Some time ago, in a 2006 post, I came up with the term "the tyranny of fun". The meaning of this slightly ludicrous concept is made clear by this rant, which you might want to familiarise yourself. Back then, I didn't even think it would gain so much prominence with the 4e design process, and other developments in the culture of roleplaying, even if I thought it was somewhat ominous. This thread's aim is to sum up the problems I am seeing and - hopefully - suggest a possible way out of the mess we got into.

I'll start from a great quote in Settembrini's Encount4rdisation thread:

Quote from: SpinachcatWe live in a much more passive age.   The wide open craziness of OD&D is not good business to today's teen market.   However, those few teens who want something more than what 4e offers them will EASILY be able to find the million other RPG options available...including older versions of D&D.

That's a very good point, and I am in complete agreement. To me, the point of RPGs is that they are active entertainment - you get to create things yourself, you get to excercise your common sense and judgement, and you get to share these two things with your friends to get something else you may not have even thought of. Very few things come close (although I have taken up level editing for the Thief2 computer game in the last year, which is stimulating in a different kind of way - more like LEGO than D&D). The third aspect is socialisation - someone on RPGNet once called RPGs hospitality games; games where you invite people into your own home in an age of decreasing face to face communication. That's also a good point.

I worry that new D&D, and in fact the new common face of gaming is undermining these progressive features of roleplaying games. In-play options are reduced by rule codification and the standardisation of "fair play" (instead granting the illusion of choice through character customisation - I argue that this is far less substantial than it is considered). Common sense is being attacked as "neither common nor sensible"; instead, designers and the game culture suggests yet more regulations over play by people who know best. This is the tyranny of fun part, and also the part where resentment/distrust of GMs and GMing comes up most regularly. There is a sort of assumption that GMs are not suited to create source material, even adventures for their players; that they are in dire need of Official Game Designer Wisdom, to be had for $29.90 in slick, glossy volumes (and you'd better be prepared to buy five or six of these to really begin playing). Finally, the process and environment of roleplaying itself has been attacked through citing extreme negative examples, portraying it as an inherently dysfunctional hobby.

That, gentlemen, is the Axis of Stupid we are facing.

Coincidentally, there is a way out, although maybe only for a part of the hobby if the industry will not follow - and that means much smaller communities than you have now. Simply Do It Yourself. Enjoy creating stuff, or playing and running things you or your online or offline friends made and shared. Be selective with your friends and don't be a dick yourself. In short, examine and practice the principles our hobby was founded upon, and all will be well. Discard the (natural) urge for Officiality, don't become a passive gamer.

I should probably nail these theses to a door somewhere, but I'm all out of nails.

I wonder how much of this is in reaction to "Rules Lawyer" players?

It reminds me somewhat of my time at the Little League field. The important thing was not that the umpire made perfect calls, though it was expected, the important thing was consistant calls.

In the struggle to be playing "A game" and not just playing "Make believe," fun takes a back seat to rules that need to be followed.
=

Well, first of all, I love your rant. Ten out of Ten.

However, I don't know if I agree with your solution, which is essentially "drop out".

Me, I prefer to keep making an ass of myself and making a point of taking everyone involved with the ruining of my game and making their lives a living hell.

RPGPundit

I stopped playing Wizards-sanctioned games 4 years ago and have had nothing but roleplaying fun and lots of it since.  And segment of the hobby that tries to install some kind of tyranny can be easily ignored since there is such a diverse and wide range of games and gamers out there that it's always possible to find good gaming that fits your niche.  Sure, WotC is a huge segment, but there are tons of alternatives and their star is waning anyways.

Quote from: GreentongueI wonder how much of this is in reaction to "Rules Lawyer" players?

My sense is a lot. Geek hobbies seem to attract a lot of people who trust rules in a book more than they trust other people. D&D has always had its share of twitchy, easily frustrated enthusiasts who want everything spelled out unambiguously on official letterhead. While they may not make up the majority of players, they are responsible for the majority of complaining.

I think the reason why the airtight, narrow path of the Tyranny of Fun has become the main highway of official D&D is because that vocal group has been joined by an influx of younger gamers who have no experience of making up their own fun and relying on peer judgement. It's no secret that children today participate in open-ended, unsupervised play far less often than children in previous generations. Children used to get together in playgrounds, neighbourhood streets, and rec rooms and make up their own games without official rules and without any authority making sure things were fair. You and your buddies and your neighbour and your neighbour's brother had to sort things out yourself and decide what was fair. It wasn't perfect, but if you acted like a dickhead all the time, you'd soon find yourself without anyone to play with. And in an era where most of your play was outside, rather than in front of a tv or computer, not having anyone to play with sucked.

I know this comes across as a 'kids today' rant. But it's not necessarily ranting to point out that children raised in the last 20 years or so play in a fundamentally different way than children typically played in earlier generations. Game and toy producers have certainly picked up on the trend, as the observation about Lego now being a modelling kit rather than a generic construction kit shows.

It's likely that WotC has access to marketing data via Hasbro which shows that new gamers today are uncomfortable with open-ended play, ad hoc judgement, and in-game failure. In that case, we can hardly blame WotC for catering to the wants of its customers. The best we can do is form communities of like-minded gamers, and support publishers who produce material that meets our  preferences.

QuoteMy sense is a lot. Geek hobbies seem to attract a lot of people who trust rules in a book more than they trust other people.

I NEVER EVER met such a person.
I have gamed in clubs, "blind dates", people who sought players at a store, friends, family, firends of friends, lawyers and what have you.

Never ever did anybody really challenge the Referee´s perogative.

Except in small cases. I´ve seen arguments, sure. But not, ever, on a fundamental level as implied by the dreaded figure of the "rules-lawyer".

At least for my personal experience, he is just a carricature, an overblown personalisation of a minor trait/mood/line of argumentation that can be observed once in a while EDIT: in almost everyone.

The refereee makes the call, nobody I´ve ever gamed with challenged that on a fundamental basis.

Hmm, I disagree with some of your premise but mostly on a scope level. Again, when painting game designers with such a wide brush you often miss those who do it differently. For instance, I design and produce my games much in line with what the OP said designers are not doing;i.e. meant for the GM to take and use. When I write and "adventure" (and I put it in quotes since most people who purchase it quickly see why I prefer the term source book) I target options, tools for quick run of game and a general outline more that a "Room 1-> Room 1a" approach. This seems to go counter to the OP's observations.

That said, I do think that many of the game companies out there prefer to promote the "If it is not official, it ain't a Company product". Some of this is also a force of the d20 glut a few years ago. Combine this with a few other factors and you get a strict adherence to officially sanctioned products.

The solution? Man, I don't think dropping out is the way to go. Then again, counter to self-interest, I am a huge fan of "do-it-yourself" game material. I love seeing folks efforts on this front. Maps, AP, adventures and all manner of fun can be all manner of interesting. You really never need to buy a game book beyond, maybe, your first core rules. Possibly not even that if you have a GM that can teach you the rules.

So, yeah, keep making your home brew. Yeah, buy anything that interests you. Use rules and do not let them use you.

Bill

I saw rules lawyers all the time in live-action NERO (or D&D in the woods). However in tabletop, during the same time, I saw a decrease. Live-action NERO in 90's had much of the same vibe as my experience with role-playing in the early 80's. Games where there were a massive amount of players. Players taking character from one DM's game to another. As RPGs matured and particularly with the advent of the internet the old tabletops problem just went away.

I suppose the internet had the benefit of driving most of the players most prone to rules lawyering to Everquest/WoW. Also had the benefit of making information more readily available to even to players who didn't want to spend time with the rules.

Rule-Lawyers came in one two flavors both in the past, in MMORPGs, and in NERO. There was the positive type that used their knowledge of the rules to help the group and the ref make full use of the game. There was the negative kind where that used their knowledge as an advantage for their character. You can spot these guys by when they speak up. In general when their character lives or treasure is at stake they will cite every rule to their advantage.

Quote from: SettembriniI NEVER EVER met such a person.

You're lucky.  I, however, have had to listen to a 3 hour argument over the "Wall of Force" spell.  And that was just a couple of years ago.  Amongst people in their 40's (I was in my late 20's at the time, and rolling my eyes at the immaturity).

In running my Rifts game, I have a couple of whiny players who will instantly break out the rule book and start looking for "evidence" the second they don't like one of my judgment calls.

In a perfect world, I could just slap said players upside the head and boot them out of the group.  In the real world, the politics of the group prevent me from getting rid of them without destroying the entire group.

Oddly, I've found that highly-codified rules (like D&D 3e) cause more arguments because they contain more "evidence" on which to argue over.  The end problem being, no matter how codified something is, it can never come close to covering every situation.  

Whereas something as horribly organized as Rifts helps, because it provides very little (if any) clear rules and some of them are impossible for the players to find.  

Oh, I myself had passioned arguments over what my raised skeletons could see, and what they couldn´t, heavily digging up "evidence" in several books and websites-

Over two hours. It was FUN, and BETWEEN gaming sessions.

IN GAME, the Referee just ruled something, the argument lasted only 2 minutes of game-time.

Quote from: MelanI worry that new D&D, and in fact the new common face of gaming is undermining these progressive features of roleplaying games. In-play options are reduced by rule codification and the standardisation of "fair play" (instead granting the illusion of choice through character customisation - I argue that this is far less substantial than it is considered).

Reading this I reminded of a response by Seanchai to Mearl's posts about the fairness of ECLs (I think) where he said - "My players have never said, that was a tough fight and so fair"

Regards,
David R

I add the Tyranny of Choice to the picture. What is the saying? "Too much choice is no choice at all"?

Give options, both on character generation and advancement and on the default framework of the game rules and setting, but don't over-egg the pudding. Finite choices. Finite rules. Finite setting assumptions. Then let the people who have bought the game do the rest (whatever game it is). However, this of course does not fit the supplement treadmill model too well unless you release lots of 'micro-settings' or summit.

From what I can see, there's never been a huge influx of new gamers beyond the early 80s. Basically, the gamers were have now are the ones we started with. I don't think it's odd that perspectives and tastes have changed (if they have at all) as we've grown up.

I can't speak for other countries, but it seems to me that in the United States, we have a culture of knowing and trying to abuse the rules, whether they're in a game, a warranty for an item we've bought, or the policies down at the local library. It seems to me that we feel as if we have a right to appeal any situation we don't like to the higher authority of what's written down.

So I don't find it odd that as gamers grew up, they might adopt that culture and internalize it. (If that is what's happening, which clearly I'm not wholly convinced of yet.)

And, really, don't our personalities pretty much run toward the pendantic anyway?

Seanchai

There was a huge inlux in the early 90s with Vampire. I haven't seen another one since then.

I think our local community, Colorado Springs, has largely gone beyond the tyranny of fun. There's a ton of people playing here-for as small a city as it is. But generally they're playing in small, underground, groups. There's no general rpg club, and that's only rarely been successful here. We have a couple wargame groups, but no rpg. Players here don't often go to the conventions in Denver--which were extremely rpga-centric for a while. Maybe less so now, we'll see next month.

The point is--most of the gamers here are off the grid, playing who knows what, and having a great time. The pro is that nobody cares about any of the things over which people rage up the net. The down side is that despite the huge number of gamers, there are very, very few I can pull for an occasional one-shot to play a game my usual guys aren't interested in. It's not a community. I think that's a big change, but I don't think it's much to do with rules or anything companies can do anything about.

Rule #1: Good People trump Rules of any quality, every single time.

Don't compromise on the group dynamic.  I refuse to game with just about everyone.  Consequence: I don't game very often.  Consequence: when I do, it's usually a very satisfying experience.  It took me a long time to learn this.

However, solid, well designed rules help mitigate conflicts, through the appeal to "higher authority", when the group composition is less than optimum.  Good rules provide a common point of reference that everyone can build upon.

Can one build "fun" into the rules?  I think there's a flaw in that question.  I don't think designers are trying to build in fun, or be fun tyrants.  I think they're trying to smooth out or eliminate points of contention to create a less inflammatory baseline for sub-optimal groups to use.  Less inter-player warfare at the table = more actual gaming.  More gaming, watered down or not, is better for most people than no gaming at all.