When "fun" just isn't enough.

[Reynard]

I think you might be assuming a narrow definition of fun is being used when that isn't necessarily what those using the term intended.

I am not so sure. Every Des & Dev article so far, and many blog posts, have made a concerted effort to establish a defintiion of "fun" that centers around how cool and amazing characters will be in combat, and in contrast how all of these other things we have been doing in D&D for so long are not fun. Take, for example, the article on traps. The opening couple of paragraphs is essentially badwrongfunning the style of dungeon exploration that has dominated the game for 30 years.

Now, one problem is that there's been no effort made to talk about the game, the campaign and the experience of D&D outside of combat or combat-like mechanical processes (ex: social "combat"). There's been no mention of long range exploration, no mention of epic tales, not mention of building nations or other lasting organization -- all things that have gotten page space in the same last 2 years that gave us Reserve Feats and Tank Knights, so things that are just as important to even the "new" D&D as all the mechanical, combat oriented stuff.

No. I feel confident in saying that the definition of "fun" that Mike Mearls is using is the ability to kick ass and take names.

 

[Glyfair]

Now, one problem is that there's been no effort made to talk about the game, the campaign and the experience of D&D outside of combat or combat-like mechanical processes (ex: social "combat"). There's been no mention of long range exploration, no mention of epic tales, not mention of building nations or other lasting organization -- all things that have gotten page space in the same last 2 years that gave us Reserve Feats and Tank Knights, so things that are just as important to even the "new" D&D as all the mechanical, combat oriented stuff.

To be fair, this is a new rules edition of the game. I doesn't make much sense to me spend too much focus on new edition articles that state "We have a new edition of the game that will have new rules. Here is some stuff that isn't about the rules, but about things that can be done in almost every edition of the game."

And even with that, they have done that. The new planar background isn't really "combat or combat-like mechanical processes." The points of light campaign articles, the discussion of changes in Forgotten Realms, etc. aren't really that either.

Perhaps you can give examples of the sort of articles you expect that aren't combat or mechanics oriented that would be appropriate to introducing the new edition?

 

[jdrakeh]

I think you might be assuming a narrow definition of fun is being used when that isn't necessarily what those using the term intended.

Good point. Also, what qualifies as "fun" is 100% subjective.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, let's examine that article you reference Reynard. From the Des and Dev article:

Traps have been a part of the Dungeons & Dragons game since its earliest days, fiendish perils that stood right alongside monsters as primary hazards to adventurer life and limb. Some adventures, like the classic Tomb of Horrors, featured traps as the chief threat to life and appendage. Unfortunately, they've rarely had a positive effect on the game. In the early days, DMs all too often felt compelled to demonstrate their cleverness and punish players for making "wrong" choices -- even a choice as simple and random as which passage to explore. Old-school players in the hands of such a DM responded by changing their characters' approach to dungeon exploration. The "right" way to play the game was to slowly and laboriously search each 10-foot square of dungeon before you set foot on it, or to use magic that made traps completely pointless. Neither option was much fun.

By the time 3rd Edition rolled around, traps had become a much smaller part of the game, something you might run across once or twice in an adventure -- and rarely very satisfying when you did. Who wants to roll an endless series of mostly pointless Search checks? If the players decided to simply explore the dungeon and search for the "fun" and got whacked by a trap instead, they felt like they'd been sandbagged by the DM.

Do you really feel this is an unfair characterization of traps in the history of the game? "Greyhawking" isn't a new term. I could find thread after thread here on Enworld extolling the "virtues" of exactly what they are talking about here with numerous negative reactions. Heck, the whole "do you pull a lever" bit a while back was precisely this sort of thing.

Did traps really make the game more enjoyable? Honestly? I know that I had chucked them out in 3e for the most part and no one complained. Look at the Savage Tide Adventure Path and you'll see almost no traps in 12 modules. Heck, I've got the last couple of years of Dungeon magazine and you'll see maybe a couple of traps per issue, at best.

So, this isn't exactly a new thing. The only new bit is that they are coming out and saying it.

Good point. Also, what qualifies as "fun" is 100% subjective.

While this is true, there are some things we can generally agree on at the ends. I can honestly say that watching other people play the game for four hours isn't a whole lot of fun. I can also say that actively participating in the game is fun.

I think most people would agree with that. So, maybe, mechanics that reduce death are a good idea since sitting around while you're dead isn't a whole lot of fun. There's a few ways of doing it - action points, more hp's, playing more than one character - the trick is to find one that most people will like.

Or, to go back to the trap thing for a second. Spending two hours of game time searching every 5 foot square, and having to actually EXPLAIN what you are searching, and not finding anything is likely not a whole lot of fun. Yet, I've seen DM's here claim that D&D should enforce exactly this.

I go back to what I said before. I play games to have fun. If I'm not having fun, I don't want to play. It doesn't have to be a barrel of monkeys every second, but, at no point in that four hour session should I sit there and say, "Wow, I'm wasting my time, this is not any fun."

I cannot understand anyone trying to claim that the game should be less than fun. Ever.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am not so sure.

Here is where I begin to disagree with you, but only a little.

Every Des & Dev article so far, and many blog posts, have made a concerted effort to establish a defintiion of "fun" that centers around how cool and amazing characters will be in combat, and in contrast how all of these other things we have been doing in D&D for so long are not fun. Take, for example, the article on traps. The opening couple of paragraphs is essentially badwrongfunning the style of dungeon exploration that has dominated the game for 30 years.

Yes, it is. But for most people, that's not even entertainment. It's tedium. It's an obvious hoop to jump through. It makes people feel pathetic and worthless in a game of heroic adventure to be ambushed by surprise traps OR to have to cover every inch with a ten-foot pole.

The key for this is that D&D is a game of heroic adventure, NOT a game of gritty dungeon survival. With different expectations come different requirements to be 'entertained'. Traps are part of heroic adventure, too, but in a specific motif (as elongated obstacle courses or bizzarre Rube Goldberg devices).

People expecting heroic adventure will not be entertained by exhaustive trap-checking. It's counter to the goals of heroic adventuring.

People expecting dungeon survival WILL be entertained by exhaustive trap-checking. It's very much in line with the goals of dungeon survival.

To use The Road, if I went into that expecting Mad Max or Waterworld, I wouldn't be entertained.

Now, one problem is that there's been no effort made to talk about the game, the campaign and the experience of D&D outside of combat or combat-like mechanical processes (ex: social "combat"). There's been no mention of long range exploration, no mention of epic tales, not mention of building nations or other lasting organization -- all things that have gotten page space in the same last 2 years that gave us Reserve Feats and Tank Knights, so things that are just as important to even the "new" D&D as all the mechanical, combat oriented stuff.

Here, I do feel your concern, and I sympathize. It sounds a lot like 4e's desire to 'fix' 3e revolves entirely around the combat structure (which, I predict, is going to kill social encounters and take their stuff), while leaving the noncombat structure open.

This is, at least, a missed opportunity. The game has lacked good story-structure and character-development rules since it's inception, and it's something 4e seems to be not paying attention to, either.

It's not catastrophic, though. If they bring the wahoo element back to combat, it's not going to stop the other types of entertainment the game can give me. Because Combat can't really provide the catharsis and emotional investment that takes place in the context of the world and the characters. D&D's position has largely been 'you don't need books for that.'

No. I feel confident in saying that the definition of "fun" that Mike Mearls is using is the ability to kick ass and take names.

Fun includes that concept, but where do you see Mearls excluding the other ideas of 'entertainment' that are good for the game?

 

[Reynard]

The key for this is that D&D is a game of heroic adventure, NOT a game of gritty dungeon survival.

One wonders when this change took place. Certainly not at the outset of 3E with its "back to the dungeon" approach and marketting and a system that was built almost exclusively around dungeon crawling.

 

[I'm A Banana]

One wonders when this change took place. Certainly not at the outset of 3E with its "back to the dungeon" approach and marketting and a system that was built almost exclusively around dungeon crawling.

It's always been there. Since the first knight slew the first dragon and saved the town, since we had continuous characters instead of wargame models, since we bagan to worry about verisimilitude over XP and GP...

It hasn't always been well expressed, but it's been there. In resurrection, in hit points, in the very nature of levels, in the source material the game pulls from, it's been there.

4e is making it more well-expressed than it often has been, but I've never, ever played or DM a game where survival against a deadly grind was more important than getting the McGuffin, saving Podunk, and killing the Big Bad.

That 4e is taking this direction suggests that if you have been using D&D to play dungeon survival, that you are in a distinct minority.

Not that 4e can't be used for that purposes, merely that with some of 4e's mechanics (everybody heals, second winds, big 'survival' hp bonuses, a flattened power curve), it might not be the best suited to it.

 

[Lanefan]

"Heroic" fantasy

It's always been there. Since the first knight slew the first dragon and saved the town, since we had continuous characters instead of wargame models, since we bagan to worry about verisimilitude over XP and GP...

It hasn't always been well expressed, but it's been there. In resurrection, in hit points, in the very nature of levels, in the source material the game pulls from, it's been there.

At very high level in all editions I agree. At low level in 0-1-2e and at low-mid level in 3e I disagree...the grind *is* the game; and that's as it should be, with occasional reward to the party and a growing reputation as competent problem-solvers. I find the quickest way to cause a campaign to collapse under its own weight at any level is to have the PCs heroically save the world...because, really, how do you top that? Once you've jumped the save-the-world shark, where can you go from there? Nowhere.

4e is making it more well-expressed than it often has been, but I've never, ever played or DM a game where survival against a deadly grind was more important than getting the McGuffin, saving Podunk, and killing the Big Bad.

Except that if you don't survive the grind then the McGuffin and Podunk are out of luck and the Big Bad lives happily ever after... The game should be much more than just one dramatic climax after another...if there's no plains or valleys, the peaks become commonplace and thus dull.

Lanefan

 

[Reynard]

At very high level in all editions I agree. At low level in 0-1-2e and at low-mid level in 3e I disagree...the grind *is* the game; and that's as it should be, with occasional reward to the party and a growing reputation as competent problem-solvers. I find the quickest way to cause a campaign to collapse under its own weight at any level is to have the PCs heroically save the world...because, really, how do you top that? Once you've jumped the save-the-world shark, where can you go from there? Nowhere.

I agree with you, but I don't think that's what KM was talking about -- I think he was talking about simply doing more than grinding", having a motivation and a goal and succeeding through grit and wit. It can be whatever scale is appropriate to the campaign, character level, etc... The point is that there is *more* to the game than the mechanical process of play, and ultimately that more is heroic in nature (though that's hardly a rule set in stone).

KM can correct me if I am wrong.

I think you are right, though, that there are certain kinds of victories that should be saved for the end of a campaign. "Going out on a high note" is generally best in D&D (and rpgs in general) I think. If not, I suggest at least a major shift in the focus of the game -- to rulership or maybe jumping to the planes where the Big Fish PCs are now in a very, very Big Pond. If the PCs spend their entire careers hunting down Bargle, killing him is awesome, but anything after is just "meh" unless great care is taken. Of course, one way to avoid it is through episodic play with few, if any, Big Bads and Epic Plots, which is both perfectly viable and not necessarily indicative of a game without depth or immersion.

 

[I'm A Banana]

At very high level in all editions I agree. At low level in 0-1-2e and at low-mid level in 3e I disagree...the grind *is* the game; and that's as it should be, with occasional reward to the party and a growing reputation as competent problem-solvers. I find the quickest way to cause a campaign to collapse under its own weight at any level is to have the PCs heroically save the world...because, really, how do you top that? Once you've jumped the save-the-world shark, where can you go from there? Nowhere.

There's a few different tricks that make sure this never gets old.
[sblock]
For one, you're not always saving the world at 3rd level. Like I said, getting the McGuffin or rescuing Podunk or beating up the town bully. This isn't a grind, but it isn't an epic confrontation, either. It's a small, localized story, that's important to the PC's and the town, but maybe not to much outside of it. At third level, you kill the "goblin king" who lurks just ouside of town, or free the village from the opression of the Ogre Brothers. It's still saving the day, it's just on a smaller scale.

For two, you might be working for a much more long-term goal. If, eventually, you will need to confront the Empire of the Necromancer-King, at low levels you skirmish his skeletons and zombies, weakening his forces, hitting him in an achilles heel that he doesn't know he has. You achieve minor, temporary victories that give you the XP you need to level up and, eventually, have major, permenant victories.

For three, there's never just one world to save. If I have a setting where the PC's can beat up the BBEG at third level, that's fine. Next week, we make new characters in a new setting and have a new BBEG at, perhaps, 25th level.

For four, the world is never saved forever. Each success craetes new problems, and each victory makes the next failure all the more painful. Fast forward a few years, a decade, a generation, a century....something else is going to threaten the safety and sanity of the lands you love.
[/sblock]

Whatever trick you use, you are never playing "dungeon survival," where success depends on luck and hyper-caution, failure is only a matter of time, and the rewards are buckets of gold and magic (and bragging rights!).

Even low-level characters are still heroic beings who fit in a narrative. They aren't cookie-cutter dungeon-delvers who are lucky to make it to 5th level intact.

Now, this has definately been a focus shift throughout editions, and I'm not knocking dungeon survival (which can be loads of fun with the right system). 4e just seems to be taking many steps closer to the heroic adventure model, which, in many ways, means it's less suited for gritty dungeon survival.

That means that the fun that people expect out of 4e involves being heroes, saving NPC's, beating up bad guys, and getting to know the characters and the world. The OP mentioned a poingiant moment where the death of a family member needed to be reported; I don't see 4e stepping away from this at all. It might not be a mechanical focus (which, I agree, is something of a missed opportunity), but the designers do seem to be interested in this kind of fun.

Dungeon Survival is an entirley different 'genre' of gameplay, one that people expecting heroic fantasy won't have much fun with, in the same way that people expecting Mad Max when they go to read The Road won't have much fun with it. People expecting to save the village from the Ogre Brothers won't much enjoy spending four hours checking for traps and moving forward silently and having random encounters with things that they are expected to run away from at least as often as they are expected to fight them....that's not heroic, so it doesn't mesh with people's expectations, so it's not very entertaining.

And I'm using 'fun' and 'entertainment' synonymously here, because I think it *is* meant that way when even Mearls is talking about it.

Except that if you don't survive the grind then the McGuffin and Podunk are out of luck and the Big Bad lives happily ever after... The game should be much more than just one dramatic climax after another...if there's no plains or valleys, the peaks become commonplace and thus dull.

I don't think this is accurate. Every episode of, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, was a dramatic climax. They all reached a seasonal dramatic climax about once per year where they saved the world (again). The seasons even had nested dramatic climaxes accross them (the Angel story, the Spike story, etc.).

To make a more ancient analogue, think about Homer's epics. Each island or hazard Odyseus encountered was a dramatic peak, and accross them all, he had the building climax of his reunion with his family (which turned out to be ANOTHER dramatic climax).

Heroic adventure thrives in this episodic narrative format, where the peaks build on each other, like waves lapping the shore, building themselves bigger and bigger only to crash and start all over again. The concept is broad enough to embrace little successes, big successes, and many continuums in between, and the thrust is compelling enough (modeling story structure that is largely unchanged in human experience) that it's rewarding, over and over again.

I think he was talking about simply doing more than grinding", having a motivation and a goal and succeeding through grit and wit. It can be whatever scale is appropriate to the campaign, character level, etc... The point is that there is *more* to the game than the mechanical process of play, and ultimately that more is heroic in nature (though that's hardly a rule set in stone).

Pretty much, yeah. That certain kinds of fun are mutually exclusive (you can't feel very heroic in a typical dungeon survival game because it's specifically about living to see tomorrow; and you can't get too gritty in a typical heroic adventure game because it's specifically about ignoring the daily needs and focusing on the story structure), and 4e has apparently chosen the needs of heroic adventure over dungeon survival. That doesn't mean that entertainment can't be had from poingiant moments, sad stories, and tragic arcs (indeed, this is a game of chance -- the PC's might fail to save the town, the country, or the world), not all the fun has to be WAHOO fun, and I don't think the designers are purely interested in WAHOO fun. I do think they're interested in heroic adventure, though, which means that some elements of dungeon survival that the game has (deadly traps, searching for hours, random encounters, quick low-level death) are probably going by the wayside, no matter how fun they are in the dungeon survival mode. You will still have heartrending moments of tragedy in a game with a good DM. You won't have a constant fear of a quick and merciless death so much, I think (which, again, can be a lot of fun in the right game).

I think you are right, though, that there are certain kinds of victories that should be saved for the end of a campaign. "Going out on a high note" is generally best in D&D (and rpgs in general) I think. If not, I suggest at least a major shift in the focus of the game -- to rulership or maybe jumping to the planes where the Big Fish PCs are now in a very, very Big Pond. If the PCs spend their entire careers hunting down Bargle, killing him is awesome, but anything after is just "meh" unless great care is taken. Of course, one way to avoid it is through episodic play with few, if any, Big Bads and Epic Plots, which is both perfectly viable and not necessarily indicative of a game without depth or immersion.

Right on all counts. If they spend, say, levels 1-15 hunting down Bargle and kill him, finally, at 15th level, then something has to change. It could change in a lot of ways. Peace could reign for 30 years or so. Bargle could have just been a vessel for a greater evil. We switch to a brand new world with a brand new challenge. One of Bargle's sidekicks picks up where he left off. Bargle had a clone somewhere. Whatever.

But with regards to the WAHOO fun, I don't think the designers are focused on it exclusively, and the traps article points out that they're definately thinking of D&D in terms as a heroic adventure game, not a dungeon survival game. You can still have tragedy and suffering and low points that are plenty of fun in a heroic adventure game (I mean, think about the classic tale of Gilgamesh, where the guy FAILS MISERABLY, think about how Achilles dies, think about how Paradise Lost is all about something tragic happening to humanity), but what is harder to mesh is the 'grind.' They're getting rid of the grind, by and large, I suspect, because it doesn't mesh well with heroic adventure. There will still be dungeons, but the traps will be obstacle courses, the monsters will be scheming plotters with agendas, and the treasure will be incidental, rather than the massive focus. Less about killing things and taking their stuff, more about confronting bad guys and saving the day.

This will remove some of the 'dungeon survival' fun from the game. Mostly because characters will survive more things and are expected to last in the long-term. Also because characters won't become super-powerful and able to negate most dangers with a flick of a wand (which is about being able to 'beat' a dungeon more than about saving the day). Traps won't be as instantly deadly (rust monsters won't eat everything all at once, no Ear Seekers, etc.). Characters will live longer, because they're heroes, not survivalists.