Quote from: flyingmiceTo be clear, I'm talking about resource-limited mechanics, not fudging.

Good point.  

My problem with resource-limited mechanics is that they can effect player behavior in strange ways.  The brave fighter who is willing to jump into the fray against the Black Knight because he knows he has a hero point left suddenly becomes a coward facing off against the Brown Knight because he's all out of hero points.

Quote from: John MorrowIt's not that playing the peasant is inherently more realistic than playing the prince. But always playing princes and never playing peasants does give one a limited and somewhat candy-coated slice of reality.

Quote from: John MorrowDonald Trump's life is not as real in the sense that he's insulated from a lot of the consequences and random hardships of real life.

OK, here's the core of the problem, I think.  You give a token nod that playing princes isn't unrealistic, but then insist that in fact, it is not.  

In my view, playing anything only gives one a limited slice of reality, not the whole of reality.  I don't think it's reasonable to expect that any work (book, movie, or game) should give the whole of reality rather than a limited slice.  Now, if anyone were getting his view of the whole of reality solely through RPGs, then I might have a problem with this.  But they don't.

Quote from: John MorrowGood point.  

My problem with resource-limited mechanics is that they can effect player behavior in strange ways.  The brave fighter who is willing to jump into the fray against the Black Knight because he knows he has a hero point left suddenly becomes a coward facing off against the Brown Knight because he's all out of hero points.

Hmmm - I've never seen that behavior in a player, but that may be just the people I game with - who are absolutely mad, I tell you! They always end up using their Luck when they have gotten in over their head and have no other way out. They may themselves be a statistical anomally, though... :O

-clash

John, you probably know this but gilded, not guilded.  As in golden, not as in belonging to a guild.

Edit:  To add, I'm well aware of the difference between realism and verisimilitude, I'm also aware that when people say realism they generally mean verisimilitude, I just don't want to go to the bother of posting that every time.

Let's see, John responding to Balbinus has lifted up the rock of "realism" and he's found, squirming underneath, consistency and verisimilitude...but I think they're pretty much the same thing. One is "understandable laws by which the world works", the other is "cause and effect".

Whereas over in the other realism thread, Pundit has unearthed accuracy.

Now accuracy is less universally important than the other(s), but accuracy also tends to be tangled up with consistency/verisimilitude (hereafter just "consistency".)

If you plan on having a game world where nothing is given unless it's written in the setting materials (particularly the setting materials that are available to the players), then there's no connection between accuracy and consistency.

Few game worlds operate that way, though. This is particularly true with game worlds that are explicitly based on historical backgrounds or genre tropes, but I also think it's true of many others, including science fiction, by virtue of implicitly accepting certain models of human nature in the setting. Note, John: there may not be a universal concept of human nature, but details of a setting can be highly suggestive. E.g., just having a high-tech setting with megacorporations and interstellar trade tells us a lot about prevailing mores and values.

Therefore most settings include, as part of their overall reality, a great deal of assumptions that aren't included in the text unless the latter included at least a few first-year college textbooks on economics, anthropology, sociology, and history. Probably even, unless the game text is very good (and some of them are) film studies and comp lit.

Therefore in order to achieve overall consistency, you really need some amount of "accuracy" or some way to harmonize the important exceptions to accuracy so that the players and GM are all on the same page.

At that point, the "realism" advocate might be satisfied, if they're really concerned about "consistency". Or if they have a strong need for "accuracy" (because they like certain things about about a certain setting--they want to play in Rome, dammit, not in Gladiator), then they can find others with similar interests.

I'm a little of both, myself. I really want consistency, and I find genre and history to be good tools since I can intuitively understand how things work without having to reason through all the implications of a highly artificial set of axioms.

Quote from: jhkimOK, here's the core of the problem, I think.  You give a token nod that playing princes isn't unrealistic, but then insist that in fact, it is not.

No, I'm not claiming it's not realistic but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.  I'm questioning the fairly limited slice of realism that people select and why.  If a player wants a realistic game, why pick characters that are likely to encounter only a comfortable and relatively familiar limited slice of it?  If you had a realistic game about life in New York City, what would it mean if everyone only wanted to play a Donald Trump?

You claim that it's unfair to equate "realism" with "not fun".  What I am pointing out is that the way many people are avoiding the problem is by creating characters that don't have to deal with the nastier side of reality.  Sure, the setting can be filled with peasants, slavery, sexism, racism, torture, rape, murder, and so on but the players simpy create characters that never have to deal with those things directly.  So, the way to make a game realistic and fun is to limit the slice of reality the players have to deal with so they don't have to deal with things they don't find fun.

Let me try another analogy.

When I lived in Tokyo, there were Americans who engaged with Japanese culture to different degrees.  While there were people who tried their best to "go native", learn Japanese, and live like a Japanese person, many tried to live a more familiar live and a few (often spouses of executives) did a pretty good job of escaping Japanese culture entirely, via spending all their time at the Tokyo American Club.

While I was in Tokyo, I lived in an America-style house, had satellite television with English-language programming, ate at a Subway for lunch, and spoke English to my co-workers at work while my wife bought American-style food at National Azabu and volunteered at the expat Tokyo Union Church.  We also spent a lot of time with other expats, including the JIGG meetings and time I spent with other gamers that I met in Tokyo.

Yes, we went a little more "native" than some other expats in our class did.  We lived in a Japanese neighborhood instead of in an expat enclave, I hung out with my Japanese co-workers after work, loved just walking around and exploring new places, went to Comiket, shopped at Japanese stores, and I took some Japanese classes.  My wife learned some Japanese crafts, spent some time with Japanese women for cultural exchange, and could navigate the subways even whent he signs weren't in English.  

Yes, I lived in Tokyo.  Yes, I experienced Japanese culture and learned how to get around and survive in Tokyo.  And I certainly saw more than most tourists see while I was there.  But I also insulated myself from a lot of Japanese culture, too, and my experience was more limited than it could have been.  That we chose to live so much like Americans in Tokyo colored our experience and does say something about how dedicated we were to experiencing Japanese culture.

As I've told people, I loved being an American in Tokyo but I doubt I'd want to be a Japanese person living in Tokyo.  Why?  Becauase there were large parts of Japanese culture I could happily ignore, primarily in the area of obligations and expected behavior, that a Japanese person or even another East Asian can't ignore as easily.  I also lived better than many Japanese.  The racism I experienced was minimal.  In many ways, I was playing the sort of character we're talking about -- socially secure and exempt from many of the rules.

So while I lived in Tokyo, enjoyed it, learned a lot, and saw a lot did I really experience living in Japan?  Strictly speaking, of course I did.  But it would be legitimate for an expat who went native or a Japanese person who lived their entire life in Tokyo to look at my experience as a pale shadow of what it's really like to live in Japan, a sort of expat fairy-tale where I could pick and choose the realities of living in Japan that I wanted to deal with and ignore most of the rest.  Maybe not the most charitable way to look at my stay but not without merit.

Quote from: jhkimIn my view, playing anything only gives one a limited slice of reality, not the whole of reality.  I don't think it's reasonable to expect that any work (book, movie, or game) should give the whole of reality rather than a limited slice.  Now, if anyone were getting his view of the whole of reality solely through RPGs, then I might have a problem with this.  But they don't.

The slice of reality that an author or role-player selects to experience says something about what they are looking for.  If players select characters largely exempt from sexism and racism in a realistic setting with sexism and racism, it suggests to me that the players really don't find sexism and racism all that fun to play but can tolerate it so long as they can shove it into the background and largely ignore it.

Quote from: BalbinusJohn, you probably know this but gilded, not guilded.  As in golden, not as in belonging to a guild.

Thanks.  My spelling is better than it used to be but still awful.  That's one of those mistakes that a simple spell checker won't catch.  I'll try to remember that in the future.

Quote from: BalbinusEdit:  To add, I'm well aware of the difference between realism and verisimilitude, I'm also aware that when people say realism they generally mean verisimilitude, I just don't want to go to the bother of posting that every time.

I think that "realism" like "simulation" means too many similar but different things to be useful for most discussions.  You can't be sure that people mean the same thing when using that word.  That's why I prefer "verisimilitude" even if it is a mouthful.  And you'll notice that I even spell it right most of the time.

Quote from: John MorrowYou claim that it's unfair to equate "realism" with "not fun".  What I am pointing out is that the way many people are avoiding the problem is by creating characters that don't have to deal with the nastier side of reality.  Sure, the setting can be filled with peasants, slavery, sexism, racism, torture, rape, murder, and so on but the players simpy create characters that never have to deal with those things directly.  So, the way to make a game realistic and fun is to limit the slice of reality the players have to deal with so they don't have to deal with things they don't find fun.

Well, right.  I agree with that in the larger sense.  Any realistic game will necessarily be about a slice of reality.  And so by definition, if that game is to be fun, they have to pick a slice of reality which is compatible with their fun as players.  

I don't think that is a criticism of realism in RPGs, or that it disagrees with anything I've said.  

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think that's always a whitewashed view of reality -- because what is fun for the players is not the same as what is pleasant for the characters.  I've played in a number of horror games which were the opposite, emphasizing exactly the unpleasant bits you mentioned.  Now, a game is always going to be selected to take out the boring bits, but it's never going to be about people living simple, happy lives.  For example, I'm running a WWII game at the moment which I would say is hardly pleasant for the PCs.

Quote from: John MorrowA well trained fighter can realistically take on multiple poorly trained or untrained opponents.

Define "multiple".  Two yes, three is pushing it.  Anything more than that and you've got to identify the alpha and take him down quickly and brutally

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonDefine "multiple".  Two yes, three is pushing it.  Anything more than that and you've got to identify the alpha and take him down quickly and brutally

From everything I've seen and read, it depends on a lot of variables like training, size, moralle, the presence of weaons, shields, armor, and so on.  I was thinking two or three but extrapolating from what I've seen, the greater the difference in skill and size between opponents, the more quickly and effectively the more poorly skilled opponents can be dealt with and taken out.  Size also matters a great deal.  So I can also imagine scenarios where the skill and size disparity is large and so is the numbers of opponenet (not thatI specificed notice or untrained opponents in my reply).

Quote from: jhkimWell, right.  I agree with that in the larger sense.  Any realistic game will necessarily be about a slice of reality.  And so by definition, if that game is to be fun, they have to pick a slice of reality which is compatible with their fun as players.  

I don't think that is a criticism of realism in RPGs, or that it disagrees with anything I've said.

I think it's an interesting observation when the things that are being avoided by the player's selections are the very things that get introducec by choosing a realistic setting rather than a fictional or idealized one.  Basically, if you put sexism and racism into the setting to make it more realistic, I find it interesting that the players then pick characters that don't really have to deal with the sexism and racism in the setting.  It makes me wonder what the value is of having it in the setting.  

It's like ordering fries with your burger and then not eating them.  It makes me wonder why you are ordering the fries.

Quote from: jhkimAs I mentioned earlier, I don't think that's always a whitewashed view of reality -- because what is fun for the players is not the same as what is pleasant for the characters.  I've played in a number of horror games which were the opposite, emphasizing exactly the unpleasant bits you mentioned.

Can you provide some details of the horror scenarios you have in mind?

Quote from: jhkimNow, a game is always going to be selected to take out the boring bits, but it's never going to be about people living simple, happy lives.  For example, I'm running a WWII game at the moment which I would say is hardly pleasant for the PCs.

You are making another excluded middle argument here and I've already said that boring is different from unpleasant.  It's not a choice between happy and boring or unpleasant and exciting.  It's a question of how unpleasant players are willing to let the game get because reality can get mighty unpleasant.

If your realistic game excludes the players ever dealing with the most unpleasant parts of reality because they aren't fun, then how different is that from playing in a fantasy setting in which those things simply don't exist at all? If a setting contains racism and sexism but the players are largely exempt from it, what purpose does it serve?

Please note that I'm not saying it can't have a purpose and I think it does.  I just think it might be useful to describe what that purpose is, as well as to recognize why players choose to avoid it.

Yet another collection of my thoughts on this subject:

Realism In RPGs Pt. III

RPGPundit

One of the reasons why I like realism is that I find it more interesting to play in real cultures.  That is, rather than having a female elf and male dwarf battle side-by-side because they're both on the side of good, I find it more interesting to have characters with real-world beliefs about gender, nationality, religion, and so forth.  In fact, that is one of the first parts about reality that I tend to pull into games.  

So, for example, I played in the Ripper campaign, a non-Lovecraftian horror game using a variant of Call of Cthulhu set in 1889 London.  My first PC, Grimmond, was a policeman who worked in the East End.  He was very much a bully and a racist.  At one point, he beat to unconsciousness an old Chinese man whom he thought was connected to the villain.  He was not misogynist, though he was an essentialist about gender.  He was tortured by Chinese gangsters, and later I switched to another PC, and he was killed by them.  

One of my present PCs is a Nazi double agent in 1943 of an alternate history.  He is a gay man who was grew up in the Nazi Germany, successfully hid his orientation, and then helped the resistance in conquered England.  He turned against the Nazi party, but for a long time he believed in them.  (I was informed a lot by Ernst Roehm, founder of the Nazi storm troopers.)  Certainly a big fact for him is that homosexuals are discriminated against.  It would not be at all the same to play in a setting where homosexuality was accepted.  

So I find it quite odd when you keep suggesting that discrimination and other unpleasantness never appear in games.  Based on prior replies, I expect that you'll come back with some reply along the lines that it isn't realistic to play a racist -- and it would only be realistic if I were to play a helpless victim of racism.  This just brings us back to the basic disagreement over princes and peasants again.  

I agree that playing RPGs will only give you a limited slice of reality.  The same is true of any realistic work.  If you read the biography of a king, that doesn't tell you about the lives of his peasants.  However, that doesn't mean the biography is unrealistic.  PCs are generally going to be persons of importance within the scope of the campaign.  They will have agency and action within their lives -- otherwise it would just be the GM narrating at you.  I don't think that changes the idea that realism can be interesting and fun.  

Quote from: John MorrowI think it's an interesting observation when the things that are being avoided by the player's selections are the very things that get introduced by choosing a realistic setting rather than a fictional or idealized one.  Basically, if you put sexism and racism into the setting to make it more realistic, I find it interesting that the players then pick characters that don't really have to deal with the sexism and racism in the setting.  It makes me wonder what the value is of having it in the setting.  

It's like ordering fries with your burger and then not eating them.  It makes me wonder why you are ordering the fries.

Your burger-and-fries argument seems to be against the general concept of having background at all in RPGs.  You're saying that an RPG world shouldn't have anything in it except what the PCs directly encounter, or else there is something wrong with it.  So there shouldn't be oceans in the setting unless the PCs are supposed to go sailing, and there shouldn't be kings unless the PCs overthrow them.  

I don't find this to be true.  I find that there is often value in having elements to a setting even if they aren't directly a part of the adventures.  Mind you, in many games I've played in, sexism and racism were directly part of the adventures.  

Quote from: John MorrowIf your realistic game excludes the players ever dealing with the most unpleasant parts of reality because they aren't fun, then how different is that from playing in a fantasy setting in which those things simply don't exist at all? If a setting contains racism and sexism but the players are largely exempt from it, what purpose does it serve?

Please note that I'm not saying it can't have a purpose and I think it does.  I just think it might be useful to describe what that purpose is, as well as to recognize why players choose to avoid it.

Look, I have nothing against players who prefer to avoid realism.  I've said over many times that most players probably aren't interested in realism.  Many would prefer to play in game worlds which are perfectly egalitarian, without racism or sexism.  I've got no beef with that.  

However, I think there are people who prefer to play in worlds where racism and sexism exist.  For example, in my Vinland campaign, one of the PCs spent half the campaign in disguise as a man.  So yes, that isolated her from treatment as a woman for a while, but it would have been a very different game if there hadn't been any need for this.

Quote from: jhkimOne of the reasons why I like realism is that I find it more interesting to play in real cultures.  That is, rather than having a female elf and male dwarf battle side-by-side because they're both on the side of good, I find it more interesting to have characters with real-world beliefs about gender, nationality, religion, and so forth.  In fact, that is one of the first parts about reality that I tend to pull into games.

There is no reason why you can't have beliefs about gender, nationality, religion, and so forth that are plausible and realistic in an entirely fantasy setting.  All that really requires is setting depth.

My character in the D&D game that I'm playing in has very plausible views about a wide variety of real world issues without needing to lift them from a particular historical model.  The final sessions of that game have been partially driven by his views of race, gender, nationality, loyalty, and so forth as they conflict with the views of another PC.  Plenty of depth there.  

At this point, I think the term "realism" seems to be obscuring what you are really looking for, which seems to be depth.

Quote from: jhkimSo, for example, I played in the Ripper campaign, a non-Lovecraftian horror game using a variant of Call of Cthulhu set in 1889 London.  My first PC, Grimmond, was a policeman who worked in the East End.  He was very much a bully and a racist.  At one point, he beat to unconsciousness an old Chinese man whom he thought was connected to the villain.  He was not misogynist, though he was an essentialist about gender.  He was tortured by Chinese gangsters, and later I switched to another PC, and he was killed by them.

Why did you switch PCs?  And out of curiosity, why was your PC racist?

Quote from: jhkimOne of my present PCs is a Nazi double agent in 1943 of an alternate history.  He is a gay man who was grew up in the Nazi Germany, successfully hid his orientation, and then helped the resistance in conquered England.  He turned against the Nazi party, but for a long time he believed in them.  (I was informed a lot by Ernst Roehm, founder of the Nazi storm troopers.)  Certainly a big fact for him is that homosexuals are discriminated against.  It would not be at all the same to play in a setting where homosexuality was accepted.

I've seen and read some material about Rohm and the homosexuals in the Nazi party and quite a few suggest that the discrimination about homosexuals was fairly complex and very political and Rohm's homosexuality was well known and only became a problem when his political differences with Hitler and other Nazis became a problem.  This is the sort of place where I think it's very easy for anachronisms to creep in and displace historical realities and complexities.  It's also the sort of place where different people can have a different take on what was or is real.

Quote from: jhkimSo I find it quite odd when you keep suggesting that discrimination and other unpleasantness never appear in games.  Based on prior replies, I expect that you'll come back with some reply along the lines that it isn't realistic to play a racist -- and it would only be realistic if I were to play a helpless victim of racism.  This just brings us back to the basic disagreement over princes and peasants again.

So long as you keep viewing this as an all-or-nothing excluded-middle issue, you'll think it's odd because you'll keep missing my point.  I am not claiming that people don't want anything unpleasant to happen to their characters.  I'm claiming that there are limits to the unpleasantness that most players are willing to deal with.  That limit falls somewhere between the "never" and "always" which are the only two options you seem willing to consider.  Reality doesn't pull punches.  

You argue that a setting doesn't have to be 100% realistic to be "realistic".  Fair enough.  But I think it's fair to ask why so few GMs seem to even try for 100% realism, especially when you are taking issue with people who claim that realism isn't compatible with fun.  If realism is fully compatible with fun, then why don't more people try for a 100% realistic setting?

Quote from: jhkimI agree that playing RPGs will only give you a limited slice of reality.  The same is true of any realistic work.  If you read the biography of a king, that doesn't tell you about the lives of his peasants.  However, that doesn't mean the biography is unrealistic.  PCs are generally going to be persons of importance within the scope of the campaign.  They will have agency and action within their lives -- otherwise it would just be the GM narrating at you.  I don't think that changes the idea that realism can be interesting and fun.

In other words, reality is fun so long as you take a selective slice of it that most resembles fiction.  This brings me back to what I'm really trying to understand which is, what is the benefit of "realism"?  It's a choice, like any other setting choice.  Is the issue really "realism" or is it something else like "depth"?

Quote from: jhkimYour burger-and-fries argument seems to be against the general concept of having background at all in RPGs.  You're saying that an RPG world shouldn't have anything in it except what the PCs directly encounter, or else there is something wrong with it.  So there shouldn't be oceans in the setting unless the PCs are supposed to go sailing, and there shouldn't be kings unless the PCs overthrow them.

What is or isn't in a setting's background is a choice.  Things get put there or not put there for a reason.  What's the reason for having an ocean in the setting if the PCs aren't going to go sailing?  Yes, there are plenty of possible answers to that question, but the answer matters.  Just saying, "I like oceans in my settings," doesn't tell me anything.  Why do you want oceans in your settings?

Quote from: jhkimI don't find this to be true.  I find that there is often value in having elements to a setting even if they aren't directly a part of the adventures.  Mind you, in many games I've played in, sexism and racism were directly part of the adventures.

What is the value?  That's what I'm trying to get you to describe.  Are you simply using "realism" as a euphemism for detail and depth?

Quote from: jhkimLook, I have nothing against players who prefer to avoid realism.  I've said over many times that most players probably aren't interested in realism.  Many would prefer to play in game worlds which are perfectly egalitarian, without racism or sexism.  I've got no beef with that.

You seem to have quite a beef with even a hint that "fun" could possibly be opposed to "real".

Quote from: jhkimHowever, I think there are people who prefer to play in worlds where racism and sexism exist.  For example, in my Vinland campaign, one of the PCs spent half the campaign in disguise as a man.  So yes, that isolated her from treatment as a woman for a while, but it would have been a very different game if there hadn't been any need for this.

And I think it's useful to understand why you are including racism and sexism and not including, for example, gang rapes and child murder.  Are you using "realism" as a package (i.e., fully realistic) or are you using it like any other genre, as a toolkit from which to pick and choose elements that you think would be interesting?

Quote from: John MorrowThere is no reason why you can't have beliefs about gender, nationality, religion, and so forth that are plausible and realistic in an entirely fantasy setting.  All that really requires is setting depth.
....
At this point, I think the term "realism" seems to be obscuring what you are really looking for, which seems to be depth.

First of all, I'm not looking for a single thing.  I play a variety of games, including many which have neither depth nor realism.  

That said, while I can have some academic interest in examining some fantasy religion which has a bunch of stuff piled up about it, I more often prefer real cultures and religions.  It is a far better investment-to-return ratio, for one.  For another, doing so merges my ordinary reading with my RPG reading.  For example, I'm reading "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" at the moment -- which is an interesting book in itself and also applies to my game since my character is a Nazi.  It would take an enormous amount of creative effort to invent a background which is as detailed as conveyed with simply saying in three words that he is a gay Nazi officer.  Reality gives you depth for free.  But even if there is depth created by a fantasy game with pages upon pages of background, it doesn't seem as interesting to me to play in that.  Reality is often more interesting.  

Quote from: John MorrowWhy did you switch PCs?  And out of curiosity, why was your PC racist?

(This is regarding my racist, bullying PC Inspector Grimmond in a horror game in Victorian London.)

I eventually switched PCs because of irreconciliable differences between him and another PC.  I was a bit peeved at the time, but it made sense that they would no longer associate.  As for why he was racist, that's a pretty open question.  I'm not sure what you're looking for.  

I wanted to make a character who was hardened to the East End.  It was a terrible place, and I wanted my PC to be tough and yet still pro-active in seeking change.  I soon had a vision of a rough brute of a man who saw himself as a defender of order.  In character, it was a product of temperament.  He wasn't raised particularly racist, but he fell to that as a way of rationalizing the problems of the East End.  

Quote from: John MorrowI am not claiming that people don't want anything unpleasant to happen to their characters.  I'm claiming that there are limits to the unpleasantness that most players are willing to deal with.  That limit falls somewhere between the "never" and "always" which are the only two options you seem willing to consider.  Reality doesn't pull punches.

But reality isn't always the pinnacle of unpleasantness.  I'm GMing a horror game now which is far more unpleasant than the vast majority of reality.  The WWII game which I am also GMing was also dealing with a pretty unpleasant slice of reality which was D-Day and the fighting that followed.  

In many genres, the fiction portrayed is often more unpleasant than the reality.  For example, war movies often give the impression of most characters dying.  Yet the number of people killed throughout the entire course of the war even in the risky 506th paratrooper regiment was about 1/8th.  Similarly, horror films often have blatantly over-gory deaths from minor attacks.  

I agree that players have limits to the unpleasantness that they are willing to deal with.  However, realism doesn't require massive unpleasantness.  You can pick some incredibly horrific times/situations to play out, but you can also pick much more pleasant ones.

Quote from: John MorrowYou argue that a setting doesn't have to be 100% realistic to be "realistic".  Fair enough.  But I think it's fair to ask why so few GMs seem to even try for 100% realism, especially when you are taking issue with people who claim that realism isn't compatible with fun.  If realism is fully compatible with fun, then why don't more people try for a 100% realistic setting?

There are many things which are fun for some people that aren't popular for the majority of tabletop role-players.  The TRPG market is a niche market with particular interests, consisting mostly of geeky white males.  It is very fantasy focused, such that even the top cyberpunk game has elves and orcs.  There are certain trends to what is mainstream in it.  I'm sure there are patterns and reasons for RPG market trends, but that doesn't mean that the non-mainstream is always opposed to fun in general.  

Suggesting otherwise is just pressure to conform -- and pressure to conform to a group which is a niche in the first place.