I'm probably also a bit more doubtful about the amount of "hurting enjoyment" that is going to follow, because (i) I think most of those whose enjoyment might be hurt will ignore it either from the get go, or in short order as they work their way through the game
As I said, I tend to look at the quality of advice from the perspective of "what would happen if I followed this?" and not "what would happen if I ignored this?" If I followed that advice, it'd actively hurt my fun (and a couple others in this thread), so I consider his fairly objective value statement on Fun pretty terrible. More on objectivity below. As always, play what you like
I agree, and I suspect just about everybody here would. I think the point of contention is whether Wyatt's statement qualifies as the above. First, I think we can largely agree that the overall point of that entire passage was, "Skip boring parts, go to fun parts." That's not bad advice. At least not advice that would hurt enjoyment for many players.
I agree that's what he's trying to get at, and I agree that it's pretty good advice. When asked about the OP, however, he
says what's not fun (which
is an objective value judgement on Fun).
Okay, so he is says, in the course of that, "An encounter with guards at a gate is not fun." I think we can generally all agree that the kind of encounter he's talking about is pure color and setting, not "adventure relevant". So, now we have Wyatt specifically advising people not to role play color/setting encounters with guards.
This also assumes a play style of "going from adventure to adventure." My players are currently in a sandbox, and interacting with the setting is extremely important to our style (I've made two posts in this thread where the players spent time engaging in activity in the setting when there was nothing on the line whatsoever, and they did so proactively).
I have no objection to him saying "here is this style of play, and here's what works for it." I
do object to him saying "play in this style; this style isn't fun. Skip it."
Now the question is, how many are going to take that literally? As in, for the entire time they play 4e, they completely fast forward all "gate guard" scenarios. My guess is, probably not that many.
I'd posit that you don't need to take it literally for it to actively harm fun. He's saying the play style that includes interacting with the setting / color just for the fun of it
isn't Fun, and that
you shouldn't do it. If we're not taking him literally (he's not talking about only gate guards), then that's what he means by those examples. "There's nothing on the line, so it's not fun; skip it and get to a place where something is on the line, where dice will get rolled, where the Fun is!"
I just can't disagree enough with this being seen as good or even mediocre advice.
But let's assume many do. Some will be folks who don't find that kind of color/setting roleplaying particularly interesting, so no fun ruined for them. Some will be folks who do find it interesting, and I think pemerton's point is that if folks do find that interesting, they will naturally put it in their game, even if they follow Wyatt to the letter and never do it with guards. So, I think it's highly unlikely they will miss out on a lot of fun.
I just can't accept this line of reasoning. It's "if it applies, it'll help the game and it's good, and if it doesn't, it'll get ignored, so it's not bad." That doesn't line up, to me.
If I say "cut all ties to everyone you care about and you'll find contentment" then my advice is pretty terrible for everyone that it would actively hurt. Which would be many, many people. We judge the quality of advice on what it would do if we followed it, and I find applying that to one group and not the group that it would hurt to be... misleading, I guess.
There's a difference between harmless advice and terrible advice. They are by no means mutually exclusive, however.
Realistically, it was just one line out of a larger context on game pacing. I don't imagine any new DMs took that specific example to heart, much less literally. I can see a veteran player/DM just not liking the way the passage is written, as a subjective gut reaction. I don't share that reaction, but I can understand it. But I can't buy the passage, taken as part of the whole DMG, doing harm to newbie DMs, let alone that single line.
Again, I don't know who's asserted that it's greatly harming new DMs. I'm saying that if followed, it'll hurt many groups have a more enjoyable experience. I'm saying that it hedges into "terrible advice" territory when the advice is laid out as an objective view on fun ("this play style is bad [interacting with the setting / color for the fun of it], skip to this style, where it's fun!").
So, I'm not trying to convince you that it's hurting a lot of new players. I'm saying -in response to the OP asking how the advice is objectionable- that it's terrible advice because of what it is on its face. As always, play what you like
And, really, think about the real world for a second. Think of the last time you went through a security check, maybe at an airport trying to fly out on holidays. Would you describe the experience as:
a) fun
b) exciting
c) interesting
d) somewhere in the vicinity of Purgatory and about as fun and interesting and exciting as watching paint dry
To be fair, most people wouldn't consider fighting for their lives as a lot of fun, either. Or killing people. Or losing. All of these things are valued in D&D, and in RPGs in general.
So, I'm following Wyatt's advice. And, y'know what? It works pretty well. Skip the stuff that doesn't really matter and get to the meat. Maybe if I played longer sessions I might have a different opinion, but, I doubt it.
Like I said earlier, if the most interesting thing you did in last night's session was talk to the gate guard... well, if it's fun for you, go for it. But, I'd never advise a new player to follow in your footsteps.
I don't think anybody here has said that it won't be fun for any groups (or even many groups). I'm glad following the advice works for you. I'm also positive that, on average, new players would very much enjoy my game, and my play style, as every new player has enjoyed it quite immensely (again, I've never had a player leave because of it, and I've kicked a few out).
I'd think that making an objective value judgement on how to achieve Fun not being in the DMG should be base. Saying, "many people find this style fun, and this is what we'd suggest" is fine. Saying, "this style is fun, play it; this style of fun isn't fun, skip it" is not fine, in my opinion. It's fairly inexcusable. As always, play what you like
Logically, if all you had was Wyatt's advice to go on and decided to follow his advice literally, you would miss out on a type of fun your group would enjoy. But since you wouldn't have the other formative experiences that shape what you like in a game today, you wouldn't realize the fun you're missing. Your game could still be 100% fun for your group, even if you omitted other types of fun.
... is that really a defense? If a child gets to play with string because he has some fun, but is never introduced to playing outside and getting dirty, riding a bike, playing with other kids, video games, or any recreational activity, it's fine, because he doesn't know better? Especially if my reasoning to all children is "don't do those things, because they're not fun"?
It's a pretty extreme example that is certainly filled with hyperbole (the "string = situation-focused play" is certainly unfair), but that's kind of the point:
don't say one style is Fun, and these styles aren't. You'll be wrong to many people. Saying, "well, they wouldn't know any better anyways" is laughable reasoning, to me (I do apologize for saying your line of thought is "laughable", but I find no better word describes it).
You shouldn't be told what isn't Fun. There's really no excuse to say that. As always, play what you like
But, it was a planned encounter. It was the first session of a new campaign and I needed a way to introduce the characters and give the players a chance to describe themselves and establish a bit about their characters. So, entering the gate and having to talk to the guard solved that need and gave me a chance to inject a bit of local color at the same time.
