Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D is like candy corn
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8795095" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>I mean, I do actually think there is an issue with "Tyranny of Fun," but it isn't the issue most people think of.</p><p></p><p>That is, there seem to be two different ways people present the concept, both of which I think are wrong-headed. One camp says, "You put in all these <em>rules</em> and <em>limitations</em> and <em>restrictions</em> in the name of 'fun,' but all you did was kill the game!" Given my posting history, and the fact that my favorite edition of D&D is 4e, I think most people can figure out why I don't consider that argument even remotely effective. The other camp, however, says something to the effect of, "We <em>have</em> all these rules in order to make choices actually <em>matter</em>, to give <em>weight</em> to things, and then you go and <em>obliterate</em> them into freeform whatever-you-like! All you've done is kill the game!" It might surprise some of you that I find <em>that</em> argument off-base as well, though I am much more sympathetic to the idea behind it ("rules should have a purpose," more or less) than I am to the previous ("rules are stupid and shouldn't exist," more or less.)</p><p></p><p>The <em>actual</em> Tyranny of Fun I see is much deeper and more insidious. It is the holding up of "Fun" as simultaneously justification, panacea, and purpose all in one. "Fun" justifies <em>absolutely anything, no matter what</em>, and so long as something <em>can maybe potentially</em> be fun to <em>someone</em>* then all of its ills are necessarily cured forever. Finally, the one and only purpose of game design is fun, and anything that could ever even potentially move toward anything else is anathema, to be purged with fire and steel.</p><p></p><p>In other words, the <em>actual</em> Tyranny of Fun is a mindset regarding game design which eliminates all possibility of actually <em>learning</em>, of developing a <em>field</em> in which we study what games are, how they work, what approaches exist, how different tools can be applied effectively vs ineffectively, etc. It is a philosophical push toward the intuitive alone and absolute, toward designers as <em>auteurs</em> whose work cannot ever be limited by anything whatsoever lest you poison its artistic purity, and toward GMs as amateur designers that must (not can, not should, <em>must</em>) rebuild every game every time they play it, to the tune of Carl Sagan's famous line, “If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”</p><p></p><p>Fun <em>is</em> important in game design. But we should not allow "make sure your game is fun" to become the end-all, be-all of game design. We should recognize that, for example, delayed gratification is a wonderful thing, even though it means having less fun some of the time. We should recognize that games can have purposes other than "have fun," such as "seek meaning," "tell stories," "display creativity," or "achieve understanding." We should embrace the idea that, <em>while we pursue fun</em>, there can be different methods of getting there, and even if we are given certain mechanics or principles that must be adhered to (such as "XP=GP," "combat as war" as much as I hate the phrase, "balance," or "fail forward," or whatever), there are better and worse ways of <em>implementing</em> those goals or ideas or mechanics so that we get to the end result. That there can be qualitative and quantitative differences in the kind of experience produced, and that we <em>can</em> in fact perform tests, iterating on the products of our labor until they really do consistently perform as expected.</p><p></p><p>*Note, however, that things like <em>balance</em> being fun to someone never matters, period. Only <em>some</em> things are judged by the "someone, somewhere can find it fun" standard, while others are judged by a "it must be <em>universally</em> fun for <em>everyone</em> or it's bad" standard. As a rule, traditional options or mechanics are evaluated by the first standard. Novel/modern options or mechanics are evaluated by the second.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8795095, member: 6790260"] I mean, I do actually think there is an issue with "Tyranny of Fun," but it isn't the issue most people think of. That is, there seem to be two different ways people present the concept, both of which I think are wrong-headed. One camp says, "You put in all these [I]rules[/I] and [I]limitations[/I] and [I]restrictions[/I] in the name of 'fun,' but all you did was kill the game!" Given my posting history, and the fact that my favorite edition of D&D is 4e, I think most people can figure out why I don't consider that argument even remotely effective. The other camp, however, says something to the effect of, "We [I]have[/I] all these rules in order to make choices actually [I]matter[/I], to give [I]weight[/I] to things, and then you go and [I]obliterate[/I] them into freeform whatever-you-like! All you've done is kill the game!" It might surprise some of you that I find [I]that[/I] argument off-base as well, though I am much more sympathetic to the idea behind it ("rules should have a purpose," more or less) than I am to the previous ("rules are stupid and shouldn't exist," more or less.) The [I]actual[/I] Tyranny of Fun I see is much deeper and more insidious. It is the holding up of "Fun" as simultaneously justification, panacea, and purpose all in one. "Fun" justifies [I]absolutely anything, no matter what[/I], and so long as something [I]can maybe potentially[/I] be fun to [I]someone[/I]* then all of its ills are necessarily cured forever. Finally, the one and only purpose of game design is fun, and anything that could ever even potentially move toward anything else is anathema, to be purged with fire and steel. In other words, the [I]actual[/I] Tyranny of Fun is a mindset regarding game design which eliminates all possibility of actually [I]learning[/I], of developing a [I]field[/I] in which we study what games are, how they work, what approaches exist, how different tools can be applied effectively vs ineffectively, etc. It is a philosophical push toward the intuitive alone and absolute, toward designers as [I]auteurs[/I] whose work cannot ever be limited by anything whatsoever lest you poison its artistic purity, and toward GMs as amateur designers that must (not can, not should, [I]must[/I]) rebuild every game every time they play it, to the tune of Carl Sagan's famous line, “If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.” Fun [I]is[/I] important in game design. But we should not allow "make sure your game is fun" to become the end-all, be-all of game design. We should recognize that, for example, delayed gratification is a wonderful thing, even though it means having less fun some of the time. We should recognize that games can have purposes other than "have fun," such as "seek meaning," "tell stories," "display creativity," or "achieve understanding." We should embrace the idea that, [I]while we pursue fun[/I], there can be different methods of getting there, and even if we are given certain mechanics or principles that must be adhered to (such as "XP=GP," "combat as war" as much as I hate the phrase, "balance," or "fail forward," or whatever), there are better and worse ways of [I]implementing[/I] those goals or ideas or mechanics so that we get to the end result. That there can be qualitative and quantitative differences in the kind of experience produced, and that we [I]can[/I] in fact perform tests, iterating on the products of our labor until they really do consistently perform as expected. *Note, however, that things like [I]balance[/I] being fun to someone never matters, period. Only [I]some[/I] things are judged by the "someone, somewhere can find it fun" standard, while others are judged by a "it must be [I]universally[/I] fun for [I]everyone[/I] or it's bad" standard. As a rule, traditional options or mechanics are evaluated by the first standard. Novel/modern options or mechanics are evaluated by the second. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D is like candy corn
Top