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: 5769356" data-attributes="member: 6668292">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 <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=":)" />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).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."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.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.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 <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=":)" />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.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 <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=":)" />... 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 <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