once in a while, when the players are somewhere with hallways, rooms, and the like, and they're exploring, I'll let them know when they come up on a fork, see more doors, break-offs passageways, or the like. I do, however, let their characters keep track of the details (or leave markings on the ground or walls), and make attribute checks to remember ways out (or figure it out). As always, play what you like

 

[haakon1]

I think we're all missing the fact that the DMG isn't geared towards people like us. It's geared to the 14-year-old kid who just got a copy of the game from his weird uncle and whose only experience with RPGs so far is something like WoW.
. . .
I suspect (I may be wrong, but based on the names of the people involved in this discussion) that most of the offended posters are people who don't like 4E to begin with and just seem to keep finding nits to pick.

I agree with both thoughts I quoted from you.

What I think goes unsaid is the deep connection between them.

I think your theory that 4e was written to entice 14 year old WOW players to give D&D a try, to make it seem less old-fashioned, less of their weird uncle's game, makes good sense -- I see a lot of evidence for it.

And that has a lot to do with why a large number (majority?) of D&D's existing customers don't like 4e -- it's not for us. I'd go further and say it's purposefully against the traditions of the game in some ways, based on the marketing approach and on quotes like this that say "The traditions your weird uncle tried to teach you are WRONG. This is not your uncles Buick, err, D&D. You should do it this new, improved modern way."

Saying "Traditions that you wanted to pass on to the next generation are WRONG and must be changed" tends to upset people. At the risk of stepping over the "no religion" rule, the Catholic Church is being roiled by an edition war right now, with November changes to the English-language Mass like "And also with you" becoming "And also with your spirit", which "Old School" Catholics just can't remember, since old version was known by heart. I read a good article about this in Fortune, from a Jewish POV, about how changes in services (in the author's opinion) wreck the traditions and the links between generations, which are the (secular) point of following rituals in the first place. So it's not too surprising to me that the Edition Wars looked a bit like a Holy War.

 

[Imaro]

You don't like my terminology? Fine. I'll turn off my grammarian hat and my writing instructor hat, and my writer hat. Wyatt did not say what you think he says in that sentence. He simply doesn't.

I didn't reinterpret anything. He said "An encounter." That does not mean ALL encounters. It doesn't mean MOST encounters. It doesn't even mean SOME encounters.

Okay the definition of "an" is...

Adjective:The form of the indefinite article (see a) used before words beginning with a vowel sound.
So let's look at "a"...

a/ā/



Adjective:

• Used when referring to someone or something for the first time in a text or conversation: "a man came out of the room".
• Used with units of measurement to mean one such unit: "a hundred"; "a quarter of an hour".

So in all actuality I think Wyatt is using it in the context that definition 1 presents.

And it certainly does not say that you should skip from one planned encounter to another.

Nope, from a purely literal stance it does not say that... ofc ourse that hasn't stopped you from injecting your own inferences and interpretations onto the quote either.

He does say to skip encounters that are not fun, and calls out the meeting with gate guards as an unfun encounter. I happen to think that is among the best advice I've read in the DMG. Skip the stuff that isn't fun.

Thus the problem, an encounter with gate guards is not inherently unfun. Since numerous posters in this thread have listed various reasons as to why that is so, I won't repost them here. In a nutshell this is why his wording, and/or advice is considered bad by many. He needs a qualifier with the examples he gives and chooses not to use one.

I don't see anyone arguing that food supplies and encumbrance are fun, and yet he says to skip those, too.

Do you also disagree with him on that point? How about "long treks through endless corridors"? Are those also statements to call him out about?

In a gritty survivalist Dark Sun game tracking supplies, food and encumbrance could be fun, but no, I don't think most people consider the tracking of minutae (whatever they determine that to be) as fun.

However just because no one is arguing against it that doesn't change the fact that the quote is badly worded and thus imparts bad advice.

Is that all some over-arching design philosophy meant to stamp out anything that isnt a prescripted, pre-planned encounter?

Or are they just examples of unfun play that can be skipped over to maintain the fun?

I don't agree that they are all examples of unfun play... and that is the heart of the matter. Unfun play as Wyatt presents it seems to have been cast as anything that does not present a challenge (whether in the form of combat, skill challenge, or whatever), and I don't agree with that wider sentiment.

 

[haakon1]

People seem to think Wyatt wants to prohibit any and all meetings with gate-guards, when what I think he's really saying is don't add a needless meeeting with a gate guard that goes like this, "Welcome to our city. Be good." "Thanks, we will. Which way to the inn?" "That way." and instead just jump past it with, "You enter the city and make your way to the central inn."

He said what he said, but I must say I would far prefer the first alternative (though it would need to longer to do any good) to the second (genericizing the setting into flavorless mush).

 

[Mercutio01]

He said what he said, but I must say I would far prefer the first alternative (though it would need to longer to do any good) to the second (genericizing the setting into flavorless mush).

I obviously would not prefer the first. I also don't think skipping past gate guards = flavorless mush. I think that's a bit of a strawman, don't you?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

You don't like my terminology? Fine. I'll turn off my grammarian hat and my writing instructor hat, and my writer hat. Wyatt did not say what you think he says in that sentence. He simply doesn't.

I didn't reinterpret anything. He said "An encounter." That does not mean ALL encounters. It doesn't mean MOST encounters. It doesn't even mean SOME encounters.

And it certainly does not say that you should skip from one planned encounter to another.

He does say to skip encounters that are not fun, and calls out the meeting with gate guards as an unfun encounter. I happen to think that is among the best advice I've read in the DMG. Skip the stuff that isn't fun.

I don't see anyone arguing that food supplies and encumbrance are fun, and yet he says to skip those, too. Do you also disagree with him on that point? How about "long treks through endless corridors"? Are those also statements to call him out about?

Is that all some over-arching design philosophy meant to stamp out anything that isnt a prescripted, pre-planned encounter?

Or are they just examples of unfun play that can be skipped over to maintain the fun?

Calm down, you are not getting more accurate.

You asked for whether I thought he meant combat only.

I told you - that I think that he means go from planned encounter to planned encounter. Not just combat encounters, but planned encounters nonetheless.

If you ask for an interpretation do not get angry with that interpretation.

And yes, I still stand by my interpretation, and that Wyatt meant exactly what he wrote, and that he was declaring things such as long treks through dwarfen tunnels or talking to the guards at the gate as 'not fun'.

At this point I really do not see either of us agreeing - you are too willing to reinterpret what was, at best, a badly worded statement, or was, in my opinion more likely, just plain a bad piece of advice.

The Auld Grump

 

[Reynard]

I have a very, very hard time believing anyone who says that one quote, which so far has been routinely taken out of context and ascribed meaning that it doesn't actually have, is the cause for people not liking 4E to begin with. It is far, far more likely that there is dislike first, and then the finding of fiddly bits to assign the dislike to.

I just want to respond to this one part before I bow out of this discussion (as I find myself repeating myself, which usually means I need to stop):

You can believe what you like, but the fact is this is what happened to me. I was on the fence about 4E during the build up, oscillating between anticipation and dislike (oh, "Traps Design and Development" column, how I loathe thee!) but I still not only ordered the slipcase set, but, since it hadn't arrived, ran down to the FLGS on launch day and snagged a PHB. Things looked weird, and I was uncertain, but it was not until the DMG arrived and I read the definition of "Fun" by Mr. Wyatt did I realize that this edition of the game was no longer the D&D I had known and loved and played for over 20 years.

So you can think me nit picking, and you can doubt me, but the fact is this: Wyatt chose to define fun in a way that made me actively dislike 4E. And your assertion that he did not do so is astounding. Even in context, he is saying "these things are not fun; don't do them" in explicit, direct language.

 

[haakon1]

I don't see anyone arguing that food supplies and encumbrance are fun, and yet he says to skip those, too. Do you also disagree with him on that point?

Yes, and I said so earlier, explaining why I'd want to play the MMO of D&D, after seeing the lack of encumbrance rules and auto-healing for standing around.

I like resource management rules. My favorite computer games are strategy war games, which are all about resource management.

I also like encumbrance rules. My favorite books about the Vietnam is "The Things They Carried", which actually goes pretty extensively (as you might guess from the title) about what soldiers carried with them through the jungle. And when I ran RECON (Vietnam War RPG) for several years, I made the player inventory every last thing they carried, following the advice in that game -- if you didn't bring enough ammo, or malaria pills, or a can open, just like in real life, your character is screwed.

It's an aspect of war and expeditions that I think is FUN to think about in a game. In fact, my "favorite moment" in D&D is often the moment where you can't think of any way to turn a losing situation around, and your desparately scanning the inventory on your character sheet as you await your turn, and come up with some whacky idea: "The orcs breaking down the door, are what, 20 feet below us? And the floor is rough stone? Cool, I have 10 flasks of oil in my pack. I'll empty the backpack on the orcs below, then you toss the torch from the wall! That might drive them away from the door for a few rounds!"

 

[Mercutio01]

Calm down, you are not getting more accurate.

You asked for whether I thought he meant combat only.

I told you - that I think that he means go from planned encounter to planned encounter. Not just combat encounters, but planned encounters nonetheless.

If you ask for an interpretation do not get angry with that interpretation.

1) Not excited or angry.

2)You accused me of interpretation. Then you went and interpreted something that's clearly not there.

At this point I really do not see either of us agreeing - you are too willing to reinterpret

Watch where you toss "reinterpret" around. You've done more than I to interpret anything. See above.

Wyatt chose to define fun in a way that made me actively dislike 4E. And your assertion that he did not do so is astounding. Even in context, he is saying "these things are not fun; don't do them" in explicit, direct language.

Fair enough. It's still hard to swallow, but I'll accept you at your word.

Clearly the people who dislike Wyatt's definition of fun see it in a different fashion than I do. I happen to think you are all reading your own biases into that statement, but it would then be blind of me not to acknowledge that I'm doing the same. I've noted that I've played in frequent games with unfun gate-guard-style encounters, which pre-disposes me to disliking them in general, and agreeing with Wyatt on principle. Gate guard encounters are overwhelmingly not fun. At least for me. I think giving new gamers advice on skipping them because they are not fun is good advice. Again, because that's been my experience.

Those of you arguing against Wyatt's statement all seem to enjoy gate guard encounters, and you find those fun. You see his statement as an attack on your fun. I don't think it's anywhere near as broad a statement as you do, but this is where personal experience colors everything. I wouldn't expect my first-year college students to be able to write a college level paper write off the bat, mostly because of experience proving to me that they are generally incapable of doing so. I also wouldn't expect GMs to be able to run a game that doesn't include basic errors with unnecessary encounters that are not fun, also because of my experience that they are generally incapable of doing so. I see "avoid boring encounters" as equivalent to "capitalize the first word in a sentence." To wit--basic information that theoretically should be known, but somehow is not.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I have a very, very hard time believing anyone who says that one quote, which so far has been routinely taken out of context and ascribed meaning that it doesn't actually have, is the cause for people not liking 4E to begin with.

Well, that's not really the situation, is it?

Wyatt's on record in a few different places as being dismissive of playing the game in a less combat-intensive way (the faerie ring quote from Worlds & Monsters plays into it, too).

In addition, the delve format, and the first few published adventures for 4e certainly seemed to line up with the "chain of combat encounters" philosophy that Wyatt seems to be espousing there.

Furthermore, the rules of the game that weren't dedicated to slaying monsters were few, far between, and fraught with problems (Skill Challenges and Rituals are in particular in my "good idea, bad implementation" camp). Your class's abilities are almost exclusively "attacks" and combat utilities. Monsters are also only there for combat, to attack the party, and then be slain.

If it was only one single quote, or even a handful of them, it's entirely possible that many people would ignore it (as they frequently did Gygax's less-than-favorable moments). But the quote is emblematic of a philosophy that many feel is present in a big way throughout the entire launch of 4e.

Not that a lot of players didn't ignore this philosophy in favor of whatever fun they have at their own tables (I know my groups do!), just that, yeah, I can see how that one quote, taken in its full context, is one of the primary examples of what a lot of people really don't like about 4e. It is an explicit part, in the core books, where one of the lead designers comes down to a DM and says, explicitly, "Your way of playing has no place in this new game."

That, again, might not be what he really meant. But it's certainly not an irrational position to take.

Why do people not ascribe the same thing to Wyatt?? I think that it is very clear (to me at least) that throughout the rest of the chapter (and book) that the philosophy that they are espousing is "pick encounters that are fun for your players. Ignore things that your players find un-fun."

It's not very clear to everyone.

Which is kind of the source of the disagreement, here.

Folks on one side saying, "It's clear TO ME what he meant! Anyone who thinks otherwise is at best mistaken and at worst a hater who just hates and loves to hate."

Folks on the other side saying, "It's clear TO ME what he said! Anyone who thinks otherwise is at best mistaken and at worst a fanboy who just blindly follows authority and can't see reality."

I guess I'm seeing a lot more of the former in this thread specifically, though that may be just because the OP started with "How can anyone actually have a real problem with this?", and, once explained, people keep being shocked (shocked!) that this statement is problematic.

I think Wyatt was doing the best he could to present the game to new fans, and I'm reasonably confident the intent was basically to say, "skip stuff that's not fun." However, the category of "not fun" somehow, to Wyatt, was objective as he was writing this. Whether that's a personal bias that leaked in, or a deliberate strategy 4e used in the early days (because marketing results showed that people had the most fun with combat encounters, so to make combat encounters the center of the game was the best thing for the game financially and for fun maximization, or whatever) is kind of an open question. The full context of the D&D game circa 2008 gives some evidence for the latter interpretation, though I find myself favoring the former, just because I can't believe that these smart designers would actually be that categorical in their dismissal of parts of the game that they themselves had enjoyed for years.