You're splitting hairs. I don't go to a store and buy a game so that I can win at that game. I buy it to have fun.
So... what makes the game "fun"? What makes it enjoyable?
If I were to be so bold as to make assumptions to what your answer woul likely be, I'd say that you buy a game because it appeals to a particular set of aesthetics that you are looking for. A game like PARANOIA is fun because of the aesthetics of Competition, Abnegation, Fantasy and Challenge. Dungeons and Dragons often takes Fantasy, Fellowship, Expression and Challenge in high priority, albeit Discovery and Narrative often come into play as well. Legend of the Five Rings prioritizes Narrative, Fantasy and Expression a lot, with some elements of Challenge and Competition from time to time.
It's easy to say "to have fun", but it's certainly easy to say that even if Fallout 3 and Call of Duty are both fun games, when asked why they are fun, you can't really give the exact same reasons both games, even if they're both first-person shooters. Much in the same way that tag is different from marbles or hopscotch even if both are fun, D&D is different from Gamma World or Ars Magica even if they're both fun, etc.
Running a game of Empire of the Petal Throne, way back in the 70s, my players were outmanned, out classed, being hunted by a government with resources to spare, and facing imminent death should they make a mistake, and they were having fun.
Now I wasn't really ready to run the game, so it came to a halt, but I expect the players would've continued as vagabonds and outlaws, and had a gay old time with it. They were being challenged, and enjoying every moment of it.
If your game is so important it can't allow for any fun, maybe you'd be better off writing a story.
Why were they having fun? From what I can see, they were having fun because of the following aesthetics that made that campaign fun for them
Fantasy (they got to roleplay as outlaws and vagabonds)
Challenge (a combination of complexity and difficulty that dogged their efforts left and right, because they were always at the disadvantage)
Fellowship (they got to get together and actually work together I presume?)
...a result of character creation)
Narrative (the story that unfolded as the campaign went along)
There would also be elements of Discovery and Abnegation, and I don't know how you DM but if it involves background music, sound effects and miniatures there would be Sensation as well, but from what I see, these five aesthetics were the main reasons why your group had fun.
Dungeons & Dragons is an amusement, and that's all it needs to be. It doesn't need to be serious, it doesn't need to be important, all it needs to be is challenging, involving, and engaging. It misses out on any of those it stops being successful and dies.
Except it's not the system that makes D&D "an amusement". It's the DM who designs the campaign and runs it with the rest of the group. It's only as serious as the DM makes it, assuming we fully understand what "serious" means within the context of a tabletop roleplaying game. And from what I see, the core aesthetics you seek in a campaign would be Challenge, Narrative and ...although I assume that the lack of mention of Fellowship is partly a result of focusing on the personal impact of the game irregardless of the size of an adventuring party).
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
No need to, you keep telling us how we shouldn't play and why.
(You live by yourself, don't you?)
No, he isn't telling any of us how we shouldn't play and why. He's telling us that we play to have fun, and that the system that you use does not use the term "fun" in any aspect.
To give further emphasis: Gary Gygax stated that all rules are guidelines for the DM, because his job in the system is to make sure that everyone on the table has fun. The question is: how can the DM deliver that fun to the table?
Answer: by appealing to various aesthetics that the group seek the most, even at the cost of bending or ignoring the framework as initially defined by the game developer, a.k.a. the system, which is composed of rules.
Again: the system is not designed for the sake of fun. The game is enjoyed by gaming groups because the DM ensures that his campaigns are fun.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
At first this post is going to sound pretty critical. The OP will probably hit "quote" without reading and understanding what I have to say, and begin attacking me as if I were flaming or a troll. Perhaps even pedantically trying to defend his viewpoint. If the OP reads my post however, I think he'll find what I have to say might be interesting...and might even give some pause for thought about how we address and explain things to others... especially given that he clearly has no knowledge of conventional debate, philosophy, or linguistics.
Conclusion one; your post is too long. It could easily be edited for better clarity and brevity. -Advise; Attempt to use synonyms which have a clearer canonical meaning. Additionally, attempt to gain a better understanding of English in the process.
Conclusion two; The fundamental assumptions of your argument are incorrect. -Explanation; While the idea that the objective of a game, and the experience derived from it are usually different is true, the assumption that the objective of playing dungeons and dragons is to amass power and wealth is false. The objective of playing d&d is whatever the players want it to be within the basic framework of the printed rules system, which itself can also be altered should the players choose, through means that are democratic or otherwise. -Advise; you're trying to argue a point, and you are doing it poorly. You pose interesting questions about how rules should be determined, and how the objective of a game corresponds with the experience of playing it. However, you're inability to present a reasonable argument on what you yourself admit is already a polarized subject makes you sound like an ass. (which I assume you actually are) Instead, try re-writing the entire thing as an expository on the nature of game objectives and fun.
Conclusion three; Your argument is not one that should or can be made. -Explanation; you make a basic assumption that the experience derived from playing a gameis somehow subordinate to the objective of playing a game. You have failed to realize that there is a difference between a game, and a competition. Some competitions are games, some games are competitions, not all games are competitions. Some people derive fun from competition, and some games involve aspects of competition, but that does not mean a competition and a game are the same thing. The dichotomy here may be lost on some of weaker abstract intellect (such as yourself). e.i. American idol is a completion, karaoke is a game. You cannot "win" a game, and the objective of a game is not always clearly defined. Especially if the game you are playing involves role playing and storytelling. Tell me, if two children are playing house, how do they win? What is the point of playing? Obviously as you increase age, intellect, and complexity, some rules must be applied, so everyone is not running around arbitrarily making things up as children would. D&D is a game. The purpose of a game is to have fun. The purpose of D&D is to have fun. Anyhting that detracts from the fun in a given group, can and should be altered. -Advise; do not attempt to argue against the aforementioned clause unless you are a fun hating Nazi, or autistic, incompetent, or some hybrid of the three.
tl;dr D&D is a game. The point of a game is to have fun. The purpose of D&D is to have fun. Anyhting that detracts from the fun in a given group, can and should be altered.
You can reply to my post if you wish, but I will make no further atempts to argue my conclusions. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
At first this post is going to sound pretty critical. The OP will probably hit "quote" without reading and understanding what I have to say, and begin attacking me as if I were flaming or a troll.
You're confusing the OP for me. Because I will totally do that in if I'm in the right mood.
Perhaps even pedantically trying to defend his viewpoint. If the OP reads my post however, I think he'll find what I have to say might be interesting...and might even give some pause for thought about how we address and explain things to others... especially given that he clearly has no knowledge of conventional debate, philosophy, or linguistics.
*Proceeds to waste space on personal attacks.* Well, looks like you beat me to the attacks.
Conclusion one; your post is too long. It could easily be edited for better clarity and brevity. -Advise; Attempt to use synonyms which have a clearer canonical meaning. Additionally, attempt to gain a better understanding of English in the process.
My degree is going to be in English, I'm not a first year student, and I didn't have any problem understanding his post. When you think about the fact that what he posted was likely equivalent to spur-of-the-moment freewriting, its a damn fine piece of work.
Conclusion two; The fundamental assumptions of your argument are incorrect. -Explanation; While the idea that the objective of a game, and the experience derived from it are usually different is true, the assumption that the objective of playing dungeons and dragons is to amass power and wealth is false. The objective of playing d&d is whatever the players want it to be within the basic framework of the printed rules system, which itself can also be altered should the players choose, through means that are democratic or otherwise.
See, where you're having the disconnect is between instrumental value and intrinsic value. Yagami's (As well as my own.) focus is on the instrumental quality, yours is on the intrinsic.
-Advise; you're trying to argue a point, and you are doing it poorly. You pose interesting questions about how rules should be determined, and how the objective of a game corresponds with the experience of playing it. However, you're inability to present a reasonable argument on what you yourself admit is already a polarized subject makes you sound like an ass. (which I assume you actually are) Instead, try re-writing the entire thing as an expository on the nature of game objectives and fun.
Two things: One, it is a reasonable argument, your perspective is just too skewed to see how that is the case. Two, your TL;DR at the end makes you sound like a whiny child sticking his fingers in his ears and going, "nanananana." At least you can kick ****. You unfortunately cannot (generally) kick children, no matter how whiny and annoying they get.
Conclusion three; Your argument is not one that should or can be made. -Explanation; you make a basic assumption that the experience derived from playing a gameis somehow subordinate to the objective of playing a game.
No, not subordinate, but rather, second in order. There is something else involved that is instrumental, which is what Yagami's post is getting at. The objective is instrumental to the experience. Yagami's whole argument is based around the idea that if you ignore the instrumental idea, you won't get to the experience, which is true.
-Advise; do not attempt to argue against the aforementioned clause unless you are a fun hating Nazi, or autistic, incompetent, or some hybrid of the three.
tl;dr D&D is a game. The point of a game is to have fun. The purpose of D&D is to have fun. Anyhting that detracts from the fun in a given group, can and should be altered.
If you don't want to actually engage in a discussion, that is totally fine. Nothing wrong with that. But when you lead your post off with this, "especially given that he clearly has no knowledge of conventional debate, philosophy, or linguistics..." and then end it with, "You can reply to my post if you wish, but I will make no further atempts to argue my conclusions," that, you come off as a whiner who believes that your word should just be taken at face value because you said it, especially with that Godwin crap you tried to pull.
Yes, chaosfang, you're exactly right. Can't agree with you anymore.
I have been considering what to do as more people come on board...as more and more people, on this thread and others, "get it"...if nothing else, these threads have given a good amount of insight into who is who on the board.
I think it might be time to commit to that elevation of discussion I mentioned in the OP.
vitamin_q: you don't deserve any more response than a small, derisive chuckle. Ha hah. There you go.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
You're confusing ... ...[bunch or random stuff]... ... tried to pull.
I am amused when people on the internet mistake sarcasms for flagrant bigotry.
Yeah, its about as bad empircally stating ideas and then doing in the internet equivalent of "lalalalalala." I'm starting to think Yagami was right, you probably didin't deserve anything more than a derisive chuckle. But hey, that's me, generous to a fault.
tl;dr D&D is a game. The point of a game is to have fun. The purpose of D&D is to have fun. Anyhting that detracts from the fun in a given group, can and should be altered.
Uh, let me ask you: how do you define "fun"? How does one "have fun"?
If you ask me, Dungeons and Dragons is a combination of a tradition, a system, and a compilation of stories around the table by a bunch of folks who each lives a particular fantasy based partially on the tools given to them by the system. If it was "just" a game, people wouldn't be so riled up about changes to the system. If it was "just" about having "fun", then why are people react so violently when lore is changed or mechanics are adjusted?
Dungeons and Dragons has changed dramatically since it was first released in 1974, when it first appeared as an alternative ruleset for the wargame Chainmail which threw the elites of the wargame together into a special forces sort of group and -- at least in print, not necessarily in play -- let participants enjoy the Fantasy aesthetic, which up to that time was limited to games "Pretend", "Cowboys and Indians" and the like. Although for at least one or maybe three editions the game was primarily still essentially a wargame in different clothing, it was in the later half of 2E (dubbed 2.5E by some) where not only did the mechanics change, but also the playstyle, as now there was a bit more "simulation" involved and unless I'm mistaken people began to go from the Challenge and Cooperative aesthetics to more of Narrative and Expression aesthetics**. Hence, you have less of Temple of Elemental Evil and Tomb of Horrors, and more of Forgotten Realms and Eberron.
It's that change in culture, in core aesthetics, and in some places mechanics, that is why we have Edition Wars in the first place. You can have fun in any system -- you yourself stated that "[anything] that detracts from the fun in a given group, can and should be altered", so when looked at in that aspect alone it would make all the hate against 1E-5E senseless -- but people tend to hang on to the core aesthetics and traditions of a particular game, resulting in people going up at arms whenever major changes take place (like how skills appeared in 2E, or how 3E removed the weaknesses of casters, or how 4E revamped the entire system and made spellcasters weaker and everyone "bland", or how D&D Next's various changes within each playtest packet sort of keeps everyone on their toes because of the various "dealbreakers" that pop up or disappear with each playtest).
The point of gathering together on a (semi-)regular basis is to reaffirm social connections and friendships, regardless of activity, and as long as the activities are conducive to that objective, those activities tend to be "fun", simply because we are social animals at heart and "fun" is a way for us to cement our social bonds and sate our need to connect with other human beings. It just so happens that instead of malling or watching movies or doing various other activities, we choose to play games, and our game of choice happens to be of the tabletop roleplaying game type, called Dungeons and Dragons. That is why D&D is fun.
The objective of playing D&D is to have fun. The objective of designing D&D is to create a system wherein the judge of the game can easily appeal to the Fantasy, Narrative, Challenge, Fellowship, Discovery and Expression aesthetics*** which the group seeks -- resulting in fun -- by providing said judge with the tools he or she needs to design and run sessions with fellow players as easily as possible. Those are two very different things.
** all games have virtually all aesthetics, it's just that some tend to be more "core" than others. *** perhaps Competition as well
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Uh, let me ask you: how do you define "fun"? How does one "have fun"?
...etc, etc....
I thinks that is a very good point. "Fun" is deffinatly going to be defined in a multitude of ways within a group of people. Although I didn't really state it, I do think that is subjective and maleable.
I think most people lack the time or creativity to come up with thier own entire system, it's easier to alter an existing system than make one from scratch. Some people resonate more with certain systems. It is human nature to associate emotions with objects, to grow fond of them. The grandmother loves her favorite teacup, the nerd his favorite tabetop. Although ones favorite system may have it;s flaws, they are now fond by association. vis-a-vis edition wars.
Although I agree that the largest factor in "fun" is the social interaction, I think a significant portion is also the mental stimulation from challenges and puzzles, escapism into world of fiction (e.g. reading a book is fun, but not social), and other factors I can't think of at this time.
Yep, that makes sense to me. The goal of the game for the PCs is the goal of the characters in the game, and the goal of the DM is to create goals for the PCs by building a functioning world. However, the POINT of the game is (usually) to have fun.
Because I will totally do that in if I'm in the right mood.
