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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5768065" data-attributes="member: 6668292">The first quote is qualified with a "for most participants". That is, he allows for exceptions (though it's definitely a somewhat debatable point). The second is advice on pacing, as far as I can tell, not a comment on what is or is not fun.From your two quotes, above, it looks like he did something different than what Wyatt did. Gygax qualified his statement of what is fun to applying to most people, leaving room for exceptions. Additionally, he gave his view on pacing, which is not an objective value judgement on what Fun is.Then again, you didn't say "documentaries aren't fun, don't watch them" or the like, did you? In fact, you said "for some people those movies may not be fun" and allowed the possibility to exist. Wyatt didn't. Wyatt didn't say "this play style will result in a satisfying and compelling style of situation/encounter-oriented gaming" or the like. He said something wasn't fun. You're comparison is off, in my opinion.That's definitely a different take on it. I mean, if any of those players would have fun talking to that guard with nothing on the line, he's given terrible advice. Because, by following it, it'd be actively hurting their enjoyment.The 3.5 DMG, under Style of Play on page 7, talks about "Kick in the Door", "Deep-Immersion Storytelling", "Something in Between", "Serious versus Humorous", "Naming Conventions", and "Multiple Characters". Later, it goes on to talk about Motivations on page 43, where it talks about "Tailored or Status Quo" "Event-Based Adventures", "Site-Based Adventures", and the like.  And, I think I can safely say that many people have played all editions of D&D in many different styles, and found that it met their play style just fine. You may not think it supports those styles well, but obviously you'll get people who disagree.The change of focus isn't terrible, calling people's fun "not fun" is terrible advice, because it'll make the game worse for people he's leaving out. He's not saying "these things are not fun for most players" (which would be debatable enough already). He's saying "these things are not fun; skip them and roll some dice! That's what's fun!"I feel like you keep trying to shift this to play style, but that's not the objection. Some people object to one style being put forth, yes, but not this particular style. You don't need to defend it. I object to his "this isn't fun; don't do it" advice because it's objectively wrong for some groups, and saying so will detract from their play experience if they follow his advice. El Mahdi thinks that it was a very bad idea to excluding some of the player base from a business standpoint. Pauljathome doesn't like one style getting explicitly supported without support for other styles.Nobody, as far as I can tell, is saying "a situation/encounter-based style is not fun" in this thread (but please correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think you need to defend it. I don't think, however, that Mr. Wyatt's quote is very defendable from where I stand, though. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification