The Tyranny of Fun phenomenon, concisely summarised:

Quote1) Equating 'fun' with 'positive reinforcement' to the neglect of other ways to have it - some of which involve adversity, effort, minor inconvenience or, yes, short/long-term failure.
2) Redesigning games to codify this understanding of customer satisfaction and cutting elements construed as 'unfun', which makes the game more focused - but also feature-poor and less satisfying for people who have their fun in a different way.
3) Often wrapped up in rhetorics of 'progress' as inevitable and basically beneficial, traditional gaming practices as an impediment before having fun and appeals to the authority of 'professional game designers'.

If you want it in one sentence:

QuoteFun is a loaded term, and it should not be assumed to mean the same thing to all people.

What I see as good gaming now is about fun that is

Quote- complex (encompassing diverse playstyles and agendas instead of reductionist thinking)
- customised (with a creative character of its own infused by the GM and the way the group interacts with this creative spark and moulds it)
- active (focused on contributing to others' fun and engaging with the game)
- social (manifested in friendship, hospitality and a commitment to shared creativity)
- mature (in the genuine sense; that of taking responsibility and being respectful of your peers)
- DIY (with significant input from you, the participant; on the macro-level, publications strongly based on amateur contributions)

That's it.

If I didn't know better, I'd guess you were working purely frm hearsay and hadn't actually read the 4E core books. I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again, but a lot of what you mention above is explicitely refuted by the 4E books.

I don't claim to be universally right. These are my subjective conclusions based on browsing through the core books and having read a good number of message board discussions, particularly ENWorld (I steer clear of Gleemax, the other big D&D net community). The process has been going on for a few years.

As just one example, you can find quite a lot of evidence in this thread.

[edit]Also: http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=219552&postcount=15

And here is me, clicking this thread thinking someone voiced an opinion based on actually playing the thing.

Saphim, I don't have to eat an omelette of rotten eggs to be able to comment on it. I can get sufficient information from the smell alone.

I guess I would play in a heavily house-ruled 4e campaign if the DM and the rest of the company was good, but sorry, I will not join a random campaign just to pass your test of posting legitimacy.

Nice try, though.

Awwww, you people here are such meanies. The poor middle argument always gets left out in the cold.
You know there is a difference between having played and joining some random campaign.
And there is a difference between an omelette made of rotten eggs and one which has just too much or not enough sugar FOR YOUR TASTE.

Nice try though.

I think you have an argument, but that your proposed end result is just a part of a larger spectrum of end results.  The question will be how much of that spectrum will be taken up with the Tyranny of Fun endpoint.  

For me, reading the threads where people twist and warp the rules to prove that 4e can do anything or isn't a tactical minis-skirmish game suggest that the same kind of brand-based, rules-first, WotC's-D&D-is-roleplaying mentality that I hated about 3.x is just as prevalent with 4e.

However, I think we need to give it a year.  I suspect that a lot of people are unknowingly surprised by the fun of the tactical balance and are still taking the time to learn and play through that.  I suspect that the bloom will come off the rose for many of those positive players right now, as they find there is not much else there, roleplaying-wise, and as rules bloat increases, probably at a faster rate than with 3.x.

That being said, we should sadly never underestimate the disturbing power of brand loyalty and slavish adherence to corporate dominance.  There is always going to be a large chunk of the population who will do whatever they are told to do by the monopoly power in the market.  I have learned that this is as true in gaming, sadly, as it is in everything else today.

"...the disturbing power of brand loyalty and slavish adherence to corporate dominance. There is always going to be a large chunk of the population who will do whatever they are told to do by the monopoly power in the market."

And the worst thing of all? Personal choice!

Saphim, you have a point - sort of. I would doubtless have a better informed opinion if I tried the game at the table. However, none of the people I play with like the changes in 4e (they are either 3e or earlier edition fans), so there's a poor chance of finding a convenient test group (and then playing to validate my dislike wouldn't be in good form). Therefore, I have to make my conclusions based on preview materials and secondary sources. That's more than enough to have an informed opinion.

walkerp, I am not entertaining doomsday scenarios (yet! ). I just find it likely that 4e will nudge the hobby in a direction I personally dislike. That will have marginal effects on my own gaming, but it will be annoying in online discussions. It already is, especially on ENWorld.

I think in some ways you are right - The Tyranny of Fun is an excellent descriptive term for the phenomenon.

I also think that there's something slightly pathetic about watching a hard core of 4E fans (especially on rpg.net) denying any criticism of the new edition and throwing themselves into all kinds of cognitive contortions in order to convince themselves that what they have is the best thing since sliced bread. The fact that these people were probably jumping through similar hoops on 3E's release makes it doubly pathetic. Where is their self respect?

That said, I've been hearing other comments and reading other things that lead me to believe that 4E isn't half as bad as it's being made out by some, and is actually a heck of a lot better than 3E (admittedly not hard). In particular, some very creative and interesting people whose opinions I respect love the new edition and seem to be doing creative and interesting things with it. They aren't the so-called "bad players" that you mention, in fact the opposite, and this makes me think that, hey, at the end of the day editions don't matter so much if the players are good. I still think that the "bad players" (whiny power gamers) are in the tiny minority, and that the good overwhelming majority will win out and turn 4E into a qualified success at least for them. Whether it is a long-term success for the hobby does, as walkerp says, remain to be seen.

Quote from: noisms;220065I still think that the "bad players" (whiny power gamers) are in the tiny minority, and that the good overwhelming majority will win out and turn 4E into a qualified success at least for them. Whether it is a long-term success for the hobby does, as walkerp says, remain to be seen.

3E was widely hated and reviled at RPGnet when it was released. It was a situation nearly identical to the one you see here today.

I don't think power gaming is that bad, (character optimization was nearly an artform within a year of 3e's release) but I think it's actually nearly impossible with 4e. There's no real way to stack a feat on top of a class choice on top of a race on top of a spiked chain and end up with with some insane combo anymore.

I guess time will tell if supplements change that, but the entire philosophy of feats is different than it used to be.

Quote from: Melan;220063walkerp, I am not entertaining doomsday scenarios (yet! ).

Now, remember, it should be acknowledged that walkerp is an expert on doomsday scenarios considering that he has advocated killing off the entire human race in order to be more environmentally friendly and has caused a meme (walkerism) to be created due too this. His opinion on matters of doomsday scenarios cannot be taken lightly...

Quote from: jeff37923;220084he has advocated killing off the entire human race

That's good idea:cool:... I think for campaning...

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;2200823E was widely hated and reviled at RPGnet when it was released. It was a situation nearly identical to the one you see here today.

I don't think power gaming is that bad, (character optimization was nearly an artform within a year of 3e's release) but I think it's actually nearly impossible with 4e. There's no real way to stack a feat on top of a class choice on top of a race on top of a spiked chain and end up with with some insane combo anymore.

I guess time will tell if supplements change that, but the entire philosophy of feats is different than it used to be.

Yeah, 3E was perfect for power gamers - so you do get the interesting dynamic that the ultra-power gamers hate 4E even more than the old schoolers do.

If 4E gets rid of that sort of thing then it can't be bad, although because the bloat hasn't started yet we can't be sure that it won't happen later down the line.

By "whiny power gamers" what I suppose I really meant was: people who hate not getting their way. But as I said, they're a tiny minority, and the vast majority of 4E players won't be like that; therefore their games won't be like that and overall we won't be able to say "4E is the edition for people who hate not getting their way."

If that's not too rambling.

Quote from: walkerp;220056For me, reading the threads where people twist and warp the rules to prove that 4e can do anything or isn't a tactical minis-skirmish game suggest that the same kind of brand-based, rules-first, WotC's-D&D-is-roleplaying mentality that I hated about 3.x is just as prevalent with 4e.

Personally I find reading the threads where people twist and ignore the rules to prove that 4E can't do certain things or is nothing but a tactical minis-skirmish game* indicative of a disturbing brand of anti-WotC, minis-are-evil, bring back OD&D mentality that I generally have little time for.

Well, not really, but the opportunity to point out how one sided walkerp is being was irresistable.

4E clearly isn't going to be for everyone, but not finding a game to your personal taste is no reason to make unfounded criticisms of it and decry those people who do enjoy it as mindless brand-junkies.

*note that I no longer consider Stuart in that category