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! 🙂
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”.
Is it just me, or does it seem like some people are taking it a little too far…
I always understood that the way D&D was meant to work was that if you wanted to give the players a challenge, you could ‘tweak’ the challenge, either up or down, based on how much you want to PCs to sweat.
I’m mostly referring to this post’s example about the cave slime that requires a 22 to roll for level 5 characters, and a 33 to roll for a level 25 character… I don’t remember the exact table about it, I need to re-read the 4e books again (we’re still in a 3.5 campaign right now), but I think the point is that if you want to throw an obstacle at the players that is a challenge to them at level X, you should make them roll somewhere around Y. If you decide that the PCs just dealt with a major problem, and want to give them an ‘easy challenge’, adjust it down a few levels, or inversely, make it a little harder. Ultimately, it doesn’t do anything but give the DM a quicker way to adjust things for the game, to make sure that the game is fun, AND challenging – it’s not just to make the players have an easier time.
Let me bring up the cave mold example again.
In the older days (at least the way I did it), I would spend hours before the session planning out my elaborate dungeons, and filling in the rooms with all types of obstacles, marking down things like: “chasm DC(24) to jump, DC(19) to climb”, etc. When the PCs got to my obstacle, no matter what might have happened right before they got to it, if one of them rolled a 22 to jump across, someone was going to have to scrape them off the bottom of the chasm.
So lets take the cave mold. Now, when I want to put in an obstacle, I’ll just write down: “Cave Mold”, and when they get there, I can quickly gauge how difficult that cave mold should be. If my PCs have been breezing along the dungeon, killing everything without even flinching, I might decide, even though their all level 5, that they’ll need a 28, instead of the suggested 22 for level 5, to keep from slipping. I’ll tell them that this Cave Mold looks particularly slippery, and probably make a note of it somewhere. A couple rooms later, after a particularly nasty fight against a group of golblins, where all the PCs had bad luck with rolls, and they were forced to use up most of their resources, they might come across another batch of cave mold (or be heading back out, and come across the same patch), I might only require a 22, or even lower at this point, and either explain that this patch is not as slippery, or they remember some of the safer places to step from the last time they came through…. that way it’s not static and flat…
In my opinion, this is how D&D should be played… I don’t see any reason to treat things like they’re set in stone once they’ve been written down…
Sorry for the long comment… lol
SeiferTims last blog post..…It’s Coming…
…says a man who has taken the plunge and has cred to the ignorant bumpkin ; )
From here, you are a giant. Not because of any standing in the hobby, but because you have demonstrated fairness, decency, and a love of games. I’m still having a hard time keeping two going at once…much less all three. Ben Franklin was right!
I think Donny makes a great point that has just shed some light on what is polorizing my group. My “lone wolf” players don’t like 4E, my team players do. One of my players who thinks everything 4E is totally screwed up and evil is a player that is only truly happy (having fun I guess) when the spotlight is on him. That’s why in previous editions he always played the wizard, once he was higher level he did most the damage and executed the big flashy effects. I’m not saying he has ever been a spotlight hog, just that when it’s on him that’s when he’s happy.
As I write this it dawns on me that this is what I think is part of the underlying “divide” in this edition and why it seems a little more heated then previous change-overs (besides the fact that there are a lot more forums and messageboards to rant on).
I think about the hundreds of people I’ve gamed with over the years and I analyze what seemed to make them happy (have fun) and I realize that I could probally easily divide them into 3E or 4E people based on said happiness. On the same note I could pick out the 1E and 2E people.
I remember a player in my first 3.0 campaign. It took a while but I realized his dissatisfaction with 3E was that it completely negated his “life’s work”, that was having memorized every chart and table in 1E. To that end he also hated THAC0.
There are several DM’s I have talked too that don’t like 4E because they feel it has undermined their authority and control. Having played with some of these people I understand how in their mindset “fun” was having to make a rule decision or judgement call.
In the end each of us has to decide what is fun for themselves. I think having more options is always better and I have seen gaming evolve many times over the years. The important thing is this:
1. Figure out what you think is fun.
2. Find others who are of the same or closely related midset.
3. Play Dungeons & Dragons.
In the final analysis it is ridiculous to debate such a subjective topic as fun.
“[Y]ou cant(sic) make everybody happy all the time, which is good….”
Then why does the Tyranny of Fun theory hold that 4E is a bad game? Just because you don’t enjoy it, doesn’t mean that I am incapable of having fun with it.
My gaming group is currently playing two games, Pathfinder and 4E. We’re enjoying both immensely… but as the GM of the PFRPG game, I gotta tell you I am eagerly looking forward to its end so that I can switch to 4E.
Donny – no offense taken. I think you’ve done a good job of outlining why people might prefer 3e to 4e. The lone wolf issue in particular is a big one. In 3e, I tend to play casters in a lone wolf mode, loading up on spells like fly and expeditious retreat that let me get out of trouble.
There are a ton of changes between 4e and 3e, and that leads to reasons to prefer one over the other. I’d never be so arrogant as to claim that 4e is perfect, or that everyone who dislikes it is wrong.
On the other hand, I can understand how some of the previews had that vibe. The problem we faced was that we had to show people why they should try out 4e, and in some cases that involved addressing what we saw as issues in 3e that 4e tried to solve.
It’s a tricky tight rope to walk, and the next time we do a new edition (and oh please, I hope that’s not for another 10 years; I need a vacation!) it’s something we’ll have to do better.
And as far as being a giant, I don’t think giants have to mow the lawn, clean the dishes, and walk the dog as often as my wife makes me!
@donny –
You’ve brought up a lot of points in the above posts, some of which I would absolutely love to debate with you.
For instance, I could tell you how to do every one of those things you said were possible in 3e but not 4e, in 4e. The character concepts, and the 3-striker 2-defender party (it would actually be a stronger party than you might think, against all but minions).
But I won’t. Because you mentioned something far more important.
And, as John Lewis said, I think you hit the nail on the head.
You see, I’ve never seen D&D as an individual game. At least while playing it. I’m the guy who loves building characters, mixing mechanics, and all the stuff you mentioned about that. But once the game is in progress, it’s all about the party for me.
I understand those who like to be personally Supercool, but my group doesn’t consist of them. Everyone in my group is far more interested in the success of the party (in challenges, at least) than their own characters looking good. (We have a few who love exploring personal story, but it’s never done at the expense of the party.)
And that, you have made me realise, is really why 4e will be good for my group. We’ve been playing that way for years.
But if you’re from a group where personal supercoolness is the rule of the day, I can see where you would have difficulty adjusting.
Yeah. I think you just hit on one of the primary truths about this whole discussion.
EDIT:
@Mearls –
Sure they do. They just have larger lawns and dishes. Their dogs are probably about the same size.
Personally, I might be a giant. But that’s just because I’m huge.
@ Bartoneus and CDM – Yes, I am aware of the statement that everyone was having fun except the melee guy which is why I pointed it out. I really felt for the guy as he was the lone voice of support for 4e but knew the others weren’t buying into it. We had used the Book of Nine Swords before and most of the players just rolled their eyes and and shook their heads whenever he did one of his ‘fancy anime moves’. We are looking at the Book of Experimental Might II to see if there is something that fits the bill a little better but it is not an easy task. Still, I see it as a necessary one if the melee guys are going to have as much fun at higher levels as the spellcasters.
As for the debate on 4e vs 3e I believe I fell into the edition wars category and was shouting as much as the next guy initially. Now I have come to see it as a case of the Core books being a game shell which room for modular additions. Rather than being early adopters our group is going to let the game get through its growing pains and see what sort of support books are released to see if we can build the type of campaign in the ruleset that we are looking for.
The challenge for us is that our group is not team focused but individuals with common goals so the demands of 4e to fill rolls and utilize everyone else’s abilities to set up combos and such is not natural to our playing style. It might be the hurdle that keeps us from switching. I hope that WotC puts the lone wolf aspect in there somewhere for that contingent of gamers.
I’m not sure that WotC should spend too much time putting “Lone-Wolf” aspects into the system. In my experience, it doesn’t take much lone wolfing to have a negative impact on the play experience of others. I’d rather impact one person somewhat than several people quite a bit. Greatest common good and all that.
Besides, there seems like enough wicked-cool powers (rule of fun, anyone?) to engage even the powergamers in the crowd, and if overcoming difficult challenges as a cooperative group really isn’t the players cup o tea, well, Neverwinter Nights 2 is cool – lots of powergaming there.
@Wicked: One of the things that I’ve discovered in this very interesting discussion is the Lone Wolf/Mechanical Supercoolness is a very real motivation.
Powerful (Overpowerful even) Wizards have been a staple of the game for most of it’s life.
4e’s nerfing of them to a level more in line with the other classes is a big let down to those who liked that… those who didn’t care too much for balance and such.
I mean I’ve seen groups who were very satisfied of having a Machine Gun sorcerer alongside a badly built Bard.
I think 4e killed that to some extent …. That makes me happy as a DM, but I get that some LIKED that.
YAY! I hit a nail!
Cheesy as it may sound, this really was a personal revelation for me. Nobody really wants to admit they are a glory hog, it’s selfish and immature right? Unless it is part of your character concept that is. Problem is, even power gamers get stuck in a rut of making all their mary-sues remarkeably similar. Example being my tanker, all his characters have an obnoxious pseudo-scottish accent, are womanizing ale hogs, and use 2 handed weapons. 5 of them in a row now. The class and race changes, but the acting and general tactics do not. Call it immersion, call it whatever, but that player is playing in his comfort zone, and will not be budged.
The tyranny of fun is a blanket statement that covers the “cartoony” or “MMORPG” aspects of the ruleset. This seems to be a big criticism that pops up consistantly across all areas of the critical crowd. I agree somewhat, though my prejudice has been somewhat tempered by a recent article asking simply “why not rob elements from a fantastically popular game, that itself robbed it’s concept from gaming in general.” Some refuse to see it as anything other than incestuous. I see it more as…hybridization.
The argument is along the lines of (at least in the example cited) that arbitrary, sliding DC’s for a recurring feature, i.e. cave slime, kill immersion. IMO, he is correct. Unfortunately, the caveat to that is assuming the RAW are king. Just because the book said so, doesn’t mean squat. 3.x has a lot of silly rules written into it, we ignore them, houserule it, and move on.
There is no reason why cave slime NEEDS a sliding DC. The mechanic is designed to allow flexibility in challenging all levels of players. DM fiat can resolve this issue handily. BAM! Replace the cave slime with several areas coated with green slime patches, or mold, or…whatever. Immersion starts and stops with the DM -period.
Party roles…I dislike this feature more than all the rest combined. The idea of your class being designed to fit in a teeny tiny box is IMO a tad offensive. Possibly a better multiclassing mechanic could help with this, or just (once again) houserule it. I plan to go back and try 4E again, and see if I can work out a better mechanic myself, but guaranteed it wont be “perfect” whatever that means anyway.
The tyranny of fun argument is valid, just not here. The same argument could be used against 3.5, in that you are pretty much forced to multiclass at some point in your career – the double edged sword of a very useful mechanic. Hence the single dip syndrome for a level or two of fighter or rogue that is so common these days.
Whatever you guys put in the kool-aid has done wonders for my sense of perspective…thanks a bunch. Gotta start my own stinking blog now.
Heh, yeah, they liked when we were 12 and had the back of the character sheet divided up into columns titled: Weapons, Armor, Wands, Rings, Staves, Misc, too…
I’ve got no real issue with the urge to be teh uber leetz wizard, I empathize, even. But I also help to design board games. Games which MUST be balanced and MUST be fun for everyone, if they want to sell worth a damn. If a player in Settlers of Catan always gets to draw 3 resource cards for every one someone else draws… well, lets just say that even the most amiable gamer is going to get irritated at having their ass handed to them again and again.
DnD has always concealed/limited those design flaws to a certain extent, because the characters are all on the same team, so it’s not a competition as such, but I can’t help but think that they have always been exactly that – design flaws. Just cause it’s been their a long time, that don’t make it right.
I’ve seen a lot of posts that comment on how 4e is “more like a MMORPG or a tactical board game”, and that’s true, to a certain extent. It has that feel because the design philosophy is now more in line with the “balance and fun” goals that designers in those other genres work towards, and perhaps less of the “cosmetic surgery on the sacred cow” style of previous versions.
Still, I can see why people would be a bit turned off by 4e. It’s a real departure from pretty much all the previous DnD rules, but I think it’s high time the change was made. 3e made my hobby very difficult for me. 4e makes it easy. Can’t say I’m upset about it.
Besides, I think that with a little coaxing, a previous power-wizard player might have a lot of fun with a striker rogue or warlock. Smiting is smiting, after all, and those classes can definitely bring the hurt. Once they get a fat ritual book they’ll be the nasty poop again, but with the addendum that everybody else gets to be the shit too, in their own field. Uber-wizards replaced by uber-group. Considering it’s a group hobby, once again, I can’t say I’m upset about it.
@CDM
Actually, that sounds very reasonable… it seems like there’s always at least one guy in the group who spends hours each time he levels up reading through every book to find some combination of things that will give him an amazingly powerful edge against everyone else… and since 4e seems to be shifting the game from “rigid rules and numbers that determine the outcome” to “the DM uses the rules to help guide the game into something that is fun”
It seems like they’re trying to get the DM’s to become more like storytellers, and less like computers…
How many times has this happened: you’re playing from a store-bought adventure, and your PCs manage to level up faster than you anticipated (they stuck around in one part of the dungeon for longer, killing more guys), so you decide that when they get to the next room, you’re going to make the enemies just a little more difficult, so you increase their AC by 4 or something. The PCs get in the room, and one of them rolls to hit:
“18!”
“Miss.”
“Miss?! These are what? Goblins? They have a 16 AC! It says so right here!”
“No, these are special Goblins, wearing better armor…”
“Okay, when I kill one, I’m going to take their armor.”
“er… okay…. ” (quickly look up the stats for some armor that would give the right adjusted AC…)
I saw a graph somewhere a long time ago… I don’t remember where, but it was essentially showing that during a game, if you keep things at the same level of difficulty in relation to the Player, they’re going to quickly feel like leveling up is counter-productive – the stronger they get, the stronger the enemies get, etc. It’s best to always have some variation, so that occasionally they feel like their advancement is worth it… as well as some challenges that make them sweat, no matter how strong they are – there’s always someone stronger…
SeiferTims last blog post..A Brief Diversion…
@siefer – I completely agree. Adventure scaling is one of the most important parts of game prep. A great example of this would be lessee…call it a straight out of the DMGII 10th level party. They decide to help a village that is being beset by goblins. Now, it strains belief that ANYWHERE, there is a whole tribe of appropriately challenging goblins, so why bother?
One chief, say 8th level, a shaman, say 8th level whatever, and a buttload of straight-out-of-the-MM goblins. Women and children too (always interesting to see how the party deals with noncombatants). The party will quite predicteably wade through the tribe like a rabid ginsu through a forest of green tomatoes…this is OK! See, the party occasionally deserves to see how great they have become. They know the XP and treasure will be pathetic, they just want to flex some muscles, and clean house. Allow them to revel in their awesomeness…then spring the trap!
Now…the group has slaughtered the entire fighting strength of the tribe. The women and children are simply roleplay fodder. The party tosses the lair, and BOOM! CR-14 Green dragon death! See the goblins were simply minions of a dragon. Said dragon is a bit pissed at the party for killing it’s minions. Now we go from greenblooded slaughter, to close quarters battling for their lives!
There it is, a pathetically level inappropriate encounter to “loosen” things up a bit, followed by a difficult encounter from out of nowhere make sure they still fear you. Win-win scenario.
No Tyranny issues, see the encounter wasn’t set up to be “scaled” as it was “supposed” to be easy, then the monkey wrench to the head when the dragon shows up. You could always leave out the dragon, but it would be a mistake to do this more than once or twice. Otherwise it gets to be just as boring as the monsters ALWAYS being just as powerful as the party. This is something I noted when DMing shadowfell, minions helped a lot, but they were extremely unsatisfying to the players (this surpised me greatly).
I think I will have to call it “Super Goblin Syndrome” or somesuch. Any goblinoid/koboldei that has actual class levels is practically a mutant. When this becomes commonplace we have to be very careful as to not allow it to completely crush the suspension of disbelief. When the goblins all suddenly have 200hp, an AC of 30, and +3 spears – they cease becoming goblins and become…ROBOGOBLINS! lol.
@Donny: Your point about lone-wolf vs. team-player types of characters is well-made. Even though one of my favorite parts of 4e is that the fighter is no longer useless after level 7 or 9 or so, and another is that the power framework and the tactical nature of combat encourage teamwork, I hadn’t managed to formulate it in quite that way.
You’re on to something here: 4e puts the emphasis on the characters as a party of adventurers, rather than as adventurers who happen to have formed a party.
My groups have always played with an eye to the former, so perhaps that’s why I managed to miss the comparison. Thanks for pointing it out.
Ninetails last blog post..The Absurdity of “The Tyranny of Fun”
That is strange. When I played, I found it extremely satisfying (both as a player, and for the group I DMed for) to slaughter hordes of minions. Especially when you could get 2 or 3 with one attack.
It must be less satisfying during a slump in dice roll and actions are lost on them.
They hated not rolling damage, and when I had them roll anyway, they already knew it didn’t matter a whit. Not sure how to remedy that, a 50/50 roll maybe? I dunno. It helped when I made their demises incredibly spectacular. Having bodies fly back into the crowd and shift the secondary target one square back or to the side, but even that got old.
It was a “problem” also noted over at thealexandrian.net during his playtesting. On the flip side, the kids (7 & 10) thought minion squashing was a blast. Not a negative, only a fact ; ) It was their favorite part.
Maybe…a single hit to stagger, making them clog up their own sides maneuvering, and another hit to kill? Tough call, I liked the concept of minions, it just didn’t work out this time.
@donny –
The two-hit method you suggest wouldn’t really solve the “hate not rolling damage” part.
Personally, the players always rolled the damage in our games, as they didn’t know what was a minion or not. They just rolled, and if the minion exploded in one hit, all the better.
I think it comes back to the play style, and the types of players that favour 3e. Your players want their characters to be effective, and minions don’t really allow tweaked characters to shine (as the max damage you can do doesn’t matter). Whereas my players just want the monsters to disappear. Seeing how much damage they dealt is just a side game.
Personally, I like the game the way it is because I’m new and do not know any better! And you people better quit trying to burst my blissful ignorance 😀
I’m still trying to figure out exactly what is going on here – I do not have the experience with other table top RPGs or versions of D&D. I do know that it seems to me that if you want to play the supercool awesome loner guy there are dozens of video games out there for that. If I’m sitting at a table with a handful of other people, I want to play as a team, like the Justice League, and it’s okay with me if we are all of equal awesomeness. I play fantasy type games because I AM awesome just to be awesome. I get enough reality in reality! Kthx bi!
Heathers last blog post..Life: Paperwork can DIAF
I envy your newness to the hobby Heather.
Yes the rules are confusing and there are a gazillion of them but hot damn I wish I could reconnect with the sheer thrill of rediscovering it all for the first time.
🙂
I will permit you to live vicariously through me. 😀
Heathers last blog post..Life: Paperwork can DIAF
Im with Wickedmurph as to having no time to game. I should try and start a DnD game on my bus commute cause thats about the time i got that aint booked. Despite having no time to play games the monkey that is my mind really enjoys gaming.
SeiferTim
That is why if I boost something on the fly and the PC’s catch it, I always make it some temporary magical effect. Potions of whatever spell effect are great for that.
Michael Phillipss last blog post..Fey Step Again
RPGPundit said one thing in the first post that I can absolutely get behind. I want to live in a world with unlimited rice pudding.
I have to agree with his point about being connected to your character and not treating it like another piece on a game board. That’s kinda why this is roleplaying and not wargaming. I can see where he gets this impression from 4e, that the game supports a “detached” style of play. But in my 30 years of experience as a roleplayer, people are gonna play the way they’re gonna play regardless of how the rules are written. This is the same issue I have with Ron Edwards’ GNS theory – you can write the perfect Narrativist game, but someone’s still gonna make some house rules to add a Gamist or Simulationist slant to it, because that’s what we do. Kit-bashing the rules is part of what makes it fun. Playing “inappropriately” can be part of the fun.
The bit about scaling encounters so that something is as challenging for 5th level character as it is for a 25th level character (or whatever the example was) ism, well, it’s that rules kit-bashing I was just talking about. I’ve scaled adventures to run them with inappropriately-levelled characters, in both directions, running low-level characters through high-level adventures and vice-versa. Game balance, to me, is in the hands of the game master. the GM’s job is to select encounters appropriate to the character(s) and make sure everyone has something appropriate to do. 4e tries to do that with the system, but that’s always been the hallmark of a good GM. It has nothing to do with “fair” or adding an “I win” button, it has to do with making things interesting. TPK is fun once in a while, but not interesting in heavy rotation unless you’re playing Paranoia. Killing everything with no real threat of getting killed, as if you’re playing a first-person shooter in god mode, is fun for a while but gets old. Maintaining a challenge and keeping things interesting requires conscious effort to read the mood at the table, change things up, know when to knock ’em down when they’re getting cocky, and knowing when to throw them a bone after they’ve had their asses handed to them.
I think my use of the term lone wolf might have been an error on my part. What I think I resent the most about 4e is the necessity to build your characters so tightly with other characters and depend on one another to really set up to truly be effective on the battle field. Our party does work together but my players don’t want to feel like they have to wait for player x to do his thing in order for player y to be able to do his thing. That’s too ‘video-gamish’ for my players. They want to work together to achieve their goals but don’t want heavy ties to one another’s abilities to be required for them to be successful.
@Deadshot: With the exception of the Warlord class, there isn’t anything in the game that necessitates a close interlock of characetr abilities, well, beyodn the typical ones that have always existed: high HP melee types shoudl get stuck in, ranged attackers and/or low HP characters should try to stay back…
The Warlord, off course, being defined by the fact that his powers interlock with other characters, it would be kind of silly to use him as an example of bad game design. Akin to saying “I don’t like games with magic spells, and this game has wizards… Eww. Icky.”
4E encougages teamwork and combinations; but they don’t really hide that fact nor force you to take advantage of it… That said, the first time your players pull one of these off? They’ll be hooked for life.
Wizard lays down a one-round duration zone of damage; rogue forces baddie to slide backward three squares… through the wizard’s AoE effect and through one of the fighter’s threaened squares. Fighter takes his attack of opportunity, and the baddie ends his forced move next to the ranger. The ranger smiles, quick draws his twin longswords and unleashes a flurry…
And they do this at level one. By accident.
My gamign group converted after that one round of combat.
Performance is addictive. The Lone Wolf/supercool concept proves it.
Team performance is more so because it’s self sustainable and peer reinforced.
Thanks for posting this, Chatty. It gives me the chance to vent…
Oh, for crissake, everyone just shut the hell up and play a frakking game already!
This overanalysis and “X is broken/unfun/gimped/ghey because I said so” does nothing but perpetuate the stereotype of gamers as a bunch of argumentative geeks.
4E not for you? Then get over it, play another game(please!), and stop accusing it of destroying the goddamned hobby.
@Ish –
Very cool round.
Forced movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks, but even still. Cool.
@Graham: We didn’t know that at the time. The book had been in our hot little hands for less than 48-hours at that point. (And, I think that once the system as written has become better known to us, I might be houseruling the force movement thing. It was fun.)
BTW, if anyone has not yet read this essay by Lore Sjöberg you need to go clicky-clicky now.
Quoted for truth:
I have read the new Better Joy Cookbook and I am devastated to my very core. Their macaroni and cheese recipe, the very macaroni and cheese I’ve been making since I was in college, has been ravaged and disfigured and left bleeding on the page. Where once it contained only cheddar cheese, now the recipe calls for a mix of cheddar and Colby. It may contain macaroni, and it may contain cheese, but it is not macaroni and cheese. This is a slap in the face and a knife in the gut. You have lost me, Better Joy Cookbook. I would bid you goodbye, but I wish you nothing but the pain and rage you have delivered unto me.
Heh. Don’t get me wrong, Ish. It sounds like tons of fun.
I just… well, I xkcd’d it.