[4e is not for everyone] The Tyranny of Fun: quit obsessing over my 2008 post already

J Arcane · June 19, 2010, 05:49:55 PM

Quote from: Peregrin;388354Everyone has their own reasons for playing.

I like getting into what makes my character tick, acting that out, and making unique voices and speech patterns for different characters/NPCs.

Other people don't like that, and they do just want to socialize with D&D as the excuse, maybe clear out some dungeons.

As long as people have fun, I've no problem with it. It's just a matter of finding the group that works for you. I don't think there's any "wrong" or "bad" way to play. I think that sort of exclusionary thinking works against any sort of community or potential growth the hobby could have if circumstances were right.

As for the young pseudo-intellectual hipsters, I don't know. I haven't met any so I can't comment.

Community growth doesn't really do much for anyone when it comes at the expense of sub-dividing the hobby so forcefully that no-one can actually play with one another.

Especially when one of those factions starts driving game design more than the others.

What good is community growth, when only one side of the community is the one that's growing because the game that's growing it only encourages one way to play?

JasperAK · June 19, 2010, 05:52:50 PM

Quote from: J Arcane;388351Indeed, it's a hard thing to put into words, because there's a temptation to fall into a number of terms I don't think quite fit the situation, or come across as looking like an opposite pretension.

I used "taking it seriously" there, and even that I don't quite like for it because it carries bad connotations for a lot of people.

I just mean that it seems like many gamers just won't accept a premise for any reason. "Immersion" is indeed a foreign concept to them, because they don't even think about the game in a consistent way.

It's just there as an excuse to get drunk, roll some dice, and bullshit, or to feel smart and cool for a few hours about how so above all this silly gaming nonsense they are, because they're so socially and intellectually stunted they can't do any of those things without such an excuse. This is what I'm talking about when I rail against the whole "Cheetoism" thing, and against the Forge and Story gaming, because I think it's exactly the kind of bullshit that prevents roleplaying games from actually being roleplaying games.

I think both ends are extremist nonsense that undermine the potential of roleplaying as a past-time and destroy the whole reason I got into these fucking things in the first place.

I'm glad to be acting again, because I apparently can't scratch the same itch in roleplaying anymore because no one knows how to actually do so.

I see your point. One one hand there is Tom Hanks in Mazes & Monsters and on the other hand there is Heroscape. Both are equally ignorant about the point of RPGs in the first place.

When I want to have a rewarding role-playing experience I'll play earlier editions of D&D, or COC, or Dragon Age, or WHFRG. When I want a knockdown dragout fantasy tactical experience, I'll play 4e or D&D Heroscape. (I don't hate 4e, I just know what itch it scratches for me and don't try to use it for what it wasn't designed for. YMMV)

Benoist · June 19, 2010, 05:52:51 PM

Quote from: Peregrin;388354As long as people have fun, I've no problem with it. It's just a matter of finding the group that works for you. I don't think there's any "wrong" or "bad" way to play. I think that sort of exclusionary thinking works against any sort of community or potential growth the hobby could have if circumstances were right.

Some guys have a lot of fun playing Caps with their drinking buddies. Does that make it a great way to enjoy role playing games?

The contension isn't that people somehow cannot or should not have fun in whatever way they like. But just because you're having fun doesn't mean you're actually playing a role playing game.

Peregrin · June 19, 2010, 05:53:52 PM

That's always going to be a problem as long as D&D remains the flagship franchise of the industry.

At the same time, without D&D, I wouldn't have found WoD, or Dark Heresy, or a myriad of other games that encourage alternate play-styles and takes on role playing.

The other parts of the industry/community are just going to have to find ways to make themselves attractive enough to draw players away from the "gateway drug" of role-playing. It's always been that way.

Quote from: BenoistThe contension isn't that people somehow cannot or should not have fun in whatever way they like. But just because you're having fun doesn't mean you're actually playing a role playing game.

Right, but that doesn't mean if I'm against funny voices, or acting in first-person, or if I'm breaking the 4th wall, I've suddenly become anathema to role-playing.

J Arcane · June 19, 2010, 05:57:11 PM

Quote from: Peregrin;388360That's always going to be a problem as long as D&D remains the flagship franchise of the industry.

At the same time, without D&D, I wouldn't have found WoD, or Dark Heresy, or a myriad of other games that encourage alternate play-styles and takes on role playing.

The other parts of the industry/community are just going to have to find ways to make themselves attractive enough to draw players away from the "gateway drug" of role-playing. It's always been that way.

I see this argument a lot, but isn't it just as possible that the people getting into 4e are getting into the hobby because the face it presents them is what draws them to it?

That people who might be interested in the roleplaying side of things aren't getting into it because the roleplaying side isn't even being represented, and so don't ever get the opportunity to treat it as a "gateway drug"?

I lament the loss of the D&D vs. WW dichotomy because as much as people demean WW here, having both of those presenting those two possibilities I think made for a much more open hobby than what we've had since D20 more or less buried the second tier.

Benoist · June 19, 2010, 05:57:18 PM

Quote from: Peregrin;388360Right, but that doesn't mean if I'm against funny voices, or acting in first-person, or breaking the 4th wall, I've suddenly become anathema to role-playing.

Actually, as for the bolded passage? Yes, that makes it anathema to role playing games.

JasperAK · June 19, 2010, 05:57:35 PM

Quote from: J Arcane;388357Community growth doesn't really do much for anyone when it comes at the expense of sub-dividing the hobby so forcefully that no-one can actually play with one another.

Especially when one of those factions starts driving game design more than the others.

What good is community growth, when only one side of the community is the one that's growing because the game that's growing it only encourages one way to play?

Unless WOTC starts releasing splatbooks on roleplaying or acting, I can see why they went with a more crunch-heavy ruleset. From what I have heard, actors can't afford shit anyway.

Benoist · June 19, 2010, 05:59:37 PM

Note on my previous post: you can actually speak in third-person and still be role-playing in first-person in your mind. But if you are considering the game from a bird's eye view, with your character as being a completely separate construct from yourself, you're not playing a role playing game, to me. You might still be playing a storytelling game, though.

crkrueger · June 19, 2010, 06:00:32 PM

Quote from: Seanchai;388306No, I think a) what's immersive or not is entirely subjective and b) 4e's mechanics are any more of less disruptive to said immersion than any other set of mechanics.

Seanchai

And of course you think that way because you don't immerse to the same extent that others do, thank you once again for proving my point.

Peregrin · June 19, 2010, 06:00:40 PM

Quote from: Benoist;388362Actually, as for the bolded passage? Yes, that makes it anathema to role playing games.

*edit*

Caught your second post. I see your point. I was speaking mainly about describing your character's actions without speaking in their voice, not necessarily viewing them as only a construct.

Benoist · June 19, 2010, 06:01:20 PM

Quote from: Peregrin;388366So if I describe my actions in a narrative way without acting in first-person, I'm not roleplaying? Gygax and people at his tables promoted a method of "not roleplaying"?

See my complementary post above yours.

Peregrin · June 19, 2010, 06:02:48 PM

Quote from: J Arcane;388361I lament the loss of the D&D vs. WW dichotomy because as much as people demean WW here, having both of those presenting those two possibilities I think made for a much more open hobby than what we've had since D20 more or less buried the second tier.

While I don't necessarily agree with the rest of your post, I definitely feel you here.

Quote from: BenoistSee my complementary post above yours.

See my edit.

Benoist · June 19, 2010, 06:04:28 PM

Quote from: Peregrin;388368See my edit.

Yeah. It's alright. I fired the one-liner a bit too quickly there. My fault.

ggroy · June 19, 2010, 06:08:06 PM

Quote from: J Arcane;388361I lament the loss of the D&D vs. WW dichotomy because as much as people demean WW here, having both of those presenting those two possibilities I think made for a much more open hobby than what we've had since D20 more or less buried the second tier.

What's the dichotomy from the WW side?

(I never played any WW rpgs. I didn't play any tabletop rpgs over the entire decade of the 1990's).

Benoist · June 19, 2010, 06:16:59 PM

Quote from: J Arcane;388361I lament the loss of the D&D vs. WW dichotomy because as much as people demean WW here, having both of those presenting those two possibilities I think made for a much more open hobby than what we've had since D20 more or less buried the second tier.

I feel you too, here. I've actually a lot of good things to say about WW games. I just wish the pseudo-intellectual narrative ego-tripping bullshit was thrown out the window. When you ignore that, there are some real gems in terms of gaming in there.