Quote from: JimBobOzWell, I thought what you said made sense. Well, the "two factor" part - "Motivators" and "Hygiene Factors" - made sense, the "D&D is a steaming pile of shit", not so much. Don't mind the resident BNG. We just keep him in case Forgers visit, so they won't feel too lonely.

You hypocritical cuntflap.

So nothing whatsoever strikes you as familiar about that sentiment, nothing reminds you of similar statements which you spent countless words over on RPGnet and elsewhere attacking as ridiculous?

I seem to recall you being pretty vocal about the stupidity of "gamers aren't really having fun" and "30 minutes of fun squeezed into 2 hours", and yet suddenly you defend it, when:  A) it's a game you've professed to hate, b) it's your buddy taking flack for it, and c) it's tarted up with some pretentious shite about social theory (itself a wonderous hypocrisy on your part).

'Cept that ain't what he said, J_Arcane.

If he had said that people don't really know when they're having fun, then I would happily abuse him for it. Since he didn't say that, I don't have to.

What he said was that there are some things in game sessions which make some people happy (Motivators), and some things which the absence of would make them unhappy, but the presence doesn't make them happy (Hygiene Factors).

So for example, for me "dark and gritty" is a "Motivator" - if I've got it, I'm happy, and the more I get the happier I am, pretty much. But "rolling dice for stuff" is a "Hygiene Factor." The absence of rolling dice makes me unhappy, but rolling more and more does not make me more happy.

I think that most of us can probably think of a bunch of things in a game session which act as "Motivators" for us, and a bunch of things which act as "Hygiene Factors." I think those are bad words to describe what's happening, the second one in particular just makes us think of Catpissman. So let's rename them, let's call one "things I want" or "desires" and "things I need" or "necessities."

So, "dark and gritty" is a thing I want, and you can usually enjoy getting more of what you want. But "rolling dice" is a thing I need, and once I have that minimum of necessities, having more doesn't make me any happier.

Tyberious Funk was saying that having what we want makes us happy, and having what we need prevents us from being unhappy. He was also saying that if in a game group one of two people are getting what they want, if the rest are getting what they need, then the rest will put up with not getting what they want. One or two people are happy, and the rest are just "not unhappy."

I don't think this is a particularly radical or new idea, it's just that it's not been expressed in this particular way before.

Tyberious Funk also talks about D&D being a "steaming pile of shit," which I already said was something I didn't believe. It seems he believes that D&D is a game system which is very good at giving people their "needs" as gamers, and very poor at giving them their "wants". This is the "lowest common denominator" theory of the market, which I don't believe in. It's a very popular theory in the middle classes because they get to feel superior to the tasteless masses. Again, I think the market theory of the "lowest common denominator" is wrong, and I think Tyberious Funk is wrong to describe D&D as a steaming pile of shit. I think he's confusing his own bad experiences with a really shitty game group which happened to play D&D with the game itself.

But in any case, he's not saying that people playing D&D aren't having any fun, he's saying that many of them are just having "okay" experiences, and putting up with it. Again, I think he's confusing his personal experiences with a general rule.

Most gamers play D&D. If D&D is good at giving people an "okay" experience, then we'd expect most gamers to rate their game experiences as "overall okay" rather than "overall good" or "overall bad". Yet in the rpg.net survey I posted, we found that of 356 respondents, 98% (350) game nowadays or would like to. As I've said before, if you game, and/or want to game, then you're a "gamer". 71% (249) of gamers responding say their gaming is or was "overall good". 26% (92) say it is or was "overall okay." 5% (19) say it was "overall bad."

Now, it's possible that all of the people saying their gaming is "overall okay" are playing D&D, and all of the people saying it's "overall good" are playing some other games; but this seems to me unlikely, if only because more than 1/4 of all gamers play D&D - so someone must be having fun with it. It'd be like me saying that the 5% who didn't like their last game are all playing Dogs in the Vineyard - humorous, and satisfying to my ego, but just a made-up reading of the information we've got, and so almost certainly wrong.

Judging by this survey, D&D is most likely giving people "overall good" game experiences. This assumes that in my survey people were able to report their experiences accurately, and that again when they're talking about D&D specifically. I assume that people can report their own experiences fairly accurately. If not, there's no reason to ask them about their experiences. We cannot do as Ron Edwards does and say, "when people's reports match with my ideas, they're reporting accurately; when people's reports don't match my ideas, they're reporting inaccurately." I don't think Tyberious Funk was aware of this survey; if aware of it and dismissing it, then yes - he may as well fuck off and join the Forge. It's possible he's got a slightly different position to them - they say that gamers are having overall bad experiences and think they're good; he seems to be saying they're having overall okay experiences and think they're good. Confusing "okay" with "good" is plausible; confusing "bad" with "good" is not. Still, if he thinks people cannot report their own experiences properly, then he's best to hang at the Forge, where such ideas are given great prominence - or perhaps story-games.

If Tyberious Funk wants to say that D&D is giving gamers an "overall okay" experience, then obviously he is wrong. If he wants to say that they're not reporting their experiences accurately, then he may be right, but it makes me wonder why anyone of us would ever discuss our experiences with one another. Perhaps he just thinks that they enjoy D&D because they don't know any better, they've never had a better game experience. Again, that may be true, but it is meaningless.

Happiness is always relative, there's no yardstick or multimeter for happiness, it's always compared to what you've had before. So for example you might go from a game group where the GM sits at a little table by himself and hands out the character sheets with advice on character improvement, and one player lies down on the couch and says, "wake me when it's time to roll for combat." When you go from that group into a more lively one where player input is encouraged, you'll say, "wow, that was my best session for ages!" Then after a year or so in that group, it won't seem so shiny anymore and you'll start getting fidgety. Asked about the second group, you'll give an "overall good" response one time, then an "overall okay" response six months later. Same group, same experiences, different response. That's because happiness is relative, especially to perfectionist nitpicky types.

So it may be that people are only enjoying D&D because they don't know any better. But it's meaningless to say so. People can only judge things by their own experiences. That's true of all of us. That (for example) droog had a wonderful time playing Dogs in the Vineyard does not make the sessions I had of it any less boring and crappy; but by the same token, that I had a dreadful time does not make his time with it any less fun. Each person's experiences are relative to themselves.

Now, ideally we'll try to keep our own experiences in perspective, and not assume that they're universal. We'll also try to ask others about their experiences - to me, this is a main purpose of a dicussion forum. Then when we ask, and go beyond our personal experiences, we may find that when people say they're having fun with D&D, well in fact they actually are having fun; and at the same time they could, but might not, have more fun with something else.

Again, this is reading a lot into relatively few words by Tyberious Funk. He's not made clear whether he thinks that the data of my survey are crap. Yes, it is a narrow survey; but the reports of 350 gamers on their fun is not less representative of the "actual truth" than "my personal impressions." If my or J_Arcane's or Tyberious Funk's personal impressions of what gamers like or do are acceptable data, then that survey certainly is more acceptable data.

That clarifies things rather nicely, JimBob.  I thank you for that, and it's a lot more clear as to what your opinion on matters is.

I still don't at all agree with Tyberious' post, for pretty much the reasons I suggested, but at least on this occasion I must apologize for describing you as hypocritical in the matter.

Cheers, mate. Like I said, I think the Funk's just bitter about some crappy D&D group he was in once. But though he's wrong to tie D&D into it, I think the general thing of "wants" vs "needs" is a pretty good description of stuff.

I don't like D&D3.5 much, but I don't think it's a "steaming pile of shit." If I use a description like that for it, then how am I going to describe true shit, like FATAL?

Quote from: Black FlagThis is so true. I know because I used to be one of those types, back in the days of AD&D 2e, when I had spent countless hours poring over books to get a handle on that mad patchwork of a system. I remember thinking that if other systems were similar, it would be a colossal waste of time and energy to learn them when I could make do with what I was already familiar with, despite its flaws. (N/A) It never occurred to me that I might not like D&D all that much on its own merits.

Fast forward several years to when, after an extended hiatus, I'm reintroduced to roleplaying through another game unrelated to D&D. It wasn't that hard to learn, and it did things D&D wasn't capable of, especially at the time. As my perspective broadened and I tried other systems and genres, I found that learning new games wasn't the chore I thought it would be. It's like learning a foreign language--after you've studied 3 or 4, it's really not such a big deal, but that 1st one sure is scary! I've since tried multiple systems and genres and found that while not everything is for me, still I've discovered a lot of great games I wouldn't have tried otherwise. And some of those came to be my favorites, while D&D isn't even in the top 5.

[/SIZE]Yeah, I know, this has long since been discounted with angry polemic!, but I wanted to say that I have excised the only small portion of this that doesn't fit with my experience, and then proceeded to quote it for a lame "Yep, that was me too" post. I at least tried to make it small.

Quote from: James J SkachA buy in cost of...what...$100? That's a bit different from laying out $1,000 for a computer and OS and whatnot. And if you don't like D&D, what's the cost of changing? How much are the core books of another game? Borrowing or pooling to see if you like the game?

D&D is not successful because of buy-in costs...

The buy in costs of taking the time and making the effor to learn a new system (or learn a new OS)...

QuoteRisk aversion? That all depends.  Do you mean avoiding the risk of wasting your precious time on learning/trying another game when you're happy with the one you've got? What's the risk you are avoiding?

...that won't be worth it unless the experience of the new game is significantly better.

Since most people start with D&D (market share), and most people are satisfied with D&D, they see no reason to take the time or make the effort to learn a new system (buy in costs) that may not provide them with a noticibly better experience (risk aversion), while simultaneously making the time, effort and money they have spent gaining proficiency in D&D worthless (loss aversion - new term).

Quote from: apparition13Since most people start with D&D (market share), and most people are satisfied with D&D, they see no reason to take the time or make the effort to learn a new system (buy in costs) that may not provide them with a noticibly better experience (risk aversion), while simultaneously making the time, effort and money they have spent gaining proficiency in D&D worthless (loss aversion - new term).

So, just so I'm clear.

The basis of your conclusion rests on the fact that the people who start with D&D (for whatever reason) are satisfied with it. Is it just satisfied, or does that include "pleased," "happy with," and "love it?"

I'm also not so sure about the number of people who break out your last (gaining proficiency that will be meaningless) from the overall what-is-it-going-to-provide-that-I-don't-already-have garden variety risk aversion you meantion previously. I agree there are those who hold their esteem in the plam of their extensive 3.5 rules knowledge, but my sense is it's not so many as to create "loss aversion." Which, btw, I like as a term....for...something..

Quote from: apparition13The buy in costs of taking the time and making the effor to learn a new system (or learn a new OS)...



...that won't be worth it unless the experience of the new game is significantly better.

Since most people start with D&D (market share), and most people are satisfied with D&D, they see no reason to take the time or make the effort to learn a new system (buy in costs) that may not provide them with a noticibly better experience (risk aversion), while simultaneously making the time, effort and money they have spent gaining proficiency in D&D worthless (loss aversion - new term).

I agree with most of what you cite here...I would also say it's market penetration as well.  When I vist Borders or Barnes and Nobles I see D&D and a little White Wolf, rarely anything else if at all.  It means playing D&D also has a factor of accesibility most other games do not.

I know when I first started in rpg's I wasn't aware of anything besides D&D, and it was only after going to a real FLGS that I discovered more options.  I personally don't dislike D&D, and will play it on occasion...but they're are other games I've discovered that I enjoy more(especially when I have to run them.).