I Hate Fun

[LibraryOgre]

http://lotfp.blogspot.com/2008/06/i-hate-fun.html

Warning: The language in this is a little bit harsher than the forum allows. It is, however, a fantastic look at why people like older editions.

[JaxGaret]

That's a neat article.

Of course, it misses out on the fact that people can choose to spend some of their time on productive activities, and other portions of their time on unproductive activities. There's no mutual exclusion involved.

[Swordguy]

There's a WHOLE LOT of elitism and condesention in that article (not entirely unjustified), and people are gonna post here saying things like "how dare someone tell me I'm playing wrong".

That said, I at least partially agree with him; this encapsulates the whole article, in my mind:

[The Tyranny of Fun] is a particularly insightful read, talking about the “tyranny of fun” and how it cheapens role-playing games. It’s also why having an attitude of live and let live doesn’t work – those who demand everything easy and quickly will always outnumber those that don’t, and pretty soon a hobby that was custom-made for the studious and imaginative and thorough now belongs to an entirely different caste, while those of us that the hobby was created for are left on the fringes, told that we’re just not compatible with today’s gaming, and sometimes, even today’s life in general.

What frustrates me the most, though, is that for all I'd like to play a game where I'm playing a role, instead of having a guarantee of "having fun"...I'll almost certainly not find other people with the same mindset. I can either be true to the spirit of a role-playing game, and not get to play, or I can suck it up and play with newer gamers who don't care about portraying a role and only want to be mindlessly entertained.

[Ryuuk]

It was a pretty interesting read. I have to agree on one point in particular though: clawing your way through an 80% chance of failure does indeed feel much more satisfying then breezing by one with a 5% chance of failure.

[Skyserpent]

I can understand the idea of it... really, I can... but damn if it's not a bit elitist...

Still though: he makes some valid points, but I feel like he goes WAY too far with it...

"Those who take their activities seriously are the only ones who matter."

I find this mindset rather irritating... I mean, level of difficulty is established by the DM not the System. Yes we have Challenge appropriate encounters, but I suppose some DM's definition of "Appropriate" varies, and for that we have a good baseline for how far we want to muck with something... This guy seems really on-edge about this kind of stuff...

I think someone who thinks "Fun" is blanketly unhealthy is just being too "black and white" about everything....

Ah well, I'll paw through it again later, I had to skim a paragraph or two because I'm a twitchy console-gamer who has the attention span of a rodent...

[Corolinth]

Rampant elitism was sort of the point.

He's right. The people who made the hobby what it is today are being marginalized. Those people are more important to the hobby, because they played it when it wasn't cool. They played it back when the neighbors would call the police to harass them because they were devil-worshippers playing a Satanic dice game. Without them, we would not have had a third edition, let alone a fourth.

[Catch]

You know, I found this article to be pretty intriguing, and about halfway through, I went to link it on my home forum. And then it hit me--my attention waned, flickered, and faded, because it would take too much work to plow through the article.

It was pretty humbling.

But, having pressed on, I can see where the elitism statements are coming from, and I embrace them wholeheartedly. However, as a person who used to--and still does--majorly "geek out" over complex rules, I've found myself both excited and disillusioned with products that promise to "streamline," "smooth out" and "simplify" tabletop gaming.

I was fantastically excited about 4e. I wanted all the bug fixes, all the updated rules, all the balance and fun. And when I played it for the first time after waiting expectantly for months, I was disappointed.

And, with the now-legendary phrase, I asked the air "Where's the beef?"

Where were the complex rules, the myriad tables, the hundreds of builds and options? Where were the details, all those tiny little boxes that all needed to be filled? What happened to my game?

I wasn't allowed to scrounge for options; all I needed to play was handed right to me. Everything I ever would need to enjoy the game was picked, threshed, ground, baked and served to me on a steaming platter. All I needed to do was dig in. But having not worked for any of it, I just wasn't hungry anymore.

- 2¢

[Xuincherguixe]

Beneath the Elitism, and Selfishness, he almost barely kind of has a point.

Even still though, he doesn't get to decide the right and wrong way to play these games.

It's all escapism. Weather your having fun, or are taking things way too seriously.

Frankly, as I see it, not only does fun not matter, nothing matters. So we may as well go have interesting experiences.


And playing games because they're fun isn't a wrong way to have them. And being serious about them probably isn't either. Being a jerk about your play style is.

[FoE]

Ugh. I'll agree with some of his points — I've expressed similar sentiments myself — but when he launched into a rant about how role-playing games are Serious Business I promptly stopped reading.

[Skyserpent]

You know, I found this article to be pretty intriguing, and about halfway through, I went to link it on my home forum. And then it hit me--my attention waned, flickered, and faded, because it would take too much work to plow through the article.

It was pretty humbling.

But, having pressed on, I can see where the elitism statements are coming from, and I embrace them wholeheartedly. However, as a person who used to--and still does--majorly "geek out" over complex rules, I've found myself both excited and disillusioned with products that promise to "streamline," "smooth out" and "simplify" tabletop gaming.

I was fantastically excited about 4e. I wanted all the bug fixes, all the updated rules, all the balance and fun. And when I played it for the first time after waiting expectantly for months, I was disappointed.

And, with the now-legendary phrase, I asked the air "Where's the beef?"

Where were the complex rules, the myriad tables, the hundreds of builds and options? Where were the details, all those tiny little boxes that all needed to be filled? What happened to my game?

I wasn't allowed to scrounge for options; all I needed to play was handed right to me. Everything I ever would need to enjoy the game was picked, threshed, ground, baked and served to me on a steaming platter. All I needed to do was dig in. But having not worked for any of it, I just wasn't hungry anymore.

- 2¢

Now that is interesting...

Love the analogy as well... interesting, that. 3.5 gave me a lot of fun time to build and construct and all that, and I got used to it, I did feel a little idle when I popped out my first 4e Character in less than an hour. I still feel like I'm playing D&D, but you're right... it wasn't the massive jump I was expecting... still though, it's fun stuff, and frankly, I like fun.

Don't get me wrong, respect to the fellas who kicked this thing off. But hey, it's grown a bit, it's pandering, it's selling out, whatever. It IS evolution, because even though these choices are made, they are made because the world demands it. The community, the corporations, they all are throwing all these things at this "Game" and the designers and everyone else is tryign to make it work. Intelligent Design was what the first game was. Intelligent Design is what 3rd edition was. 4e was Evolution. We had mass market, we have rapid changes and we have the Internet. This is how the game is evolving, and we're very clearly seeing some of the vestigal traits begin to shrink... and it's dissapointing, but I think we'll still find a use for our dewclaw...

[JaxGaret]

I was fantastically excited about 4e. I wanted all the bug fixes, all the updated rules, all the balance and fun. And when I played it for the first time after waiting expectantly for months, I was disappointed.

And, with the now-legendary phrase, I asked the air "Where's the beef?"

Where were the complex rules, the myriad tables, the hundreds of builds and options? Where were the details, all those tiny little boxes that all needed to be filled? What happened to my game?

4e isn't an update; it is not D&D 3.75e. Also, we only have core right now. You can't compare 4e's core to 3e's nigh-endless supply of splatbooks. They will come.

I'm curious; what exactly were you disappointed by? Was it anything specific, or simply that 4e wasn't 3e?

I wasn't allowed to scrounge for options; all I needed to play was handed right to me. Everything I ever would need to enjoy the game was picked, threshed, ground, baked and served to me on a steaming platter. All I needed to do was dig in.

Amen. Some of us greatly appreciate this, since it frees up that time to be spent on more meaningful things, like campaign, story, and character development.

But having not worked for any of it, I just wasn't hungry anymore.

- 2¢

Worked for what? Optimized builds? What exactly are you "working" for?

You can spend just as much time working on a 4e campaign as a 3e campaign if you feel like it, you just don't have to spend as much time (especially if you're DMing) on non-story elements.

[Matthew]

Heh, heh. I linked this article a few days ago in another thread. I think it is very interesting to draw a distinction between D&D as a hobby and D&D as entertainment.

[Tengu]

So, apparently, if you have fun then your game is shallow and doesn't engage creativity? What an arrogant article. There are some good points but they drown in the sea of elitism. This guy shouldn't play DND, he should play World of Darkness. A stereotypical WoD player has, or at least had in the nineties, almost the same viewpoint.

[Swordguy]

So, apparently, if you have fun then your game is shallow and doesn't engage creativity? What an arrogant article. There are some good points but they drown in the sea of elitism. This guy shouldn't play DND, he should play World of Darkness. A stereotypical WoD player has, or at least had in the nineties, almost the same viewpoint.

Jesus, dude..that's not elitist at all.

Anyway...

There is a very valid point in there. As long as a hobby (or whatever) panders ONLY to the fringes of the market, it can afford to be "intelligent" entertainment. As soon as you try to shop it to the mass market in general, you must dumb things down to increase your potential customer base, because the majority of people are dumb.

What's worse, if you're a publicly traded company, you're legally compelled to maximize your profit margin to satisfy, to the best of your ability, your shareholders. What that means is that the original market for your product - aka "smart people" - are of course going to feel increasingly marginalized. They're correct, of course...they don't represent a large enough market share to bother with. And thus you get backlash like this article.

...

As for a second point - I'll admit that I do get annoyed at having a LOT of the difficulty sapped out of the game. I just played my first session of 4e a few days ago. It was 'fun', no doubt...but I never felt like I earned anything. The combats were tactically engaging, but there was never the sense that we could all get wiped (and even if we did, it'd take a half-hour, tops, go get back to the game where we left off). There was no risk. I never felt like I was really in danger during a life-or-death combat. If you're going to feel in danger at any point, shouldn't that be when you do? What's the point in playing a "role" if you don't get to experience that sort of emotion?

I don't feel like I earned anything. We won because we were the good guys - it was foreordained that we would win. I don't want to be given victory...I want to bloody EARN it. To defeat stacked odds against me in a fight that I shouldn't win, and come up victorious regardless. To look at my opponent who "is of no woman born", and chose to throw before me my warlike shield and fight to the last anyway. To look around at a tired and worn band of brothers and inspire them, against impossible odds, to go once more with me into the breach. THAT'S what heroism is about - not having a bunch of cool powers and glowy weapons.

Like I said above, I feel torn. I agree, in principle, with the article. But if I don't play the new stuff, if I don't change in the same manner that the game changes, I won't get to play. Is maintaining this principle worth losing out on the hobby altogether? Tough choice...

[AmberVael]

I do think he makes a lot of good points, and the emotion and elitism in it merely adds to emphasis and shock value to get the depth of his point across. *shrug*

As for feeling threatened in 4E... I felt pretty threatened in Tengu's game, and he only tossed a normal encounter against us. Though it may have had something to do with him going "Mmmm, luck flavored slurpy!" and then sucking up all of our luck (we got crappy rolls most of the encounter) and getting two criticals on significant attacks and above average rolls for a good deal of the encounter.

[JaxGaret]

the majority of people are dumb.

I don't think you understand what the word elitist means if you think that what Tengu said was elitist, and what you are stating here is not.

[dyslexicfaser]

I find the whole article rather silly.

"But don’t expect the same level of deference and respect that a lifer is going to get," LotFP declares, as though the 'lifer' is the wizened sage in the corner, and us newbies must journey to sit at his feet and learn of his wisdom. Suggesting that the 'serious role-players' "are the most important part of any hobby. Those who take their activities seriously are the only ones who matter."

I wasn't aware that old-time lifers were inherently superior, that they are in fact "the only ones who matter".

Also: I'm frankly lost as to why LotFP believes that 'fun' and 'challenge' can't be synonymous. Unless he's using a different definition of 'fun' than I am... perhaps that's it? In this case, perhaps 'fun' has the unusual definition of 'breezing through the game without ever being challenged ever'?

Lines like "If you're having fun, you're doing it wrong" just seem... bizarre.

[JaxGaret]

Lines like "If you're having fun, you're doing it wrong" just seem... bizarre.

Life is pain! RPGs are Serious Business!

What's bizarre about that?

[Swordguy]

I don't think you understand what the word elitist means if you think that what Tengu said was elitist, and what you are stating here is not.

I think you may be misinterpreting that a tad. Using Stackpole's study on gamers as a source, gamers in the 80's (what a lot of people consider to be the "golden age of RPGs") averaged out in the 125-145 IQ range.

The average IQ (top of the bell curve) is in the 100-105 range, the last I heard it.

Therefore, the majority of people are 'dumber' (in the sense of having a lesser Intelligence Quotient) than the average gamer did at the time of that study. The top of the bell curve (that 100-105 IQ range) is the target audience for any company that wants to market to the single largest consumer base (by intelligence). There's no perjorative here. That's the difference between what I said and what Tengu (and the article writer, for that matter) said. He's making an opinion-based statement that heavily infers, "you aren't good enough for my game, go play [a game I don't like]".

I'm stating facts.

[dyslexicfaser]

I'm not going to try arguing the 'IQ tests are a very poor measure of intelligence' point, it's not worth it.

Would you mind linking that study, Swordguy? It sounds fairly interesting.

[ShadowSiege]

It was a pretty interesting read. I have to agree on one point in particular though: clawing your way through an 80% chance of failure does indeed feel much more satisfying then breezing by one with a 5% chance of failure.

Succeeding against stacked odds is satisfying. What he was referring to was (I presume, perhaps incorrectly) a saving throw. Random chance != fun, no matter what anyone says. And succeeding because you managed to roll well enough to overcome an obstacle isn't as rewarding as actually overcoming it by your skills.

As for the article, I only skimmed it as the author's attitude rubbed me in entirely the wrong direction. He seems to take D&D as SERIOUS BUSINESS for those at the game table. I disagree, and I'll end by saying that I wouldn't mind seeing his ilk marginalized.

[Swordguy]

Also: I'm frankly lost as to why LotFP believes that 'fun' and 'challenge' can't be synonymous. Unless he's using a different definition of 'fun' than I am... perhaps that's it? In this case, perhaps 'fun' has the unusual definition of 'breezing through the game without ever being challenged ever'?

Lines like "If you're having fun, you're doing it wrong" just seem... bizarre.

I think he (and many other 'old-school' gamers) defined "fun" as "being challenged". It certainly makes sense when you compare it against the definition of "fun" he accuses the mass media of perpetrating - a passive entertainment, where you're told what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. His section about "effort" being synonymous with "work", and "work" being "bad" unless you're being paid for it is certainly something I've experienced with my students. That section has merit, at least.

Further, if that is the case, his argument/rant is logical. Poorly worded, overly-aggressive, and elitist, to be sure. But it is logical.

[SmartAlec]

Shortpacked said this first, so here goes.

"I think at some point your love of the hobby was replaced bit by bit by merely wanting to be better at loving your hobby than other people. If you enjoy (D&D), enjoy it. Stop wasting so much energy worrying about how other people enjoy it."

EDIT: Oops! I totally forgot the swearing and the judgemental viewpoint that will make people either vocally agree or disagree with what I'm saying, therefore validating it. So, here it is: 'What a load of maoschistic, self-important bulls***.'

[Swordguy]

I'm not going to try arguing the 'IQ tests are a very poor measure of intelligence' point, it's not worth it.

Would you mind linking that study, Swordguy? It sounds fairly interesting.

*shrug* Find me a better way to measure that's available to everybody.

I can't actually link it to you. It's against forum rules. The primary purpose of Stackpole's study was to prove that there was no higher suicide rate among RPG-playing teens than non-RPG-playing teens in the wake of Patricia Pulling's Congressional testimony regarding occultism and D&D. IQ factors in heavily there. There's a LOT of real-world religious references in there (more than 2/3rd of the document), which this forum bans discussion of,and I'm 1 warning short of a vacation. Sorry, man.

It's probably google-able though.

[Draz74]

I just played my first session of 4e a few days ago. It was 'fun', no doubt...but I never felt like I earned anything. The combats were tactically engaging, but there was never the sense that we could all get wiped (and even if we did, it'd take a half-hour, tops, go get back to the game where we left off). There was no risk. I never felt like I was really in danger during a life-or-death combat. If you're going to feel in danger at any point, shouldn't that be when you do? What's the point in playing a "role" if you don't get to experience that sort of emotion?

Well put, Swordguy.

Fun can be a worthy goal in and of itself. D&D as entertainment is a good thing. But I think the OP's linked article does a good job of defending the fact that old-fashioned, not-likely-to-actually-succeed D&D adventures have some virtues that the 3e/4e rules no longer exactly cater to.

Of course, the only reason I wasn't offended by the article's opinionated presentation of that viewpoint was because I chose to assume that the entire article was a very tongue-in-cheek rant. In some ways.

[dyslexicfaser]

I can't really say there's a better method, just that the average IQ test is less reliable than I'd like.

Ah, Patricia Pulling, now that was a fun time. A-Googling I go, I guess.

[JaxGaret]

I think you may be misinterpreting that a tad. Using Stackpole's study on gamers as a source, gamers in the 80's (what a lot of people consider to be the "golden age of RPGs") averaged out in the 125-145 IQ range.

The average IQ (top of the bell curve) is in the 100-105 range, the last I heard it.

Therefore, the majority of people are 'dumber' (in the sense of having a lesser Intelligence Quotient) than the average gamer did at the time of that study. The top of the bell curve (that 100-105 IQ range) is the target audience for any company that wants to market to the single largest consumer base (by intelligence). There's no perjorative here. That's the difference between what I said and what Tengu (and the article writer, for that matter) said. He's making an opinion-based statement that heavily infers, "you aren't good enough for my game, go play [a game I don't like]".

I'm stating facts.

No, stating that the majority of people are dumb is an opinion. I could say that the majority of people are smart - and they are, compared to animals in general. It's still an opinion.

Stating that the majority of people are dumber than a group of intelligent people is a fact.

Also, and Tengu can correct me if I am wrong, but it seemed to me as if Tengu was merely stating that the writer of the article would probably prefer to play WoD over a game like D&D, judging from their opinions and playstyle.

[Swordguy]

No, stating that the majority of people are dumb is an opinion. I could say that the majority of people are smart - and they are, compared to animals in general. It's still an opinion.

Stating that the majority of people are dumber than a group of intelligent people is a fact.

Also, and Tengu can correct me if I am wrong, but it seemed to me as if Tengu was merely stating that the writer of the article would probably prefer to play WoD over a game like D&D, judging from their opinions and playstyle.

*holds up hands placatingly*

Fair enough. That's a far better way of putting what I was thinking. My bad. They're dumb, in comparison to the majority of gamers.

It doesn't change the conclusion, though. To mass-market a product, you must make it appeal to an audience that, on average, is less intelligent than the one which made the game a success in the first place. This will generally result in the alienation of the original group of supporters. See also: Windows OS, D&D 4e

I'll not put words into Tengu's mouth, but my interpretation is inline with the attitude that I've seen from him before (especially WoD being a dumping ground game, and his direct linking of elitism in that post to WoD players, which is in and of itself elitist). It's no different than if you said that I'm generally a grognard based on my posts in this thread, and backed up that assertion with what you've seen me post in the past. We can eventually get a sense of what people mean by reading enough of their posts...

[JaxGaret]

*holds up hands placatingly*

Fair enough. That's a far better way of putting what I was thinking. My bad. They're dumb, in comparison.

That's better.

It doesn't change the conclusion, though. To mass-market a product, you must make it appeal to an audience that, on average, is less intelligent than the one which made the game a success in the first place. This will generally result in the alienation of the original group of supporters. See also: Windows OS, D&D 4e

You're leaving out the fact that you can design a product to be enjoyed by both intelligent and not-so-intelligent people. Not everything is black and white.

Also, I don't think that 4e is dumbed down to the point where intelligent people can't enjoy it. In fact, I don't really see a "dumbing down" from 3e to 4e, merely simplification and streamlining; but then some will say that that is the same thing. It reduces complexity of certain things which were needlessly complex, IMO, and actually increases complexity and demand on the DM in some places, such as with skill challenges: if they are used properly, they can be a great boon to a campaign, but used improperly, they pretty much suck, and are better off simply avoided.

I'll not put words into Tengu's mouth, but my interpretation is inline with the attitude that I've seen from him before (especially WoD being a dumping ground game, and his direct linking of elitism in that post to WoD players, which is in and of itself elitist). It's no different than if you said that I'm generally a grognard based on my posts in this thread, and backed up that assertion with what you've seen me post in the past. We can eventually get a sense of what people mean by reading enough of their posts...

Alright. I wasn't aware of the prior baggage in regards to WoD.

[Kiara LeSabre]

What an empty article, all sound and fury.

He starts out making a valid point (none of this enriches our lives), then misses his own point as he meanders down into the meat of his tirade. News flash: no version of D&D simply by its nature alone ever enriched anyone's lives.

Every version was, to use his own words, "all sh**."

Every version can and often does, again in his own words, serve to separate us from living life and reduce us to passing time.

And?

So many words to say so little.