The first half of this post is context for those who don't read every thread that pops up. To get to the meat of it, scroll down to Levi's quote.

Quote from: fonkagarryFor the love of FUCK people. You got theory discussion in a humor thread.

Stop it.

Because of this, I started a new thread. This came out of a discussion on the indiegamescene blog (parody of rpg theorists). I had said,

In case anyone think the indiegamingscene blog is pure parody, and exaggeration, take this recent comment on story-games. It was a thread about "your least favourite jargon terms." Other people mentioned "Narrativism", "shared imaginary space", okay, reasonable so far. Merten comes up with "fun." Fun? Yes, it's a word he doesn't want to hear!

Quote from: Merten"Fun" is something that's promoted as the central reward of roleplaying, the end result, the stuff why people play. "Fun" also indicates something that you enjoy, that you have fun, that is cool and exciting and all that. "Fun" is a misleading term, promoting light-hearted, funny stuff and misses a whole lot of darker, more emotional and in a sense, intense stuff. "Fun" can be used as a safety net for not going where the disturbing, psychological, emotional issues lay, or at least keep them at arm's length; players are having "fun" while their characters are not. It's not "fun" to be angry, jealous, to hate something, cry, cheat, or to have someone you care to die, but it's still very meaningful and very rewarding. "Fun" is a double misnomer because some games look into these issues and still talk about "fun".

"Fun" is also something connected to "everybody participates", "everyone gets the his place in the limelight", "everyone has an equal say what happens" which is then a whole another discussion because people think what's "fun" for them is "fun" for everyone, and no other kind of "fun" can exist.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenJimBob actually said it best, once, when he talked about fun, satisfaction, and other forms of enjoyment.

I can't find that post, but it was good stuff.

Which is why I'm baffled by his jumping at Merten.

"Fun", in the sense of playful, bantering, light-hearted stuff, isn't always what we're after.  And redefining words is a Dumb Idea.  So more words are good.

I use words the way people usually mean them. English is a language with a lot of words, it's rare that you really need to make up a new one to describe some idea.

"Fun" to most people means laughing, light-hearted.

"Fulfilment" means satisfying in a deeper sort of way.

So, a one-night stand or a fistful of McD's burger is fun, but it ain't fulfilling. Looking after your sick spouse, or waxing your car, ain't fun, but it's fulfilling.

When people talk about roleplaying, often they use the word "fun" to mean both "fun" and "fulfilling." So someone has a mindless hack through a dungeon, and they say, "we had fun!" Then someone else talks about his Dogs in the Vienyard game where they got some bloke to shoot his own son, and they say, "we had fun, too!" And the two people just stare at each-other going, "what the fuck are you on about, man?"

The mindless hack is best called "fun," and the deep-and-meaningful-and-stressful one is best called "fulfilling." Both fun and fulfilling are according to your personal tastes.

For example, I once had a game session where my character, in a postapocalyptic world, was asked by a warlord to go and whack some other warlord. I (my character) didn't really want to do this, but normally I'd have been a typical PC and said, "okay, whatever. How much cash for it?" But the GM had given me a thirteen year old daughter. So I was thinking, "wow, what will my daughter think of me if I whack a guy for cash?" I wanted to refuse. But then, I knew that the warlord was the kind of guy who'd say, "I will take your daughter hostage until you have killed this man." So I was offered a choice - between my daughter's safety, and her respect.

That wasn't fun at all. But it was fulfilling. My actions had real meaning in the game world, I cared what happened to my character, and to this NPC his daughter. Other people would hate that.

Merten isn't making that fun/fulfilment distinction. The two are hopelessly muddled in his post. He's basically saying that fun is for morons, and fulfilment is for mature people. Which is a load of old bollocks.

I say that there exist "fun", and "fulfilment". The two are not mutually exclusive, you can have both at once. Often, people are only interested in one or the other. That's fine. Where I get pissed off is when people present their personal tastes as being objectively good. For example, we've got a guy on rpg.net who offered us Four simple rules to identify good roleplaying. He's another muddled guy, mixing up "good roleplayer" (portrays character convincingly) with "good player" (contributes to fun and success of group). And he tells us that if you don't roleplay as he does (somewhat immersive), you're not a good roleplayer, or maybe even not roleplaying.

I hate that sort of shit.

Thoughts? Unlike that bloke on rpg.net, or half the theorists, I post to hear what people have to say to me, not just enlighten the darkness of your ignorance with the brilliant light of my genius


Note: Wasn't sure where this thread should go. Is it general roleplaying talk? Theory? Craft? We might have to let it go a couple dozen posts and see where it goes.

Quote from: JimBobOzMerten isn't making that fun/fulfilment distinction. The two are hopelessly muddled in his post.[/I]

A lot of muddling is going on, subsuming everything into the word 'fun'.  Whether the two are confused for Merten or not, it's common in RPG discussion.

Hell, I've looked back at old posts of mine, seen myself doing it, and been forced to roll my eyes at myself.

(Which is tricky, by the way).

What you're sayin' up there sounds alot like theory.

I'm a little bored by moral conundrums myself. Mostly, they aren't there. Are you seriously implying that you'd ever let a 40something warlord hold your daughter hostage? Respect be damned, let him try and I'll kill him and take his place as warlord. That's both fulfilling and fun, IMHO.

That said, I like both the darker worlds and the kicking of ass.

Quote from: JimBobOzHe's basically saying that fun is for morons, and fulfilment is for mature people. Which is a load of old bollocks.

Where?  I'm looking right straight at this post, looking for the thing you say is there.  I don't see it.  Point it out to me.

Quote from: beejazzI'm a little bored by moral conundrums myself. Mostly, they aren't there. Are you seriously implying that you'd ever let a 40something warlord hold your daughter hostage? Respect be damned, let him try and I'll kill him and take his place as warlord. That's both fulfilling and fun, IMHO.

It would have been, however I was alone and unarmed in a room with four armed guards who were all bigger than me. If I'd flipped out at that point, I'd be dead, and unable to help my daughter. At this point, I was only a 50CP GURPS character, so there were limits as to what I could do

Later, I... but that's another story!

But this just proves what I've said - everyone has different tastes in roleplaying. I liked that - not for every session, but for one session it was good. You wouldn't. If you were joining my game group, with me GMing, I'd ask you first what sort of stuff you liked, and ask everyone else, too. Then I'd try to give everyone a bit of what they liked.

There's no One True Way. GMing and game design would be a lot simpler if there were, but unfortunately, nup.

Well, I'm not speaking for Merten, but I'll put in my two cents on the topic of the term "fun".  

I see an awful lot of stupid use of the word "fun".  Like "I play for fun, not for realism.  You guys prioritize realism over fun."  You can see the same accusations how people put "game balance" over fun, or "theme" over fun, or any number of others things.  

I find this to be moronic non-sequitor.  Because some people enjoy having realism, game balance, theme, or what-have-you in their games.  i.e. It's "fun" for them.  No one plays for things which they don't enjoy, so it's a stupid accusation.  

My impression was that Merten was reacting against this type of usage of the term "fun", but regardless, that's my feeling.

Quote from: JimBobOzI use words the way people usually mean them. English is a language with a lot of words, it's rare that you really need to make up a new one to describe some idea.

You see Jimbob, you always post like you exist in that space in Pulp Fiction just before Jules waste that geek - "English motherfucker, do you speak it!"

I pretty much agree with the fun/fulfilment distinction. I also think that one of the reasons there is so much animosity towards some games, is that perhaps, certain games are more condusive for running fulfilment type games -although this is a generalization on my part - and the manner in which these games are presented rubs people the wrong way.

Regards,
David R

Wow, JimBob.  Just...wow.

Quote from: David RI pretty much agree with the fun/fulfilment distinction. I also think that one of the reasons there is so much animosity towards some games, is that perhaps, certain games are more condusive for running fulfilment type games -although this is a generalization on my part - and the manner in which these games are presented rubs people the wrong way.

Regards,
David R

Also, not everyone gets fulfilment from the same thing...or fun, for that matter.

Wow what? Explain yourself!

Being a contrarian I prefer to use the first definition for a word in a dictionary. Because that's the way most people tend to use it (with a few exceptions). So fun = enjoyment. Or in other words, "Did you have fun?" means "Did you enjoy it?"

And enjoyment is not necessarily finding it funny. Sometimes enjoyment means you found it engaging, intriguing, involving. Sometimes enjoying something means you found it enthralling, that it gave you a lift, a frisson of fear. Scary movies are fun because they scare you, not in spite of the fear.

Tricking someone who can kill you with a glance, that's fun. But people apparently can't get it through their head that tricking your enemy is a legitimate strategy. They think they have to kill the other guy in a fair fight, when all they really need to do is to achieve their goal.

Games stop being fun, stop being enjoyable when the GM and/or the rules limit how the game is to be played. I disagree with both Bergstrom and the :pundit: . Say neither yes or no. Say instead, "Give it a shot and we'll see what happens."

It's not your story to tell, it's their imaginary lives to live.

Quote from: mythusmageSay neither yes or no. Say instead, "Give it a shot and we'll see what happens."

Frankly, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference between that and saying "Well, yes: you can try..."

I think Merten may well have had a point actually, but I think he phrased it badly and so muddled it.

That said, he phrased it with a particular audience in mind and we are not that audience.  I think that is relevant also.

If the point was that fun is not the be all and end all and that there are other satisfactions in gaming too, then he's right, though I think it hardly merits a rant.

If he means that issues driven gaming is better than light hearted gaming, then he's wrong as he's ascribing value to an issue which is one of poor taste.

If he thinks fun is a term with a defined jargonised meaning, he's wrong.

But I think we're possibly overreading the guy.  I suspect all he is railing against is the way often in threads people come in saying "gaming is about fun" which strictly speaking is not necessarily true, certainly it's not true for everyone.

It is for me though, I game for fun.  But if Merten has other goals, that's his business and no problem for me.  If Merten wants to speak about his other goals and I come in saying "dude, lighten up, it's all about teh fun" then he does have an issue and I think that is really what he's talking about.

But I didn't really find his post clear enough to be sure.  Are we not maybe looking to be offended here though?  One guy on another site made a comment that can should one wish be construed negatively, so what?

Quote1) Fun (already done)

2) Because it's not why we play, not all the time, and it indicates a certain level of comfortable joviality must be achieved. I also feel that Fun is something which is applied continuously, but in fact many games have times of lag, of dissatisfaction, but they turn out alright in the end. And the other guys said the rest.

3) Satisfaction. Happens at the end when you can say "yes, that was right and proper". That's my reward, and my criteria for why I play a game at all. And it fits too.

That was a follow up post by another poster, put like that it seems pretty inoffensive to me and I think correct actually.

Quote from: JimBobOzWow what? Explain yourself!

You helped me express something I didn't know how to.  Thanks.

Hence the wow.

Quote from: joewolzYou helped me express something I didn't know how to.  Thanks.

Oh! Cheers, mate.

...

Does that mean you'll run a game for me? Always the bridesmaid, and never the bride... er, I mean, always the GM and never the player. I am hanging out...