Read for yourselves:

QuoteThe 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.

SOURCE

I think mearls totally misses the boat in regards of what Melan actually wrote. But he is the main driving force behind 4e, so that´s not too unexpected.

What hit me as weird is the language he uses there.

Ron Edwards



+ Kool-Aid



=D&D 4e

And we all know those people over at ENWorld are a bunch of whiny pussies.

The "Tyranny of Fun" concept is laughable and deserves all the ridicule it can get but I do not support Mearls throwing around the "brain damage" moniker.   D&D 4e was designed to create an enjoyable play experience for the mass of gamers and entice new gamers by mimicking the play experience they enjoy with other games.   That's its design goal.

"Old School" has always had a limited audience.   Even in the earliest days, "Monty Haul" games became pervasive because many players preferred higher powered games with less risk to their imaginary characters.  Gary railed against Monty Haul even as he upped the power curve from OD&D to AD&D.   Palladium Fantasy and Arduin had their success based on pushing the power curve even further...and now we have the uber-powered zero-risk WoW to reign as king over all fantasy games.

The success of RPG video games shows that high power / low risk gameplay is exactly what the majority of the audience prefers.   If you are trying to sell a product to the widest possible audience, then you must give them what they want.   That's how you sell more copies.  

I enjoy 4e for what it is.   Fortunately there is tremendous flexibility in the 4e rules so my 4e games are dangerous, complex and as engaging as my Old School games.  

I am greatly enjoying the Old School rennaissance with Swords & Wizardry and the OD&D books being available on PDF.   I hope that this trend flourishes into actual products on shelves.   But believing that the "Old School" concept can be anything other than a small niche is foolish.

Those of us who enjoy the challenge of growing "zeros to heroes" in RPGs are not the mainstream of the hobby and certainly not the mainstream of the fantasy audience.

If I had half a brain, I'd be insulted...

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;257877If I had half a brain, I'd be insulted...

-clash

Lucky man, I'm busy trying to figure out which half of me is the brain damaged part. With all of the spelling mistakes I had to iron out of this post, I think my left hand is definitely part of the territory.

BTW, Spinachcat put it best. Zeroes to Heroes just isn't what folks are looking for nowadays. It doesn't mean that that 4e is some kind of rules abomination (in fact it reads like it runs pretty slick when you get used to it), it's just trying to be what many people are looking for in a game now.

Not my cuppa, but it's not like you're a baby eater if you play it.

Quote from: walkerp;257858And we all know those people over at ENWorld are a bunch of whiny pussies.

Agreed.

To be honest, however, ENWorld was launched specifically to promote D&D fandom.  Mearls citing them is rather like the Red Cross pointing to blood donors and calling them 'really good people'.

I am still trying to figure out which half I fall under, so take that as you will.

Quote from: flyingmice;257877If I had half a brain, I'd be insulted...

-clash

If you had half a brain, the rest of us would likely be insulted more often.  

Quote from: Spinachcat;257872The "Tyranny of Fun" concept is laughable and deserves all the ridicule it can get

No.

Tyranny of Fun is a spot on (if perhaps over-the-top) analysis of a negative trend in game design.

Mearls is just defending his baby.

QuoteThose of us who enjoy the challenge of growing "zeros to heroes" in RPGs are not the mainstream of the hobby and certainly not the mainstream of the fantasy audience.

That's the central problem though... an excluded middle. D&D use to accommodate zero-to-hero. It also accommodated "someone to hero" by starting at mid level. Many did it, no big deal. But the brain trust at WotC decided that wasn't good enough and made level one heroic out of the starting gate. They took away playstyle options. In an audience as large and varied as D&D's, that's a bad thing.

*I* didn't start characters at 1st level in 1e-3e, but I see the folly in the approach of denying that option.

I'd also hasten to mention I'm not a full on "old school" fan, except, perhaps, if the elements of the game 3e had and 4e lacks are now old school. A notion that real old schoolers would laugh at.

Should 4e define what's "old school" while it's defining what is "fun"?

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;257928But the brain trust at WotC decided that wasn't good enough and made level one heroic out of the starting gate.

A hero is someone who strives against great odds with a risk of failure against his foes.  A hero does not require a particular level, simply a choice by the player to put their character in harm's way for an ideal bigger than themselves.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;257928They took away playstyle options.

I am sorry WotC came to your house and took your old games away.  Check eBay for good deals on AD&D and the bazillion other RPGs that support your preferred playstyle.

And this time, hide them in a safe place where Mearls won't find them!

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;257928In an audience as large and varied as D&D's, that's a bad thing.

Large???  Varied???

The mass of gamers play whatever the current version of D&D is being sold.   A smaller fraction plays the previous version of D&D.  An even smaller fraction plays games other than D&D.   Those gamers seeking variety all have their own definition for what variety means and most seek that out in other RPG games.

The current potential audience for RPG sales are teenagers and young adults who play WoW and other video games.   The mass of these people have not been drawn to any games built on the old presumptions of gameplay.   Thus, WotC changed gameplay presumptions to increase their sales.

Even among gamers, there is no surprise that Exalted is popular and Pathfinder Beta has a higher power curve than 3.x to draw in the most sales. Most gamers like kewl powerz and they no interest in long waits or "paying their dues" or anything else that holds them back.

You can take this out of the realm of edition wars and RPG theory by looking at boardgames.

Euro games such as Settlers of Catan, Puerto Rico, and Ticket to Ride have become very popular in the boardgame hobby. In fact, they've pretty much trounced 'traditional' American boardgames like Axis and Allies and now dominate online discussions and the convention scene.

Some key elements of Euro games are:

* Very little downtime
* Aversion to 'take-that' confrontation between opponents
* Elegant mathematical systems where players can take different routes to succeeding and scoring points
* Great care paid to making sure as many players are in contention for as long as possible

In comparison, American/Anglo boardgames of yore often have the following features:

* Long turns and playing time
* Player elimination
* Sub-optimal options
* Thematic chrome that has little game purpose

Now, I happen to love both kinds of boardgames. And I have rated boardgames poorly because they have too much downtime or the rules are overly fiddly.

However, I play Ameritrash/wargames for entirely different reasons than I play euros. If I want to get my analytical, optimizing, superbly-balanced game on, I'll play a Euro game. No question. But when I want to immerse myself in the role of an emperor in a perilous world where random fate can sink a fleet or enable me to poison a foe, and where the Kingdom of Bithynia gets silver tribute from the Scythians just because, then I play an Ameritrash or wargame.

Two types of games. Like euros, 4E is going with the meticulously engineered, everybodywins approach. No doubt they'll find success. But let's not pretend it's just the same ole' D&D that everybody has always played. And let's be conscious that when you take a tightly-focused approach to game design, you narrow the styles of play that the game facilitates.

Quote from: Spinachcat;257941I am sorry WotC came to your house and took your old games away.  Check eBay for good deals on AD&D and the bazillion other RPGs that support your preferred playstyle.

And this time, hide them in a safe place where Mearls won't find them!

Nor did Microsoft kick in anyone's door and use an electromagnet on Windows 98 discs.

It's called 'de-supporting', and it is one of the quickest ways to kill off an old product.

QuoteThe current potential audience for RPG sales are teenagers and young adults who play WoW and other video games.   The mass of these people have not been drawn to any games built on the old presumptions of gameplay.   Thus, WotC changed gameplay presumptions to increase their sales.

This would be the dumbest thing to say, except that it mimics WotC thinking almost exactly.  Congratulations!  You are tied with WotC.

QuoteEven among gamers, there is no surprise that Exalted is popular and Pathfinder Beta has a higher power curve than 3.x to draw in the most sales. Most gamers like kewl powerz and they no interest in long waits or "paying their dues" or anything else that holds them back.

Holds them back from what?  I thought you opened this argument by stating that levels have nothing to do with heroics.  

QuoteA hero is someone who strives against great odds with a risk of failure against his foes. A hero does not require a particular level, simply a choice by the player to put their character in harm's way for an ideal bigger than themselves.

Now you are saying that working up from low level is an impediment to heroics.

So which is it?

Quote from: Spinachcat;257941A hero is someone who strives against great odds with a risk of failure against his foes. A hero does not require a particular level, simply a choice by the player to put their character in harm's way for an ideal bigger than themselves.

That's one definition of hero.  It's obvioulsy not the one CS was using.  Previous versions supported a larger variety of play styles and power ranges than 4e does.  That's not stating that 4e is bad; it is part of the explanation why it was not adopted across the board.

Quote from: Spinachcat;257941I am sorry WotC came to your house and took your old games away.

Good thing you have mockery to fall back on. Wouldn't want to burden you with putting forth a real argument.

I never said I couldn't continue to play the current edition. But the analysis that 4e misses a lot of playstyles sounds a lot like a well received analysis of 4e that you put up here in the past. One that got me thinking that you might not be that unreasonable a poster after all.

Guess I was wrong on that score, considering you are hurling attacks at me for saying something that is qualitatively the same as the best received thread you ever posted here. Good show.

Sorta of off-topic

QuoteIt’s a madman’s quest. Frankly, if people think the game is too deadly and too easy, we probably hit the right middleground

The game is both because of the linear probability of the d20. I notice this when I ran a couple of demos at a convention last weekend. One fight went really well and later the same exact fight with the same character and nearly the same tactics just went south quickly and resulted in a total party kill.

It because the d20 can range all over the place, with the fact both characters and monsters have a ton of options in tactics, and 4th edition combat is design to have ups and down through the healing surge mechanism. This is opposed to 3d6 that clusters around 11.

The total party kills resulted when everyone was down and needed healing surges and got hit with a series of bad rolls.