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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5767358" data-attributes="member: 42582">My point is that there is nothing unusual about a DMG giving advice on how to GM the game to achieve a certain sort of play experience. And that the idea that Wyatt's advice in his DMG is "terrible advice", that will destroy generations of prospective GMs, is as silly as the idea that Gygax's advice was terrible advice with destructive consequences.Gygax's advice won't have produced many White Wolf-style GMs. So what? It produced Gygaxian GMs, presumably, among those who followed it.Wyatt's advice won't produce Gygaxian or White Wolf-style GMs, either. It will produce situation/encounter-oriented GMs among those who follow it. But so what? This is a perfectly reasonable way to run an RPG, and one to which 4e is particularly well suited as a system. Those players who love talking without purpose to gate guards will be deprived - as will those players who like 2nd ed era metaplot-driven railroads - but then, as I know from experience, plenty of players have been deprived of player-driven situation-focused play by GMs who took the advice of the 2nd-ed and White Wolf-era manuals, and plenty of players have been stuck in Gygaxian/Pulsipherian games when they really would have preferred something else.Any time a GMing book gives advice on how to run the game, it has to choose one style over another. My point is that there is nothing particularly objectionable about Wyatt's choice of style, beyond the obvious point that some people prefer other styles.</blockquote>

Verification