Grognard good...grognard bad

[Raven Crowking]

Because if you're whining that the combats are too long then you obviously don't have the skills for a game like 4e, and should try sucking less. REAL MEN know how to take it and don't whine and cry that combats take too long.

Substitute 4e for game they are grogging over, and combats too long for, well, pretty much anything.

I think you're making that up.

Sure, some people like the style of combat 4e produces. They like the attention to the type of detail WotC chose to focus on. They like minis and battlemaps. They are not really concerned with how long combat takes. In many ways, they are prime candidates to recruit for wargames.

But there is a real difference between saying "This is a feature, not a bug" and "REAL MEN know how to take it and don't whine and cry that combats take too long".

After all, there are quite a few folks who, when WotC said 3e combats were taking too long, were right there on the bandwagon, who also find 4e combats -- although taking the same amount of actual time -- to be perfectly fine. It matters what you're getting for the time you put in.

No, the only place this comes up AFAICT is the idea that Bad Things can happen to your character. There is a segment of gaming that prefers (to varying degrees) to control what Bad Things happen to their characters, and a segment of gaming that prefers (to varying degrees) to let the dice fall where they may. And, by this, I mean the dice being able to dictate that Bad Things happen, not that the dice can fall, but the rules protect you from Bad Things happening instead.

Of course, there is a lot of perception that allowing Bad Things to happen is considered wrongbadfun by a lot of folks, including the designers of 4e. Thus, all the talk about how unfun SoD is, or SoS, etc.

You are right that "I find that an important part of the fun" is a better answer than the one that typically arises, from either direction. But the type of answer that typically arises is no better from the "new game" side than from the "old game" side.

IMHO, and IME. YMMV.

Oh, I don't know. You get people non-ironically complaining about The Tyranny of Fun.

Hold on. Is that an argument that the game isn't played for enjoyment, or that the kind of enjoyment endorsed by WotC with its current game isn't what the author actually finds "fun"?

The first would support your point.

The second would support mine.



RC

 

[Desdichado]

I think you're making that up.

That seems a bizarre claim to make. In more generic terms, that's the heart of edition wars right there. Are they made up too? Your own post (further down) describes that same behavior except with old and new editions in reverse. Surely, you're not claiming that only one side of the edition war is at fault with denigrating the taste and playstyle of the other?

Or maybe you're just quibbling with the specifics of his example, which he made no bones about making up on the spot. It seems to me that the specifics of the example are immaterial; they're just there to illustrate what he means when he says 'grognard' (which is very similar to how I use the word most often).

But there is a real difference between saying "This is a feature, not a bug" and "REAL MEN know how to take it and don't whine and cry that combats take too long".

Of course there is. That's the whole point of creating this example. That difference is the difference between being a grognard and not being a grognard.

Hold on. Is that an argument that the game isn't played for enjoyment, or that the kind of enjoyment endorsed by WotC with its current game isn't what the author actually finds "fun"?

The first would support your point.

The second would support mine.

It was an argument that the game, by fostering what its audience today apparently finds fun, is destroying the values that make gaming great, is contributing to gamer delinquincy and bad gaming, is destined to "destroy the hobby," isn't really what the customers want (because they just don't know what's actually good for them,) and is generally loitering around on Melan's lawn playing its music too loud.

The non-ironic Tyranny of Fun argument is the epitome of grognardiana, dressed up in a literate fashion to give it the illusion of legitimacy.

 

[Neonchameleon]

. . . to you.

For me, it's a look at some aspects of game design, how they've changed over time, and how proceeding along a different design path produces different experiences at the table.

Y'know, kinda like what this guy did.

It's not about venerating older games. It's about mining the history of gaming for ideas which continue to resonate right now.

Oh, a smart grognard has a few points. And I never disputed that. But it still amounts to a "Damn kids. Get off my lawn. In my day we never had help having fun. We walked twenty miles, up hill each way. And we liked it."

If he'd just been looking at how the game had changed without anything about fun being tyrannical, and saying that he enjoyed the previous version then he'd have made all the same good points without being a grognard. (Or What Hobo Said.)

Is that a thread still going ... after two years? WTF... is there some legend behind it? Kripes thats insane.

... You're right. Scary.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Of course there is. That's the whole point of creating this example. That difference is the difference between being a grognard and not being a grognard.

It was an argument that the game, by fostering what its audience today apparently finds fun, is destroying the values that make gaming great, is contributing to gamer delinquincy and bad gaming, is destined to "destroy the hobby," isn't really what the customers want (because they just don't know what's actually good for them,) and is generally loitering around on Melan's lawn playing its music too loud.

The non-ironic Tyranny of Fun argument is the epitome of grognardiana, dressed up in a literate fashion to give it the illusion of legitimacy.

I believe the largest obstacle to understanding is believing that there is universal definition of fun. All jokes of "fun is for wimps" aside, I find it hard to believe that even the most hidebound grognards around play in a manner which they find to be unenjoyable. The fun in any game is to be found in the people, not the system. No game book can or should try and define what fun is. Those that try fail on some level or another.

Oh, a smart grognard has a few points. And I never disputed that. But it still amounts to a "Damn kids. Get off my lawn. In my day we never had help having fun. We walked twenty miles, up hill each way. And we liked it."

If he'd just been looking at how the game had changed without anything about fun being tyrannical, and saying that he enjoyed the previous version then he'd have made all the same good points without being a grognard. (Or What Hobo Said.)

IMHO fun only approaches being tyrannical when an attempt is made to objectively define it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That seems a bizarre claim to make. In more generic terms, that's the heart of edition wars right there. Are they made up too?

Nah. The "heart of the edition wars" is the supposition that, when someone claims a preference that varies from the baseline of edition X, fans of edition X automatically assume that the person making the claim is simply doing so to slam edition X, or to be "cool", or whatever. Anything other than the supposition that the statement is valid at face value.

Your own post (further down) describes that same behavior except with old and new editions in reverse. Surely, you're not claiming that only one side of the edition war is at fault with denigrating the taste and playstyle of the other?

Are we talking about the Bad Things example? I don't believe that either side is stating their preference simply to slam the other, to be "cool", or whatever. I assume that, despite the diatribe that arises, the base of what is happening is, in fact, people stating what they honestly believe.

Moreover, if the same behaviour happens with both the newer and older editions, how can "grognards" necessarily be fans of older editions? Or do you propose that "grognards" and "newnards" are somehow different?

That difference is the difference between being a grognard and not being a grognard.

That difference is what I am questioning the existence of.

It was an argument that the game, by fostering what its audience today apparently finds fun, is destroying the values that make gaming great, is contributing to gamer delinquincy and bad gaming, is destined to "destroy the hobby," isn't really what the customers want (because they just don't know what's actually good for them,) and is generally loitering around on Melan's lawn playing its music too loud.

The non-ironic Tyranny of Fun argument is the epitome of grognardiana, dressed up in a literate fashion to give it the illusion of legitimacy.

I wonder if Melan would agree with your summary?

I rather suspect not, and that you are reading his post in a rather uncharitable light.

AFAICT, the core of Melan's post is:

All in all, what we are seeing is the emergence of a philosophy that denies and stifles excellence while encouraging mediocrity and poor play. Attempting to "protect" gamers from their own mistakes will not result in better games - it will limit self-expression, the freedom of creativity and hinder the natural and easy learning process most of us have gone through. It will subtly, although of course not completely, shift roleplaying games towards more passive and consumption-oriented forms of entertainment. The roleplaying hobby will be poorer for it, and it can also be expected to experience slow and continuous shrinkage as it becomes apparent to people that passive and consumption-oriented forms of entertainment offer much better alternatives than sitting around a table and rolling polyhedral dice.​

Which seems, to me, to be a valid concern.

There is no argument at all about the rules being bad; the argument seems to be about market forces AFAICT, and how they have influenced the presentation of the game. Far from claiming that 4e "isn't really what the customers want", it seems to be suggesting that "what the customers want" isn't necessarily what makes the best game.

The argument boils down to: "Lowering the bar for success perforce lowers the heights that can be attained." At least as I read it. And I would argue that this is, in fact, true.

Whether or not 4e actually lowers the bar is, obviously, a different argument. Or, as Melan put it: "I don't claim to be universally right. These are my subjective conclusions based on browsing through the core books and having read a good number of message board discussions, particularly ENWorld." He goes on to agree, more than once, that his opinion of 4e is not necessarily accurate. This is an IF/THEN statement of sorts. IF his perception is valid, THEN this is the result he foresees. IF you don't think his perception is valid, THEN neither should you find his conclusions valid.

However, he is very clear that he is talking about the difference between how he defines "fun" and how WotC does: "I just find it likely that 4e will nudge the hobby in a direction I personally dislike. That will have marginal effects on my own gaming, but it will be annoying in online discussions."

This is, therefore, not an argument that the game isn't played for enjoyment, but rather that the kind of enjoyment endorsed by WotC with its current game isn't what the author actually finds "fun". Which supports my point.

I would, therefore, suggest that you are colouring the post the way you wish to in order to make it fit the point you wish to make.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

IMHO fun only approaches being tyrannical when an attempt is made to objectively define it.

Which is, AFAICT, where the post title comes from.


RC

 

[Desdichado]

I believe the largest obstacle to understanding is believing that there is universal definition of fun. All jokes of "fun is for wimps" aside, I find it hard to believe that even the most hidebound grognards around play in a manner which they find to be unenjoyable. The fun in any game is to be found in the people, not the system. No game book can or should try and define what fun is. Those that try fail on some level or another.

IMHO fun only approaches being tyrannical when an attempt is made to objectively define it.

I've played with plenty of people who took a while to grasp the concept of "playing the game the way that we think is fun" is more important than "playing the game right", so it's worth making the point in a rulebook.

And I think claiming that WotC is trying to objectively define fun is probably the most uncharitable take on that you could take; they tried to give examples of what they thought most people would think of as fun vs. not-fun.

I think a reactionary screed against that, by someone who hadn't even experienced the game, and who cited ENWorld discussions as "evidence" for his conclusions, is ridiculous. If the whole point of the rebellion against the Tyranny of Fun is that Melan (or whomever) is upset that WotC is trying to define fun in a way that he doesn't like, well holy cow, that's ironic.

 

[Desdichado]

Nah. The "heart of the edition wars" is the supposition that, when someone claims a preference that varies from the baseline of edition X, fans of edition X automatically assume that the person making the claim is simply doing so to slam edition X, or to be "cool", or whatever. Anything other than the supposition that the statement is valid at face value.

Yes. That's what I said. You're taking my general statements and then nitpicking them and say the same thing, basically. We're in agreement.

Moreover, if the same behaviour happens with both the newer and older editions, how can "grognards" necessarily be fans of older editions? Or do you propose that "grognards" and "newnards" are somehow different?

Yes. Grognard has picked up (actually, already had it; I guess failed to lose it would be more accurate) an association of being old and crusty. Newnards can't be grognards by definition, even if their behavior really is virtually identical.

I wonder if Melan would agree with your summary?

I rather suspect not, and that you are reading his post in a rather uncharitable light.

I rather suspect not too, because my summary is that it's an inane argument that uses rather literate language to give it the illusion of legitimacy without actually having any legitimate substance behind it.

AFAICT, the core of Melan's post is:

All in all, what we are seeing is the emergence of a philosophy that denies and stifles excellence while encouraging mediocrity and poor play. Attempting to "protect" gamers from their own mistakes will not result in better games - it will limit self-expression, the freedom of creativity and hinder the natural and easy learning process most of us have gone through. It will subtly, although of course not completely, shift roleplaying games towards more passive and consumption-oriented forms of entertainment. The roleplaying hobby will be poorer for it, and it can also be expected to experience slow and continuous shrinkage as it becomes apparent to people that passive and consumption-oriented forms of entertainment offer much better alternatives than sitting around a table and rolling polyhedral dice.​

Which seems, to me, to be a valid concern.

Which seems to me to be exactly what I said... except in more literate terms to make it appear to be a valid concern rather than a bunch of speculative and unsubstantiated, unsubstantiable BS that the subsequent two years or so has not born out.

He goes on to agree, more than once, that his opinion of 4e is not necessarily accurate. This is an IF/THEN statement of sorts. IF his perception is valid, THEN this is the result he foresees. IF you don't think his perception is valid, THEN neither should you find his conclusions valid.

Which is good, but I'm talking about the initial screed, which has become a kind of niche manifesto of sorts in gamer-related internet groups. That he's softened his approach fom the initial rant is a good thing, but it doesn't actually change the content of the initial manifesto either.

This is, therefore, not an argument that the game isn't played for enjoyment, but rather that the kind of enjoyment endorsed by WotC with its current game isn't what the author actually finds "fun". Which supports my point.

I'm not arguing your point. I'm going off in a slightly different direction.

I would, therefore, suggest that you are colouring the post the way you wish to in order to make it fit the point you wish to make.

I certainly don't have any wish to see Melan as some kind of grumpy old grognard. In fact, before I read that post (when it was new, or at least newish) I had no idea Melan was of that persuasion at all, and thought he was something completely different. I don't see any other way in which the post could be read, based on the content of just the post itself. Also, I'm not trying to even make any point, I'm just pointing out that the Tyranny of Fun is a poorly constructed screed full of wishful thinking, bizarre falsehoods about 4e, bizarre falsehoods (or at least they don't jive with my experience at all) about gamers in general, bizarre assertions about human behavior in general, and baseless speculation. From this pool of highly dubious (to put it charitably) "evidence" he creates a conclusion that I obviously don't agree with. But I'm not making a point, I'm just disagreeing with his. And I say this as a non-fan of 4e, even.

I suggest that your subsequent discussions (with Melan himself, it looks like, based on your post above) has colored your interpretation of what the initial Tyranny of Fun manifesto actually says. I never read the whole thread. The first post set the tone, and I found it tiring quickly.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think a reactionary screed against that, by someone who hadn't even experienced the game, and who cited ENWorld discussions as "evidence" for his conclusions, is ridiculous.

That's a position that I would certainly find rational.

We're in agreement.

Huh. Good thing I "nitpicked" then, because that isn't what I got from what you wrote.

EDIT: Went back and reread the exchange. I see it now!

Newnards can't be grognards by definition, even if their behavior really is virtually identical.

I suggest that you're subsequent discussions (with Melan himself, it looks like, based on your post above) has colored your interpretation of what the initial Tyranny of Fun manifesto actually says.

Nah. I just read the post, and the follow-ups on page 1 & 2. Easy enough to do, and wonderful for providing context.

One has to remember that the sole purpose of the InterWeb is to answer the question "Just how stupid am I?" for each and every one of us. Sooner or later, we get to look back at some post, or some blog entry, from a new perspective....and we get our answer.

Even if I often fail to follow my own advice, I do know that a charitable reading of any post is almost always the best course to take.


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

I've played with plenty of people who took a while to grasp the concept of "playing the game the way that we think is fun" is more important than "playing the game right", so it's worth making the point in a rulebook.

And I think claiming that WotC is trying to objectively define fun is probably the most uncharitable take on that you could take; they tried to give examples of what they thought most people would think of as fun vs. not-fun.

I think a reactionary screed against that, by someone who hadn't even experienced the game, and who cited ENWorld discussions as "evidence" for his conclusions, is ridiculous. If the whole point of the rebellion against the Tyranny of Fun is that Melan (or whomever) is upset that WotC is trying to define fun in a way that he doesn't like, well holy cow, that's ironic.

If something has to be pointed out explicitly as being fun (or not) then chances are that it won't be to someone. It's knd of like having to explain a joke in order for it to be funny.

The material itself will either contribute to the fun or not depending on the tastes of the players. Coming out and saying "this is fun" in a rulebook just gives false legitimacy to the dumbing down accusations tossed out by the grognards. The joke almost writes itself:

4E players are SO stupid.

How stupid ARE they?

They are SO stupid that their rulebooks need to remind them what fun is.

Ba-doom-pa!



This is what happens when someone tries to define what is fun " for most people" in a game rules reference manual.

A Dragon magazine article published as an opinionated viewpoint could have made the same observations without being seen as tyrannical.