I’m starting to get annoyed at all the hate being spewed about the Tyranny of Fun, whatever the fuck that expression means. I won’t link to any of them as I find that a rational discourse on this is nigh impossible seeing how emotionnaly charged the atmosphere around that screwed up concept is.
Google it along ‘RPGSite’ and you’ll get a good Idea.
On second thought, since I’ll probably be called a coward for not linking, I’ll link directly to both of RPG Pundit’s blog post on the subject: Here and here.
Here’s the RPGSite thread on this.
I really can’t deal with all the hate and spittle over this. (Actually I’m really sick and tired of global hate mongering and I’m looking forward to see it go out of style once more).
I think that anyone that believes that the current RPG trends is to give players the sun with no fight is missing the boat by a few miles. I really don’t believe that always giving what players what they want is ‘fun’.
Jeff Rients said it better than anyone:
Give them the Sun, have them fight for the Moon!
Any parent will tell you that if you give out what people ask for all the time, you only get frustrated people when you can’t give anymore.
Now I may be reading D&D 4e all wrong but I’m sure that’s not what the game says we should do at all.
I’ve said time and again that fun is good but satisfaction is better.
So call me a proponent of the Tyranny of Satisfaction!
Here’s an excerpt from my Gen Con Seminar on that very subject:
This (determining Player motivations) necessitates a certain amount of empathy and emotional detachment as players are not excited because you rock as a GM but mostly because the game hit what they are seeking as players. Similarly, you have to resist taking player frustration and apparent disinterest as a personal affront or critic of your GMing style.
“Leveling up” as a GM requires you to detach yourself from your player’s reactions to the game. Part of the satisfaction of playing RPGs is hitting pockets of rising frustration, followed by cathartic release when goals are attained (occasional failure being a type of frustration).Once you start understanding what players seek and get better at weaving frustration-building challenges and satisfactory release based on player motivations, you’ll derive great enjoyment from seeing an increase in involvement.
So I tell you: aim not for fun, but for satisfaction.
GMs need to stop being control freaks and the almighty ‘keepers of Fun’ and players need to stop being so goddamn demanding of GMs.
Talk to each other!
I’m done! 
89 Comments
Write a Comment»I want fun /and/ satisfaction
Sometimes, game sessions can be mainly about having fun. So what if they don’t advance the uber-plot (or even move it backwards!). So what if the scenario gets derailed because one of the heroes fell out of a window 33 floors up. So what if part of the game was spent clarifying the rules for a new player whose never role-played before? You’re having fun and socialising with friends, and that’s pretty much all that matters. After all, we play the most social game there is. Fun is good!
Satisfaction is good too; maybe it’s more of a cerebral GM thing, but I like to end a session feeling satisfied that it’s gone well. If the players’ own agendas have been fulfilled and the plot has inched along too, all the better. Some sessions can be all about strong characters, satisfying plotlines and great moments of drama. It can be fun too, but it can also create other emotions too - not least excitement, tredipation and even fear. Fun and satisfaction is a great double-target, but it’s not the only target.
But they’re not really talking about fun, are they?
They’re talking about how they play the game, or think the game is being played, or whatever. It’s an exercise to rile folks up, nothing more. Give it no regard.
4e, like any other game, has faults because it can’t be everything to everyone - but it IS a good game. Heck, it’s better than I thought it would be. I reckon the GSL is a mistake that’s going to harm the level of third-party support, but that’s got nothing to do with how the game plays.
Whether the game istelf is fun, or satisfying, or a complete flop has more to do with the folks around the table than the game itself, everytime.
True that Greywulf.
I will give it regards! People are wrong on the Internet and need to be set right!
Ahhhh I can’t say that with a Straight face!
xkcd got it so right: http://xkcd.com/386/
Hear hear!
The big fallacy I see tossed around is when we talk about adding more fun to the game, they say “Why not just add an ‘I win’ button?”
Fun can encompass challenges, and tension, and tough experiences, and whatnot. It’s not an either/or. Games can remove the frustration of needless complexity and arbitrary setbacks in place of satisfaction and triumph over adversity.
But that’s just my game design philosophy. Ultimately, it’s not up to me to say what other groups decide is fun, just like it’s not their job to convince me that Fun is Bad.
Dave T. Games last blog post..YouTubes of the Week Versus the Zombies Edition
The Tyranny of Fun thing is sort of like the extreme edge of the indie gaming movement. You take what is a pretty reasonable starting point:
“I want a game where the PCs are relatively weak, where their rewards are beyond their control, and where death is random and frequent.”
And turn it into completely brain damaged gibberish:
“4e destroys all immersion and coddles the PCs so that they constantly win everything.”
At least, I think that’s what I think Tyranny of Fun means, because it’s sort of this amorphous thing that becomes the bugbear du jour. The immersion thing is a new addition, AFAIK.
The funny thing, to me, is that on EN World you have people saying that H1 is too deadly, and on TheRPGSite you have a crowd that’s enraged that the game is too easy. You truly can never make every gamer happy. It’s a madman’s quest. Frankly, if people think the game is too deadly and too easy, we probably hit the right middleground.
Stop being so damn reasonable, Mearls! Don’t you know you’re public enemy #1 in this situation? We require blackhearted villains to revile!
Chatty, I’d just like to point out that the post of mine you quote was written specifically with 3.x in mind. If you think it applies to 4e too I trust your instincts on that one. But that doesn’t mean that I’d offer the exact same ideas with regard to running earlier editions of D&D. I think that’s an important destinction here because choosing a system is a right-tool-for-the-right-job decision. I don’t think 4e is objectively better or worse than earlier incarnations of D&D. The question is whether or not it serves my gaming needs. The Tyranny of Fun folks (many of whom I consider friends) are lamenting, however hysterically, at least two issues that I find to be entirely reasonable. 1) The new D&D underserves their specific gaming needs, which were served under previous editions. 2) The new edition is a more tightly focused game. Some people think that’s a good thing, but I’m firmly in the camp that coherence looks a lot better on paper than it plays for most game groups.
Jeff Rientss last blog post..Willingham by request
@ Mearls: Welcome to the Blog. (Trying to contain my inner nerd here) I think you did hit the good target if the sea is choppy on both sides of the issue.
I too have absolutely no issue with the Red Box D&D philosophy. It doesn’t meet my current needs but I find the retro-revival movement of it fascinating and a good sign for the hobby.
@Jeff: I agree that the points are reasonable… it’s the melodrama and hysterics I have a hard time with. As for your original post, to me the message transcends game systems… but they definitively apply particularily well to the latest 2 versions of D&D.
H. L. Mencken once quipped that puritanism could be defined as “[t]he haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” Which I think is a fairly apt description of these ‘tyranny of fun’ folks.
Everytime someone at gamegrene.com posts a diatribe about D&D or any of the other RPGs I enjoy the only thing that I can think to ask is ‘So why do you play? And if you don’t pla, why do you care that I do?’
There is certainly no shortage of games on the market; D&D is the 300lb. gorilla, we all know it… and yes, sometimes I think it might be nice if other game companies could be abit more successful (Last Unicorn, Guardians of Order, R.Talsorian… I miss you!) but just because a game is popular doesn’t make it bad. Nor does it make it good.
A game is only good if you enjoy playing it. Games we don’t enjoy playing are called jobs.
I like D&D, my freinds like D&D. It makes us happy. These folks seem to find it troubling that we enjoy it… So, to them, I extend my tounge in a mighty rassberry.
Now then, Chatty, can we get a good rant on the “Puritanism of Indie” in time for GenCon `09?
“1) The new D&D underserves their specific gaming needs, which were served under previous editions. ” And is the most played game.
I think that is the main reason the internet is in an uproar. I am a newb in PnP but I already fell into this trap when I tried to play DnD with my girlfriend, she was simply uninterested in dungeon delving. It took a bit of talking with her and spotting the kind of books she liked and movies she watched and why she did like them (again talking is good) to notice that it wasn’t RPGs that were not interesting it was my choice of game, so now I am getting ready to run her through a game of World of Darkness, and she’s actually reading the rulebook on her own.
What I meant to say is 4e does high fantasy really well, from level 1 you play a powerful character and that is fine if that’s what you want to play. (I was really satisfied when I rolled well on my daily and saved my dying companion by moving an opponent out of the way corridor that was preventing us from reaching him)
3.5e in the lower levels was a lower fantasy game (I am still to get past level 6), you started as a commoner and that is also fine if those are the theme of the story you are looking for. (had a great game the other night where we lost one PC in an awesome boss fight)
For me satisfaction comes from high risk&reward situations. make me feel like I could loose it all, (rust monster style) as long as there is a way to overcome the challenge (Need to rescue someone before High level monster comes back to his lair) I would say ” Give me the moon and allow me to reach for the sun while knowing I can lose the moon if I’m not careful”
to finish my ramblings, what might be the pitfall of DnD 4e is the GSL, by cutting the third party support ( they seem to be basically saying “If you have a good idea we will take it and it will be ours”) they might not get the variety of settings 3.5 had and will be stuck in high fantasy.
Now if I can just try a new system (without the problems of 3.5) that do good low fantasy with players to play with…
I find the argument boils down to two things, really:
1. “Change is bad.” These are the arguments that are recycled from previous edition changes. (Seriously, I remember reading some of these posts almost word for word when 3e came out… and when 2e came out.) This is, arguably, the biggest change to the game yet, but these arguments still boil down to liking the old system better.
There’s nothing stopping anyone from playing the old system. True, there won’t be any first-party support, and probably there’ll be a lot less third-party support. That never stopped the die-hard 1e players, though. If the desire’s still there, the rulebooks (and modules, and whatever else) are still there.
2. “I wanted a different style of game.” Over the years, the focus has changed. 1e was really a low-fantasy, swords-and-sorcery style game, until you got to high levels. There was a real chance that a character wouldn’t have so much as a +1 weapon at level 6, or maybe even at level 9. At the higher levels, this broke down some, and if you got into some third-party stuff (like Primal elements), it could be as epic-high-fantasy as anything in 4e, but the root game was more pulp-style. And it was designed with the expectation that very few would reach those high levels, anyway — in fact, most PC races simply couldn’t, if you applied the rules as written. Half-elf cleric? Level 5 maximum, thanks.
2e was much the same, though it relaxed level restrictions, and allowed for a bit more flexibility on the part of the players. Thief skills, for instance, were no longer set quantities.
3e shifted more toward the high-fantasy aspect, with ‘expected wealth.’ Wizards were still broken, at even earlier levels. Noncasters were still increasingly useless at higher levels, but now “higher levels” started as early as level 7 or so. But one thing 3e did, even more so than earlier editions, was to simulate a world.
4e is high fantasy, unabashedly. It’s not as wizard-slanted as earlier editions, and the overall power level is a bit lower because of it, but the game’s slanted toward providing an epic-fantasy feel. And it doesn’t simulate a world. PCs aren’t the same as NPCs, even in theory. PCs are different and special.
Some people don’t like that. Some people just want lower fantasy, which is reasonable. Some just don’t like PCs being special, which I don’t get. But fair enough.
But 4e doesn’t cater to them.
In a nutshell, 1e would be a comfortable setting for Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. 3e would be a comfortable setting for Elric or Conan in his more over-the-top appearances. 4e would be a comfortable setting for the more mystical Arthurian tales, like Gawain and the Green Knight or the more fantastic Merlin stories, and for epics along the lines of most Lord of the Rings imitators. (As for the Rings themselves, I’m not so sure… that’s hard to classify.)
4e does that sort of game very well, mind you.
What I can’t understand are the people complaining about the “loss” of such mechanics as save-or-die and level draining. Just goes to show you, I guess.
Ninetails last blog post..Skybreaker session 3: Rocks and Hard Places
A lot of people seem to be missing the point on both sides. I noticed some on the thread arguing that having to work up to a challenge made for “0 Fun now, more Fun later”; I’m inclined to disagree. There’s potential for fun in having different chances of getting through a given challenge. In the beginning, there is Fun from taking the risk and discovering you’re somehow managing to survive something that you really shouldn’t be able to deal with, as much on the strength of your wits and your luck as your build. (Then again, I’ve always liked winning by my wits in general.) In the middle, there is Fun from an evenly matched battle, one you’re expecting to win, because while you figure you’re going to win you don’t know how you’re going to win yet. In the end, there is fun in looking at this thing that couldn’t possibly challenge you anymore and remembering back when it required wits and luck, or more recently when there was still that little bit of unpredictably to look for. Earning your cakewalk, as it were (which in my opinion is the only thing that makes there being a cakewalk worth it).
And that is why I prefer my challenges to be set by what they are and not what I am. (That and I’m a verisimilitude freak who is probably spending half the adventure scribbling inspiring things in my writer’s journal, but we won’t go into that, now, will we?)
Then again, my problem with new editions is that no matter how many people say there’s a choice, so many people stop believing that there’s a choice that you can’t find anyone for there to be a choice with. “If you offer it, they will come” seems to stop applying.
I just want stats for a bugbear du jour.
Wow… just wow.
I rant in a semi coherent fashion, go to bed a bit grumpy and I wake up to a facefull of well thought out, politely worded opinions from the moderate side of the debate!
People. You all rock!
BTW: Welcome to some newcomers I might have missed on previous posts, mainly Guiguibob80, Ninetail and Ravyn. I have a hard time keeping up!
I’ve started a campaign in 4e (6 PCs), ans for the most part, they’ve never played PnP before. Now that makes things harder sometimes, when trying to foster good roleplaying, but I think it made things easier because nobody (except me) was stuck in the old-rules mentality.
I like having the players be special, powerful. Not saying they are un-killable, but they know (by now) that sometimes I’ll throw up a very tough encounter, and that they need to creatively come up with ways to beat it (destroy the pedestal of dark energy, create a rockslide, etc). This results in fun and satisfaction of completing something ‘impossible’.
@Chatty, thanks for picking up my twitter feed. I’ve been writing session summaries for my campaign offline, and I’ll let you know when I post them all somewhere.
Two things are springing to mind… “Noir PC doesn’t mind an appropriate amount of danger.” and an old Twilight Zone episode, that basically points out that getting everything you want can actually be hell.
But despite that, I feel like I’m missing something. Calling it “The Tyranny of fun” seems to be making fun a bad thing… and it’s not. Fun is good. But, fun isn’t “winning” or “getting what you want”… fun is fun. Those are just examples of things that can be fun. And honestly, I kind of like being awesome when I play a game. I get enough averageness in real life.
Can being the underdog be fun? Yeah, sure. Does that mean I want to be the underdog all the time? Hell no. Never getting what you want isn’t any better than always getting what you want.
The real bugbear du jour about the Tyranny of Fun is that it is arguing against one aspect of a game that is assumed to be the main source of fun for all players. Folks will get out of their games the fun they want to have from them, whether it is hardscrabble challenge won through wits and guts to tense moments of character interaction.
There are so many levels to fun the true tyranny is saying your fun is the one that applies to everyone else.
“There are so many levels to fun the true tyranny is saying your fun is the one that applies to everyone else.”
Right on, and there is something a little bit puritannical in some the way some people make their cases against this so-called tyranny (notice how that word alone skirts close to Godwin’s Law?). I’ve seen arguments that connect the (perceived) ‘Tyranny of Fun’ to a (perceived) decline in society as a whole!
Are we seriously expected to believe that the edition of D&D one plays is now a sign of one’s moral rectitude? Pffft. Thanks, but no.
Maxs last blog post..Tirapheg Week Resumes: Mazes & Minotaurs
One thing I have found in the past month and half, in regard to lethality, is 4E has provided my game with a more “satisfying” sense of death. In 1, 2, & 3E death was frequently the result of a bad die roll (Come on, anything but a “one”!), randomized fate (Oh crap, a crit, now!?), or unfortunate rules interactions (What? But none of us has an adamantine weapon!). But now death seems to be more meaningful.
So far PC death in 4E has been frequent in my gaming. While running KotS at KublaCon this year both defenders were killed in the same round by kobolds and a goblin skullcleaver. Last week our paladin died in a simple kobold ambush. In a recent one-off game a near TPK. The beautiful thing in my mind, about this carnage is that none of the deaths seemed arbitrary or random. In each case the character death was clearly the result of one of the following things:
Poor tatical decisions (Bunch up so they can’t flank! What spellcaster?).
Biting off more than you can chew (I can take ‘em both!).
Not accepting retreat as a viable option (know when to say when).
-and the number thing-
Failure to work as a team!
In the past I have always been hesitant to allow PC’s to die, mostly because death was so arbitrary and hollow. But now I feel empowered to let the chips fall where they may because the players in my group “see” the cause and effect nature of their choices and in reflection understand why they died. No more do I hear “I died because I failed my Fort save.” Instead I hear “I died because I rushed off from the group and no one could aid me.” Well actually I hear “I died because the stupid cleric didn’t keep up with me!”
Anyway the threat of lethality still looms ever-present in D&D; it’s just not the threat of random and arbitray death.
Commenting on Mearls’ observation regarding the polar opposites (too easy, too hard), I have observed that it seems to come down to paradigm adaptation. A friend of mine has been running KotS for his group and they seem to be waltzing through it. I on the other hand have ran it twice and no one has yet to survive long enough to get to the keep itself. In my opinion the reasons are simple:
In my friend’s campaign his players have quickly realized how to work as a team, build synergies that augment one another, and manage their PC resources well. He on the other hand is still not utilizing monsters in concert, taking advantage of powerful one-shot powers, and working to break the PC’s teamwork. In my runnning of KotS I am much more familiar with the rules and concepts then the players (new people at a con who had never played).
So basically you have a situation about adaptation. The players and DM’s who have been “picking up what WotC is throwing down” have altered their paradigms, adapted to the concepts and are getting a fun, balanced game. Those that are out of balance (DM has adapted, players havn’t or vice versa) find the game way underpowered, or overpowered. Hopefully this situation will self-correct has game familiararity grows and more people begin to see and embrace the new paradigms in 4E.
I still have a couple in my group that are having difficulty moving into a 4E worldview. Oh well, growth can be painful!
“Anyway the threat of lethality still looms ever-present in D&D; it’s just not the threat of random and arbitray death.”
And that’s okay for you, but you are at least open to the idea that your ‘random and arbitrary death’ is someone else’s ‘Why did I just stick my hand into that jar full of snakes, when I have this perfectly good 10 foot pole?’ to the hoots and laughs of the rest of the party!
Agreed whole-heartedly!
I have seen some classic deaths that are memorable and fun just because they were random and arbitrary, however I think it is better to design a game that doesn’t do that.
Here’s my thought; it is easier for me (the DM) to interject occasional randomness into a game that isn’t as random, then it is for me to provide stabilitiy to a game full of randomness.
Although in terms of “fun”, both are perfectly acceptable. A lot of “good” gaming comes down to finding a group that generally defines “fun” in the same way!
I know I am okay with both definitions brought by James and John.
In fact John, I (and several others) have also picked up on the whole ‘team up or die horribly’ vibe of 4e. Most RPGs I played are like 4e screams building and playing a party like a CCG deck.
(I fully understand that people will hate that, I like it a lot)
In fact, I’m willing to bet that players who don’t necessarily like playing in teams (Outliers are coming to mind) won’t find 4e to their likings (unless they are also of the ‘I like to die horribly’ school.
“There are so many levels to fun the true tyranny is saying your fun is the one that applies to everyone else.”
So true, so true. I wish we could put this up on billboards.
RPGs are great because there are so many of them. I just ordered Mutant Future a day or two ago, and it will go on a shelf next to Aria and the Palladium Fantasy RPG. I ran Tomb of Horrors using 1e a few years back and gleefully slaughtered the party. I ran a story-centered Eberron campaign, and a 3.5 version of Against the Giants where I made it my personal mission to kill all the broken, munchkin characters the players created.
I’m sick of people who feel they need to polarize gaming, turn it into an us vs. them thing. I don\’t have time or patience for either side of such fights.
“I’m sick of people who feel they need to polarize gaming, turn it into an us vs. them thing. I don\’t have time or patience for either side of such fights.”
Heck, it almost makes me feel like a freak for enjoying a wide variety of games for a wide variety of reasons. I have a blast with Exalted just as much as I do with Risus, or Rules Cyclopedia D&D and for completely different reasons.
I think we’re gonna need a bigger tent!
I refuse to play with anyone who maintains that their style of gaming is better than mine. I also try to avoid anyone who can’t bring themselves to say play, game, hobby or fun when discussing roleplaying. Whether you are pretending to be a knight, a vampire, or a Victorian seamstress, you’re still playing make-believe folks.
@ mearls - Polarized gaming? Or were polarized? Have yopu actually listened/watched the early release pocasts and videos? I had to see them myself to believe it. I am pretty thick hided, but I definitely felt insulted.
Just because you decide to minimize their feelings on the matter doesnt mean they don’t feel that way anymore. There is OBVIOUSLY a problem with the game/marketing/something for people to feel this way…it isn’t mass hysteria or stupidity. Ignoring and marginalizing it by taking a dismissive stance on the matter doesn’t help anyone. Think about it.
Off to get root canaled - yay : (
Oh, please.
Donny, this stuff was around LONG before 4e was ever announced. People have been saying “my way is the only way, and your way sucks” for decades.
Blaming this on 4e’s (admittedly somewhat off) marketing is short-sighted, to say the least.
Yeah, there’s a big difference between not liking 4e for whatever reason, and deciding to embark on a crusade to stop other people from playing it.
It works in reverse, too. If you like 4e, there’s no reasont to harass people who don’t.
The problem that folks are having with 4e in my opinion stem from a couple of things. Marketing failure, strongly tied to the constant delays of the GSL. But more importantly in my opinion is a deep dissapointment that there was not a huge leap foward in the game. What most folks remember from 2e to 3e was a genuine leap in the game mechanics. The game for the most has just made a lateral shift, maybe even taken a step back.
I personally do not mind the game getting dumbed down some, will make it easier for me to get folks playing in our limited time available. The only other option was to go back to 1e, which was not very appetizing to me.
That’s the position I want to be defended here. While I will talk openly and positively about the game I currently play (i.e. 4e and McWod), I have had sufficient contact with the community to see that other people like other games.
I love reading about Mutants and Mastermind games, Savage Worlds, Iron heroes, Moldevay D&D and even Encounter Critical.
Heck, I read all World of Synnibar posts! (Anyone has an actual play post somewhere?)
Bring it! Fun is in the eye of the beholder!
I’m really good at being late to the game, so here goes:
I think one of the key aspects missing from the primary “tyranny of fun” argument is retrospective. They talk about how much 4e has shifted away from encouraging immersion, but whenever I’ve played previous editions of D&D there were points where the system may have encouraged immersion, but the rules and mechanics downright killed it. It’s one thing to argue that 4e may not do something, but it’s another to simultaneously imply that previous editions were particularly good at it.
The cave slime issue, well to me saying that a cave slime is DC30 slippery isn’t very immersive either, so I’ll refer that back to my first point.
BTW, any and all of the nit picky problems people are having are easily “fixed” with house rules. I can not imagine a game of DnD without at least one house rule.
Agreed Buzz and bow the DMG openly discusses House Rules and how to go at it. A very strong point going for it…
I’ve found that with every game system there’s a strong temptation to make up tons of House Rules to “fix” the game while you’re learning it and adjusting to it’s particular playstyle. After a while (years, most likely) the number of House Rules you actually use dwindle down to a mere handful. In that time, the rules haven’t magically changed, but your understanding of them has.
House Rules - especially at the early stages of learning a new game - are a part of our defense mechanism against change; we try to House Rule the game back into our comfort zone. In a way, we’re enforcing our own brand of Tyranny
I know we did it with 3e D&D, and now we’ve just got a handful of House Rules (listed here, plus LA costs Feats, not levels), and we’re intentionally resisting the tempation to add House Rules to 4e. We’ve nerfed Fey Step (my own personal bugbear du jour) to being a Daily Power, and that’s it. We’re playing the game as writ so far. And it’s working well too, now I’ve at last got my players on board.
THAT was the hardest part of all! Tyrants of Fun, the lot of ‘em!
Hum, Wujeck, who I’d point to as one of the Grandpappies of the modern indy gaming movement had a lot to say on giving your players the power that they want. In short, he mentioned that power is a pretty dangerous sort of thing to have, and thus a player or PC’s desire for power should be indulged. If they want a godsword, well there’s a godsword. Of course owning said item means that all sorts of folks will now be very interested in you and your actions. Including folks who are going to be much more powerful than you. (Don’t punish your players for seeking an advantage, but make sure that there are unexpected consequences. Modern super hero stories are also good for this issue. The fact that a character has a lot of power doesn’t make them invulnerable, it just means that the bad things in their lives are going to happen in a lateral manner to their powers. From pop culture, Buffy the Vampire Slayer comes to mind. Lots of power, cool abilities, and a whole life full of pain and suck. Much of which stem directly from her powers and abilities.
Give them what they want, and tailor most encounters to play to their strengths, but occasionally hit them from the side with something that can’t be dealt with with a +6 sword of uberness or a melt the rocks at will fireblast.
“We’ve nerfed Fey Step (my own personal bugbear du jour) to being a Daily Power”
Crap, Bugbear Du Jour can teleport? Now I’m really afraid of going up against that monster.
I think once a game hits a certain popularity and status within its genre, it tends to get house-ruled much more often to try to fit the experience of those playing it. Monopoly is a big example in board games: I’d be willing to wager that most people don’t play the Rules As Written, and instead change the amount of luck in it (i.e. adding money to Free Parking) or try to speed it up (random properties.) Poker is another example, until the variant that someone made ended up surpassing earlier version as the popular version. When people feel familiar enough with a game, but then realize there’s just something they’d like better about it, you end up with House Rules.
Dave T. Games last blog post..Report Card: Space Marine Units (Part 2)
“We’ve nerfed Fey Step (my own personal bugbear du jour) to being a Daily Power”
I still don’t understand that one. It isn’t horribly over powered or anything.
Michael Phillipss last blog post..Lord, why couldn’t he have been the King of Pants?
Gah Michael don’t start this again!
I’m sure Greywulf will point you to the Paizo discussion on this soon enough.
I was going to post something here, but then I realized that Ish has already said everything I was going to say. Bravo. (I’m adding that “puritanism” line to my Quote File.)
Bugbears du Jour
@ graham, mearl - nice dodge, unfortunately dismissing my opinion doesn’t change the fact that the mistakes WERE made. I wont argue the nature of them here, it isnt the time or place, nor does chatty want to clean the blood off the pages.
So are you going to tell me there is no “rift” in our community? That what I see and hear everyday is a figment of my imagination? Parse it however you want, but somebody screwed up. Whether it was the marketing, the ruleset, or whatever, it still comes down to Before 4E = no problems - After 4E Flame wars on every forum devoted to gaming…except of course WoTC’s…I wont even get into that particular nugget, except to say that whatever they pay your moderators, it isn’t enough.
I don’t hate you Mike. I don’t even dislike you, or anyone else there. Your friends @ Paizo say you are all good folks, and that is good enough for me. Besides, if “someone” HADN’T blown it, there would be no PFRPG.
I tried 4E, and found it lacking. I wont bore you with details you don’t want to hear. I’ve heard and read your opinions on the topic - it’s all good. Maybe you guys should consider extending a public olive branch or mea culpa to the (I daresay) thousands of ex-fans who loathe WoTC for it’s “dishonesty” and such.
Or don’t, what do I know right? I’m just some random moron on a web page to be dismissed along with all the rest.
I step out of the whole debate for a few weeks and I see it has raged to overboiling. My group just decided to shelf the 4e stuff for while and maybe come back to it as ‘another system’ rather than D&D. We went back to our 3e Ptolus campaign and everyone immediately started to have a good time again so in that the Tyranny of Fun wins. The group is challenged, overcome obstacles, use a familiar ruleset and all is right with the world. Except for the poor knight who really liked all the things he could do in 4e who now seems bored with “I swing my sword annnnnnd…. I’m done”.
@Donny: I’m genuinely interested in your opinions and views. However, I can’t say that I’m tickled by your argumentative techniques and really can’t foresee how any responses to your comments can lead to a continued rational and cordial discourse.
In fact I would much rather you tell me how you disliked 4e and how Pathfinder will meet your needs, using your experience and preferences rather than read about dodging arguments, dishonesty and self-deprecating remarks.
I say this with the utmost respect. Heck, I’ll be GMing Pathfinder scenarios for more than 13 hours over 2 days at Gen Con so I get that many many fans will prefer to stick with the 3.x ruleset!
Peace out man.
poop…hold on, edited to be more cordial.
@donny -
I never denied there was a rift.
I never denied that there were problems with 4e marketing.
I never dismissed any of that.
(Nor did Mearls, by the way.)
My one argument that I gave, and stand by, is that “Before 4e = no problems” is flat out wrong. There were the same topics raging for the past 30 years, in various forms.
4e has recently brought the topics to the forefront again, but the arguments were brought forward at the 2e/3e switch, the 1e/2e switch, and at random times between those.
So yeah, 4e spurred some of this discussion, but the topic was not caused by it.
And to claim it is (as you did) is ignorant.
*sigh*
Yes, people have legitimate problems with 4e, as some had with 3e, as some had with 2e, etc. People like Mearls and I have no problem with these people.
But they aren’t the ones actively attempting to polarise the hobby.
The ones who are are the ones saying “My way is right, and you’re playing wrong.” There are those on both sides of the issues, of course.
There are those who say 3.X is right, and if you’re having fun with 4e, then you’re wrong.
I have no patience for them.
But there are also those who say 4e is right, and if you’re having fun with 3.X, then you’re wrong.
I have no patience for them either.
It’s not any specific group, or any specific style of play.
It is merely the intolerant, preachy, polarising ones that I have no patience with.
You haven’t hit that with your comments here, so thank you. I didn’t see the post before you edited it, but I’d like to think it also wasn’t preachy or polarising.
But some of the people out there… wow, it’s incredible how they can berate a person just because their version of fun is different.
My problem is manyfold.
Part of it is, quite simply, a love of the 3.X system. Call it corny, but after learning how to play in the 2nd/revised 2nd ed. era, I found it elegant. I mean EVERYTHING was covered! From A to Z with the whole spectrum inbetween. Don’t get me wrong, I am no grognard, I was excited about the announcement of 4E…VERY excited. Finally, there would be fixes to all the crap that apparently slipped past the editor with 3.5. Then the word came out that it would be a complete departure from the old…Still, though, I was cautiously optimistic…then THUNK…the new rules dropped -
It just does not feel fun to me. I have tried three different KotS games with three different groups, as DM and as player, and it felt…silly. This disturbed me more than you can know. I have never liked larping or any of that “weird” stuff, so don’t get me wrong. I am a power gamer. I like rules, flexibility, and options…They just werent there. I felt like I was doing it wrong, using the same at will every single round, but nope - the other players were doing it too. Maybe wizards just tapped into a raw nerve in a percentage of their audience. I dunno…I am no shrink, I just know it wasn’t for me.
The unfinished nature of 3E was another blow…I was REALLY looking forward to the fiendish codex III, as well as a supplement to cover the far plane…never gonna happen.
The nauseating balance above all crud. If I wanted a balance above all game, I would play white wolf or WoW. I enjoyed varied mileage of the different classes. This was not a problem IMO.
It’s late for me, and I am starting to lose my train of thought, so I will wrap this up before I start rambling. PFRPG, IMO, feels like the logical next step for the game system that I have become intimitely familiar with. It also doesnt require trashing the crunch from the…lessee…62 3.X books on my shelf right now.
I cant currently explain it any better than this. It is a visceral thing to me. Mr. Rients can probably sympathise to an extent as he evidently has made the same decision with regards to his preferred system. I simply do not feel…comfortable(?) with 4E. “squares, powers, per-days” it just doesnt feel right.
I (once again) apologize for my tone and/or presentation earlier. This is an emotional issue to me. I have invested a considerable part of my life (in terms of time and money) to “my” game, and take it very seriously. It is a big part of who I am as a person, and therefore discourse in regards to it’s demise makes me short tempered and dare I say “bitchy” : )
Apologies to Mike and graham, with a caveat - whether you meant it or not, I felt dismissed, like my point of view was worthless…that was lame, I got enough of that on the wizards and ENworld boards. I follow both of your Blogs (and other misc media) and value your thoughts and opinions, even when they are crap : ) So return the favor!
In any event, if I havent bored you to tears, I will try and qualify this some more on the morrow. Good night.
Edit: Thank you graham, and my post wasn’t that bad, I just felt it was written more out of frustration than…the opposite? lol. My brain is hurting - Long live D&D…whatever version you choose to play.
I can’t argue with anything from your last post. Like I said, there are perfectly valid reasons to dislike 4e.
Hell, if your reason was “I just don’t like it”, that’s a valid reason.
I don’t think either of us meant for it to sound like we were dismissing your opinion. Just that we weren’t discussion opinions of 4e to begin with, but how some (other) people try to force their opinion (whatever it might be) on other people.
I can see how it came across as dismissing your argument. But understand that it was not in a “No, you’re wrong and unimportant!” manner, but a “Wait… who brought that up? How did we get into this discussion?” way instead.
Which doesn’t really excuse it, but hopefully explains it a bit better.
But as I’ve said many times before, play whatever you want to. Just keep gaming, and don’t try to tell anybody else they’re wrong for not playing your game.
In this way, we’ll be helping to make the hobby grow, and everyone can play what makes them happy.
And if that happens to be something different from what makes me or you happy? Who cares?
And that’s what some of these “Tyranny of Fun” people fail to realise.
Holy crap! Someone reads my blog!
…huh… I should get on updating it, then.
As I said, though, I do value your opinions, as I value all opinions. I won’t necessarily agree with them, and I’ll debate with whoever wants to about any topic, but I will never, ever, tell you your opinions are objectively wrong.
I may tell you your facts are objectively wrong…
Now that’s a statement I’ll never argue against.
i just read from the top to the bottom and now I feel exhausted !
Still it seams a happy ending and so ill happily go catch a bus.
Deadshot: “We went back to our 3e Ptolus campaign and everyone immediately started to have a good time again so in that the Tyranny of Fun wins. The group is challenged, overcome obstacles, use a familiar ruleset and all is right with the world. Except for the poor knight who really liked all the things he could do in 4e who now seems bored with “I swing my sword annnnnnd…. I’m done”.”
I just thought this little piece needed to be repeated. Thoughts?
Bartoneuss last blog post..Report Card: Space Marine Units (Part 2)
@Donny: I stand corrected on my initial assessment of the situation. Thanks for making the extra effort of telling us your thoughts on 4e and Pathfinder.
Just so you know…. I felt a similar disconnect with 2e when it came out (and I’d wager that the rift has a 2e vs 4e and 3e vs 4e distribution).
@Bartoneus: I’m starting to feel that some gamers prefer a mature gaming system (with reasons). A lot of ‘but I liked 2e better’ arguments I saw were based on the perceived completeness of 2e at the end of its cycle.
The same goes for 3.5 who’s had almost a decade of development… warts and all.
4e is still very much a Core game, like a Magic the Gathering Starter set or the Warhammer Fantasy Battle starter box (I’m well aware of the analogies I’m making). In that, over and above resistance to change or play styles preferences or what we construe as fun, I think people don’t find the richness they expected (maybe unjustly).
Were we to magically obtain a fully mature 4e that touched all the crunch of 3.5 and the fluff of 2e, the reaction might have been different.
So it really is a matter of time and depends on WotC and 3rd party support.
As for Deadshot’s unhappy knight… I soooo feel for him. I’d want a 4e Ptolus game myself… pity my version of that fine city has been ripped from the world and cast in the Shadowefell.
I was more looking at the “everyone immediately started having a good time again” comment, followed by the “oh, except for the player who happened to pick the melee class…they aren’t having fun at all!”
Bartoneuss last blog post..Report Card: Space Marine Units (Part 2)
Which tells us a lot about Deadshot’s player motivations and the apparent divide.
Deadshot, at least give your Knight access to the Book of Nine Swords.
*Deep breath*
I think that a lot of the ‘tyranny of fun’ stuff also comes from the need for gamers to assert themselves. One of the core sources of ‘rants’ and similar things is to gain recognition as a critic/pundit.
The tyranny of fun is a lovely piece of rhetoric - it taps into people’s urge to criticize the new (always a wonderful thing to criticize, it will remain the favoured dead horse to flog until something newer arrives - see 2e vs. 3e vs. 3.5e discussion since the last edition came out).
Because hatred is easier than constructive improvements, people will continue to beat on said dead horse because doing so allows them to (a) stay emotionally provocative, thus eliciting more comments/further posts on the thread (and who hasn’t wanted to be part of an epic, 200 page thread on a forum? Or have hundred of blog comments?) (b) sound smart, because no-one is creating something better - they’re hand-waving and talking about how it makes them feel less happy.
I follow a general rule that if someone truly wants to criticize, then their criticism will be ignored unless they can suggest something with equal entry requirements that serves the task better. The tyranny of fun is on my ‘ignore’ list until someone can tell me a better way to do D&D, that is as easy and fun as 4e.
Wookehs last blog post..Where the Hell is Matt?
Well Said! Even if I’m arguably in the guilty party
Thanks for the validation guys…seroiusly. It really does feel good to have your opinion counted when stumbling among the giants.
@Mearls - I hope I didn’t scare you off. My gushing mixed with my resentment and I ended up getting Gushsentment all over this board. You are doing the best job you can do, and like it or not - You rock.
As to the tyrrany issue in general…we are all fanboys. Every. Single. One. We love our hobby, and for some of us, even the word hobby is borderline insulting. Good example of that was calling my Brother in law’s 40K obsession a hobby…4 completed re-inforced companies - and he hasn’t actually played in 3 years!
This “edition war” as some are calling it is terrible. It is so easy to get swept up in it without even realizing it. You ignore the foam on the lips, and the spittle on the monitor, until you have already posted, then feel that sinking feeling that can only come when you realize you probably just made a jackass out of yourself…troubling times. But I digress.
Most of the blogs and forums I follow share the same criticisms. We’re all aware of them. Problem is, the vast majority are so completely subjective, we may as well be speaking different languages. Or playing different games as a slightly better analogy. What is fun? You asked that yourself not too long ago. I seem to recall a lot of different answers.
For me, fun is rules lawyering. It is build exploits. It is a 4 member EL13 party taking out a CR 17 encounter. It is seeing a long story arc concluding. It is Wiping out a party that made a REALLY bad choice. It is building the ultimate character. It’s “If I build it, it will ROCK!”. It’s your friends saying “YES!” When you save their bacon. I could go on for hours, but read this twice or thrice, and you will see something that a lot of folks pushing their Anti-4E views have in common…I and ME.
What is the biggest change in 4E? It’s not really the rules per se, its that there is no longer any place for a lone wolf character anymore. You see a little of that in the default party becoming one larger (it was 4 from 2nd - 3.5) now it is 5. The tactical aspect HEAVILY encourages teamwork and balance above all other considerations. Unfortunately, this means no parties of say, three strikers, one defender, and another defender…it probably wont workout too well, it is too over specialized. In 3E, as long as one of the defenders was a cleric No problem!
This was 3.x’s strength. It not only allowed, but encouraged any character to really have a shot at filling any role. Barbarian trapspringer, Rogue diplomat, Battle bard, War priest, all tropes that defy the “box” the class begins in. Multiclassing just adds more flavor. I’m digressing again dammit!
Anyway, every player out there has a different idea of fun, and they tend to react with near violence when an arbitrary ruleset shoehorns them into doing things the “correct” way. There is the tyranny…and the fun. Simply put, a lot of people do NOT like being told what to do with THEIR characters. Add that to the major changes (remember change = bad) and you immediately have people taking the defensive.
RPGPundit raises excellent, if abstract points. Butterfly dreaming raises similarly excellent points…problem is, they are both right. Sadly, two rights seem to create a wrong in this scenario. And as such, we have said rift.
Time will fix this. 3E changed dramatically over it’s lifetime, and 4E wll do the same. 4.5, or whatever it will be called will change it even more, and eventually we will be back to center. Simply put - you cant make everybody happy all the time, which is good, otherwise we would al have unwittingly become used car salesman.
You know Donny, apart a certain, very nice, Wizards of the Coast employee here, none of us are really giants. (He’d probably say he isn’t either)
I’m just an average joe with a big mouth and a few skill points in blogging…
Heck I’m nothing more than a customer with a Soap box!
1 year ago I was just this overly gushing d20 fan getting ignored more often than not on Forums…
When I grew tired of that, I started this blog
Happy you joined us man.
The release of 4e has been a pretty interesting period for me. I’ve been a gamer for about 20 years, even though I haven’t been able to have an active game for about 8 years now (I guess being a gamer is a bit like being an alcoholic - just because I’m not gaming right now, doesn’t mean I’m not always thinking about gaming…)
I pretty much skipped over all of 3rd Edition DnD (3.0 and 3.x - not different enough to warrant being called different games, IMO), although I bought some of the sourcebooks and played enough of the computer game versions to understand how everything worked. 3rd Ed solved some of the previous issues we had with DnD, but introduced some bad other ones, bad enough that I never even seriously considered starting a 3e game.
And that’s because I’m a DM. DMing in 2e was work, 3e was like a freaking second career, and frankly, now that I’m married and have a job and volunteer and things, I need that like I need kick in the ass. I mean, monsters with character levels? CL’s? WTF? Talk about Wall of Text. Add in a billion Splatbooks (which I like reading, mind you!) and you have a situation that is flexible, yes, but a headache? Hells Yes.
Now, if that’s what floats your boat, then far be it from me to argue with you. I’d love to play in a well-run, fun 3e campaign, but I know I don’t have the time or capacity to do it. But I want to game so much…
And so I bought the 4e rules, after reading previews and listening to podcasts and generally finding out what I was getting into. And I even bought a sheet of gridded foamboard and some clear latex film and dry-erase markers (the whole set-up cost me 10$ - dungeon tiles my ass) and I’m gonna start a 4e campaign, by god. Even if I have to badger my wife into playing, or drive an hour every second weekend to play.
I’m going to do this because 4e makes it easier, faster and more fun for me to be a DM. Heck, I should be having fun too, shouldn’t I? Not just that, but I know I can make it fun for everyone I get to play, too. The rules are sleek, flexible, encourage teamwork and allow for the kind of really cool stuff that we still tell stories about years later.
I say all this to give people an idea of why *I* welcome 4e with open arms, as a DM, a looooong-time dnder (I started with the red box, and still have it, although the dice in there were total crap), and most importantly, as someone who just wants to have a good time, hang out with my friends and stretch my imagination out a bit.
I’m also a bit curious about all the hate being slung around. People aren’t obliged to play this game, or any other. I used to play White Wolf games a lot, and I board game a lot, too. Just play what you like, what you have time for, what makes you happy. All the back and forth about “limited characters” and “simpler mechanics” and “have to use miniatures” is just people trying to pat themselves on the back for being more hard-core than anyone else. To brutally mangle Alestaire Crowley “Play what thou wilt is the whole of the Law”.