Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
WotC: "Why We Aren’t Funny"
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="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 7679518" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>Keep in mind our hypothetical DM <em>has a problem with that resolution.</em> So already, I'm not describing anyone who is fine with that sort of play, but people who take issue with that solution. </p><p></p><p>In general, a game where "you can do anything" that requires some human arbiter is a bad fit for someone who wants to achieve a significant mechanical victory because of its unbound solution space. Simply speaking, being able to do anything isn't a good test of your skill at doing a particular thing. Taking out a bridge below a golem with a player that wants that challenge is like playing a game of chess where one player plops down an action figure in a square and calls it a "super-knight" - there's suddenly very different goals in play.</p><p></p><p>I recognize that our hypothetical DM who is upset that their challenge has been easily thwarted doesn't value the humor (or else they wouldn't be taking issue) and instead values the <em>mechanical challenge</em>. This is a recipe for being disgruntled with D&D, in general, because D&D has plenty of ways for clever thinking to circumvent mechanical challenges when you play it out of the box (though individual groups can certainly opt into more constraints that make that mechanical challenge more worthwhile - they agree that targeting the bridge isn't going to serve those goals, so they don't do that). D&D is OK with super-knights. You aren't going to get a straight game of chess without playing a very particular version of the game. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, we're talking about a hypothetical player who <em>is upset because the table laughed at what was supposed to be a tense scene</em>. A player who doesn't do that isn't this hypothetical player that Decker & Noonan are discussing as the reason they weren't funny in 2005. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Then it isn't actually what I'm discussing. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well let me then state for the record that if you don't play like me, I can't and won't stop you from playing D&D. In fact: if you don't play like me, I <strong>love</strong> the fact that you're playing D&D. </p><p></p><p>But if you're <em>you're not happy when your table bursts out into laughter</em>, lets examine what you hope to get out of this game in more detail. There's clearly a problem there, and I'm inclined to the perspective that it's not the people who are laughing and having fun who are the problem. It could be that playing the game more like how I play it will help you to have more fun when everyone's laughing about a joke and not get upset about it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 7679518, member: 2067"] Keep in mind our hypothetical DM [I]has a problem with that resolution.[/I] So already, I'm not describing anyone who is fine with that sort of play, but people who take issue with that solution. In general, a game where "you can do anything" that requires some human arbiter is a bad fit for someone who wants to achieve a significant mechanical victory because of its unbound solution space. Simply speaking, being able to do anything isn't a good test of your skill at doing a particular thing. Taking out a bridge below a golem with a player that wants that challenge is like playing a game of chess where one player plops down an action figure in a square and calls it a "super-knight" - there's suddenly very different goals in play. I recognize that our hypothetical DM who is upset that their challenge has been easily thwarted doesn't value the humor (or else they wouldn't be taking issue) and instead values the [I]mechanical challenge[/I]. This is a recipe for being disgruntled with D&D, in general, because D&D has plenty of ways for clever thinking to circumvent mechanical challenges when you play it out of the box (though individual groups can certainly opt into more constraints that make that mechanical challenge more worthwhile - they agree that targeting the bridge isn't going to serve those goals, so they don't do that). D&D is OK with super-knights. You aren't going to get a straight game of chess without playing a very particular version of the game. Again, we're talking about a hypothetical player who [I]is upset because the table laughed at what was supposed to be a tense scene[/I]. A player who doesn't do that isn't this hypothetical player that Decker & Noonan are discussing as the reason they weren't funny in 2005. Then it isn't actually what I'm discussing. Well let me then state for the record that if you don't play like me, I can't and won't stop you from playing D&D. In fact: if you don't play like me, I [B]love[/B] the fact that you're playing D&D. But if you're [I]you're not happy when your table bursts out into laughter[/I], lets examine what you hope to get out of this game in more detail. There's clearly a problem there, and I'm inclined to the perspective that it's not the people who are laughing and having fun who are the problem. It could be that playing the game more like how I play it will help you to have more fun when everyone's laughing about a joke and not get upset about it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
WotC: "Why We Aren’t Funny"
Top