Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercutio01" data-source="post: 5766931" data-attributes="member: 37277">1) Not excited or angry. 2)You accused me of interpretation. Then you went and interpreted something that's clearly not there.Watch where you toss "reinterpret" around. You've done more than I to interpret anything. See above.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.</blockquote>

Verification