Why do the designers want it to be "cool" and "fun"

[root.tar]

I always read statements from the 4Ed designer like "fun" and "cool"

In the 4Edition enworld newspage there is 31 times the word "fun" quoted.
http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e

What's that supposed to mean? Is the target audience of 4Ed a bunch of birdbrained underaged?

I don't want "fun" and "cool" games - that are terms for the nintendo kid generation.


Do the designer want to exclude the intellectual and full-grown audience?

 

[Yaezakura]

It is possible for something to be cool and fun, yet still offer an intellectually stimulating experience.

Also, I wasn't aware fun had an age limit, and that people over a certain age weren't allowed to have fun with the games they play.

 

[Simm]

Would you really prefer to play D&D and have it not be fun?

I agree that the language used to describe 4e can somtimes be a bit juvenile, and I think WotC could stand to use a thesaurus more, but I want my game to be fun.

Cool I can take or leave, D&D will never be cool from what I've seen and I'd prefer not to have it associated with my games. I'd really prefer them to be awesome (that is, inspireing of awe) or marvelous (likewise causeing marvel), but they're just words. How it plays is going to be much more important than what they say about the game now.

 

[FadedC]

Yeah who are these people who think that games are supposed to be fun. Gaming is serious business.

 

[Derro]

Yeah who are these people who think that games are supposed to be fun. Gaming is serious business.

Ha!





I'll go now...

 

[root.tar]

To have "fun" while gaming should be a normal thing.

To make propganda with that terminus is primitive, subculture und infantil. You cant use it if you sell products for full-grown people.

You use it for kids which read comics or play games.

 

[small pumpkin man]

There's a very good quote from Mearls (I think it was Mearls) talking about the quest mechanic, where talks about how as a game designer, he can't put things like "at this point, the GM does some really good roleplaying", or "at this point, the players have a deep IC philosophical discussion". Certain Indie games really go out of their way to encourage this, but they can't make the players do it, and it should be pointed out that there's a large group of D&D players who think that any rules like this "kill roleplaying", and got completely up in arms over the non-combat encounter system.

Such systems also don't really belong in game designed around pretending to be Elves and conducting racially motivated break and enter. While many actual, in-play games involve depth and intellectualism, this has always come from the table, not the rules. The best they can do with the rules is make them fun and awesome.

 

[fafhrd]

Lemme guess, bathing yourself in meatsauce before jumping into lion cages is a hobby of yours.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Text of post removed because it is never a good idea to post when you are really mad.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

I prefer for my games to be both cool and fun, regardless of age. I believe the designers saught to align a specific elegance to the game that appeals across the spectrum of player types.

Then again, who cares what words they use to describe their aims? Either way, I like what I see thus far and have playtested, and if that means they're "cool", "awesome", "marvelous", "awe-inspiring" or truly "epic" - well, to me it's the same thing.

Cheers,
d.

edit - speaking of Nintento, I was weened on video games. I am thirty years old, and I believe that the more influence they have on the tride and true tabletop game, the better. It certainly doesn't make it dumb, or silly, or even "kiddie". It does add a specific element of play though that really didn't exist in the core rules before.