The F Word (Fun)

[Humphrey]

Yes, well I hope you understand that I can't and won't advocate modifying, replacing or ignoring the rules.

I would think that the ENTIRE point of a game is for those playing it to have fun doing so. If selectively modifying, replacing and/or ignoring the rules of the game results in the players enjoying the game (as Brian stated his group does), how can anyone have a problem with that? Particularly when, as stated multiple times in this thread (as well as the book itself), these modifications, replacements and/or omissions of rules are being used to allow the game to be enjoyed in a manner outside of its originally intended parameters.

Essentially, Brian is suggesting that MG need not be limited, but with just a little bit of creativity and common sense on the part of storyteller it is a versatile game capable of being used to tell a large number of stories. Assuming that Brian isn't just blatantly lying, he's apparently got six happy player playing your game. I'd think that you'd be proud that your creation was being found to have such versatility, rather than complaining that he is not rigorously following every minutia of the rules.

[luke]

Hiya Humph,

I split this post so we could discuss the issues that you brought up. Are you interested in having this discussion or were you just sounding off?

[Aramis]

Luke specifically seems to have intentionally avoided the infamous Gygaxian "Rule 0" ("The GM is always right, and can warp, bend, or twist the rules as he sees fit")...
Gygax made a severe tactical error there, IMO. The industry grasped that one bit, tossed in the afterward, that said, in essence, "Don't call us... just make a decision and run with it." Couple that with D&D little book edition, and no two games were even close. But the industry seems to have impressed that into almost every RPG out there.

Luke also has support for tinkering... but is pretty harsh about "try what's written, first" when people who apparently haven't come to grips with what BW is (or MG, or BE, or FM...).

He'll be among the first, Thor with him, to call you on it if he thinks it relevant. He plays these games. A lot. He writes them, then shuts up about them and plays them under others who have read them.

I, over many years, have come to realize that many of the games I didn't like were not because the game itself was broken, but that the GM wasn't playing the rules as written. It voids the warranty, so to speak. And Luke limits discussion of alterations to specific, clearly labeled forae... and I think I grasp why: to protect the rules that he knows can be interpreted correctly from the text alone.

And if you don't understand it, or grasp why, ask. Luke, Thor, and the crew, and others, will explain how and often why.

And Luke writes games that truly benefit from a good run by the letter to find the odd bits and interactions. Sometimes a small change has HUGE ramifications.

When you have sufficient experience with the RAW to know you're doing it by the RAW, and something still doesn't jive, THEN hack. And, if you're going to hack, make it a group consensus that it needs to be hacked.

Heck, I ran a post-atomic game with stock BWR... all we did was restrict options and allow a few odd weapon choices.... and to use a Satyr as a man with mechanical leg extensions, and a horned helmet... and the rest just flowed from the combination of premise and applying the RAW.

In running a longish Mouseguard Campaign, I discovered one little bitty bit I was doing wrong later on, and it was the death knell of the campaign... I got sloppy about making players describe their conflict actions... and it went from vibrant to dull right quick.

[Humphrey]

I don't mind having a discussion; however, I think that the main issue is a fundamental difference of opinion. Therefore, I don't know how fruitful the discussion will be (i.e. I have no illusions I will convince you of anything or that you will sway my opinions).

First off, by way of full disclosure, I should mention that I have NO reverence whatsoever for the rules as written. All I care about in an RPG is telling a fun and interesting story. IMHO, any rules that interfere with that goal should be ignored, replaced, or modified no matter how fundamental they may seem to the game.

I consider this a matter of preferred style and I realize that others may prefer a different style of play. For example, based on their post, I suspect that there is a fair chance that Aramis would not particularly enjoy a game I ran or one that enjoyed immensely, and I also suspect that I might well chafe at a game that they ran or greatly enjoyed. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that; different people prefer different things.

My main complaint (to the extent I have one) is the implication that someone is doing something wrong if they tweak the rules of a game to better fit their situation/preference. It seems clear from what was said, and what I've seen in the rules, that MG was originally written/intended to be run with squads of three PCs. However, not every RPG group has exactly four members. Therefore, there was a question about what to do if you happen to have a larger group.

One answer would be to exclude some members and play the game as intended. This seemed to be the implied suggestion.

Brian provided another answer, which was to tweak the rules in certain ways to make a larger group (specifically 6 PCs) work more smoothly, and noted that his player were actually enjoying this modified version of MG. The response, however, seemed to imply that Brian was doing something wrong because he was not rigorously following the rules. I don't agree with this opinion.

And I tried to suggest a positive spin (i.e. that Brian's solution demonstrated the versatility of the basic MG system).

[ThisIsVictor]

An interesting comparison, I think, are board games. I wouldn't change the rules of Settlers of Catan because one player isn't having fun. It might not sound like a good analogy because I'm not trying to tell a story when I play Settlers. But the rules of BW are designed to help you tell a good story, so I think it works.

You said rules that interfered with story telling should be removed. I would argue that no rule in BW (or any Bx game) does that, though it's sometimes really hard to figure out how some rules help the story.

Not exactly a helpful answer I think, but I hope at least I'm being interesting.
--Victor

[luke]

I have found that using the F word -- fun -- when talking about games is unproductive.

Now, I'm not saying that the ultimate goal of a game isn't to have fun. But fun is subjective.

I can have fun posting to the forums.
I can have fun completing a mission in Mouse Guard.
I can have fun in Burning Wheel when my character is beaten to shreds and exiled -- even though my face is purple and I'm pounding on the table, howling with rage, I'm having fun.

I can have fun when I win. I can have fun when I lose.

So fun is everywhere. And apparently, you don't even need a game to have fun. Posting on the forums is fun for me!

So if I don't need a game to have fun, why do I design games? No one needs them.

Because a game is about much more than "fun." Game play is a meaningful part of our culture. Game play engages a significant part of our personalites. Competition, strategy, puzzle-solving, collaboration, fairness, uncertainty, risk, reward -- these are elements of games that make them fun. When we play a game, we enter a special mental space, separate and different from all others in our lives. We agree -- explicitly or implicitly -- to abide by the rules so that all of the players can engage with the activity in a fair and reasonable manner. Now, "fair and reasonable manner" can mean that I get to shoot you in the face during the game -- and you have to leave the field when I do -- but once the game is over, there's no more face-shooting.

Thus in roleplaying games, we engage with a system that challenges us. We use a set of rules that forces us from our comfort zone and encourages us to think and act in a manner we would not otherwise. We play the game. We don't need the game to have fun. We can have fun anywhere, any time. Rather, we use the game to create unanticipated, unexpected results. We use the game to give everyone at the table a role in play. And we engage with that game as a neutral arbiter, to ensure that play is fair.

It just so happens that my games are rigorously playtested. So that in addition to challenging and engaging you, we know that the outcome of the game is likely to amuse and interest you. Maybe not in the moment -- it's hard to say "I'm having fun!" when your patrol mouse is hungry, angry, tired, injured and sick -- but afterwards, when you reflect on those trying events, we think you'll say it was fun. Because in the end, you get to stand up to that crushing weight and, win or lose, fight to be a hero. And I'd much rather have you say about my games, "It was hard -- my patrol mouse was impaled by a shrike," than "it was fun!"

[Humphrey]

Luke, this is why I noted that we have a fundamental difference of opinion. I do not agree with your basic premise and you do not agree with mine.

Regarding Victor's comment, I play boardgames for completely different reasons than why I play RPGs. I play boardgames to win. I can still enjoy myself even if I lose, but I play to win. That is not why I play RPGs. In fact, I really don't accept the concept of 'winning' as part of roleplaying. Sure, your character has goals, and should have to struggle to attain them, but that is different than 'winning' to me. Acheiving goals doesn't end the game, it just moves it on to the next chapter. What concerns me when roleplaying is the entertainment value of the story being told. Also, boardgames are intrinsically limited in scope. RPGs are much more open-ended. Therefore, I have to question the usefulness of the Catan analogy.

As an example of what I mean, one of the most memorable scenes for me in one particular RPG I played in for several years involved a boxing match with an NPC. It became obvious after a fair bit of running the fight scene that my character was woefully over-matched; however, because of various factors it would literally take hours of rolling dice before he was finally beaten into submission (while the other players could do little but sit and watch). There was a slight statistical chance that my character could actually win the fight if we dogmatically followed the rules and roll dice to the bitter end. Instead of going through this protracted fight scene, the ST and I agreed to narrate my character's epic loss without any more dice rolling. The day long fight and the fact that my character went out drinking with the NPC for the rest of the night after regaining consciousness became lore in a certain segment of the game world. This result pleased everyone far more than a night of dice rolling would have and afterward we still had the story of my character's fight with the NPC (who turned out to be probably the world's greatest bare-knuckle brawler). I really find it totally irrational to argue that we made the wrong choice in this situation.

Now I can see the argument that, "Luke's games are far more thoroughly playtested than this game, and thus I should slavishly follow the rules when playing his games." (An argument which I would point out has absolutely no basis in fact as, because I purposely haven't even named the game system involved, you have NO information whatsoever on the rigor of its playtesting.) Instead, I would argue that we ran into a situation that the rules had not envisioned, or at least never came up in playtesting. We used a little bit of creativity and common sense and arrived at a solution that fit our group better than the one offered in the rules.

Roleplayers are a very creative and eclectic bunch. The opportunity to imagine oneself in unusual situations that one would never face in everyday life and come up with novel solutions to the situation is part of the allure of RPGs. To claim that you have thought of EVERY possible situation and eventuality that might occur in a session of an RPG and devise codified the ideal solution in the rules for EVERY group is the height of arrogance. NO ONE is that omniscient.

The majority of your players are a creative problem-solvers. That's who RPGs tend to attract. Why act like they are committing heresy when such people put their creative problem-solving skills to work when they encounter a situation where the rules as written don't fit, or where the rules as written would detract from the group's enjoyment of the game?

Again back to the original example given, Brian stated that he had tweaked to rules to provide an enjoyable game of MG for his troupe of six players. As stated many times, MG was intended to be a game for four, an ST and three players, and that, as written, it doesn't work well for large troupes (e.g., say six players). Therefore, Brian apparently had four options: 1) run a dogmatic, but significantly less than optimal game of MG; 2) tell three of his players to go away because they can't play; 3) play something else; or 4) try tweaking the rules of MG. Which would you have had him do?

I'm guessing #2. (This is based on what I consider to be the most inane rule I've ever encountered in an RPG, namely getting back temporary mouse nature for sitting out a session. I cannot endorse any rule that encourages player NOT to play. I understand there is probably a reason for this rule, but to me, the fact that it rewards NOT playing trumps any rationalization.) Obviously, I'm voting for #4, as I'm guessing are all of Brian's players.

[Aramis]

That rule is for having missed a session, and thus having earned no checks during play, nor experience ticks nor rewards. It can be used by a player who wants their mouse to sit out a mission, but that's clearly NOT its intent.

the game plays with 6, RAW, but the mission structure needs to be lengthened (which is an option in the rules) from 2 to 3 or 4 obstacles, maybe even 5, to give players a chance to earn checks... and it wouldn't be bad to limit help to 3 dice.

What Brian is running is not Mouse Guard. It's "Brian's Game which borrows large chunks of Mouse Guard"...

And I've run MG for groups as small as 2 and as large as 6. There is no need to twist the rules the way Brian did. And no need to complain about the game being broken when you haven't actually played it.

[Yagathai]

Hang on, Aramis. Let me get this straight. your argument is that "once you change a rule, you're not longer playing the game, and if you're not playing the game you're not allowed to complain about the game because you're not playing it"?

That's stupid. That's really, really stupid. This whole argument is stupid, but that's especially stupid.

[Irminsul]

I'm going to point to this blog post on Rule 0 (http://bankuei.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/rule-zero/) as it sums up my own thoughts better than I could ever hope to convey.

[Berandor]

As I read it, Aramis is saying that if you change the system, don't say the system is broken afterwards – your changes just might have broken the system.

Also, if you claim something is really, really, especially stupid, I'd find it helpful to say why it is that stupid.

[Aramis]

As I read it, Aramis is saying that if you change the system, don't say the system is broken afterwards – your changes just might have broken the system.


That, and, if you're going to the designer and saying "I modded it before playing it as written" you're being a dick.


I'm going to point to this blog post on Rule 0 (http://bankuei.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/rule-zero/) as it sums up my own thoughts better than I could ever hope to convey.

It actually does worse than that blog, Irminsul... its given rise to a generation of whiners who think almost all rules are just guidelines, not just the Gygaxian sloppy-writing RPG's. It's also given a generation+ of RPG GM's license to ruin otherwise decent rules.

[Berandor]

Don't know the original thread, but I agree – changing before playing is a bad idea.

I mean, I recently played Monopoly for the first time... that is, for the first time I played it "by the book" and without the usual house rules (e.g. free parking = money). And you know what? It was awesome! It was much more f... entertaining than normally.

[Totally Guy]

I mean, I recently played Monopoly for the first time... that is, for the first time I played it "by the book" and without the usual house rules (e.g. free parking = money). And you know what? It was awesome! It was much more f... entertaining than normally.

Don't get me started on the "Negative Money" house rule someone thought was clever. "That way everyone can keep playing until only one person has positive money", and "You have to have negative money for X turns until you actually lose."

[Humphrey]

There seems to be a major misunderstanding going on. Neither Brian nor I suggested that MG was 'broken.' In fact, neither one of us said that there was anything wrong with playing MG exactly as written. I did imply that NO game system is perfect for all scenarios, situations, number of players, etc., and I would necessarily include MG in that class. (At least I think we can all agree that it is a game.) Therefore, I implied that MG's rules as written may not be perfect for all scenarios, situations, number of players, etc., which is a long way from calling it 'broken.'

All Brian did was point out that he was running a successful (i.e. enjoyable) game of MG with six players, which BTW is a situation that Luke stated was not optimal for MG in the other thread, and that he had found that a couple tweaks to the rules made it work well, in his and his players' opinions. Rather than says MG was broken, Brian made a couple suggestions that he had found helpful when playing with a larger group. His tone was more complimentary than denigrating. For this he was pilloried.

And I think this goes directly to the fundamental difference of opinion that I pointed out at the very beginning. A number of the posters seem to consider any deviation from the letter of the rules as written to be sacrilege and the mere suggestion that someone could have fun playing a game in which the rules as written were not dogmatically followed as ludicrous. I do not subscribe to this faith.

If I had gotten on here and started ranting, "Luke, your games suck!" then Aramis would be right that I was being a dick. I never said any such thing. What I did say was that I believe that it is reasonable (and in some situations desirable) to tweak the rules of an RPG, even one written by Luke Crane, when playing the game. Further, that I believe that there are situation when doing so will actually enhance the experience of playing the game, rather than destroy it. I was careful to point out that this is my OPINION, and not a fact, and that my comments were abstractly directed to RPGs in general not to a specific game. I also noted that one important factor as to whether this will work in a given situation is the disposition of those playing the game (i.e. different strokes for different folks). I would dare say that most of those posting in this thread would not enjoy the same games that I enjoy. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I did note the one specific MG rule that I would never use if I ran MG because I have an issue with it. I strongly feel that there should be absolutely NO reward to a player for missing a session and any rule that could possibly provide any incentive to skip a session is a bad rule. And I did call it inane. That is my opinion. Obviously, not everyone agrees with me. That is your right.

As for the boardgame analogies, IMHO it is just not apt. It is like saying that it is sacrilege to use CG special effects in a movie, because if you tried to use them in a live play it would be very likely to fail.

[Aramis]

There seems to be a major misunderstanding going on. Neither Brian nor I suggested that MG was 'broken.' In fact, neither one of us said that there was anything wrong with playing MG exactly as written. I did imply that NO game system is perfect for all scenarios, situations, number of players, etc., and I would necessarily include MG in that class. (At least I think we can all agree that it is a game.) Therefore, I implied that MG's rules as written may not be perfect for all scenarios, situations, number of players, etc., which is a long way from calling it 'broken.' No, you just appear to believe ALL games are broken.


All Brian did was point out that he was running a successful (i.e. enjoyable) game of MG with six players, which BTW is a situation that Luke stated was not optimal for MG in the other thread, and that he had found that a couple tweaks to the rules made it work well, in his and his players' opinions. Rather than says MG was broken, Brian made a couple suggestions that he had found helpful when playing with a larger group. His tone was more complimentary than denigrating. For this he was pilloried. More for not having tried it as written, than for modification in itself.


And I think this goes directly to the fundamental difference of opinion that I pointed out at the very beginning. A number of the posters seem to consider any deviation from the letter of the rules as written to be sacrilege and the mere suggestion that someone could have fun playing a game in which the rules as written were not dogmatically followed as ludicrous. I do not subscribe to this faith. You are part of the gygaxian cancer, then? A game is a social contract to play by the rules, When you change the rules, you no longer play the same game. Basic Logic. None of Luke's games are loose enough to need modifications out of the box. They do require a different point of view, adn that's the biggest issue with them... they do not work with the traditional gygaxian approach.


If I had gotten on here and started ranting, "Luke, your games suck!" then Aramis would be right that I was being a dick. I never said any such thing. What I did say was that I believe that it is reasonable (and in some situations desirable) to tweak the rules of an RPG, even one written by Luke Crane, when playing the game. Further, that I believe that there are situation when doing so will actually enhance the experience of playing the game, rather than destroy it. I was careful to point out that this is my OPINION, and not a fact, and that my comments were abstractly directed to RPGs in general not to a specific game. I also noted that one important factor as to whether this will work in a given situation is the disposition of those playing the game (i.e. different strokes for different folks). I would dare say that most of those posting in this thread would not enjoy the same games that I enjoy. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I did note the one specific MG rule that I would never use if I ran MG because I have an issue with it. I strongly feel that there should be absolutely NO reward to a player for missing a session and any rule that could possibly provide any incentive to skip a session is a bad rule. And I did call it inane. That is my opinion. Obviously, not everyone agrees with me. That is your right.

As for the boardgame analogies, IMHO it is just not apt. It is like saying that it is sacrilege to use CG special effects in a movie, because if you tried to use them in a live play it would be very likely to fail.

but you DID start ranting. You've taken and called a rule that is very reasonable, and can be invoked for a variety of reasons, and called it both inane and stupid. Phallus est phallic factum.

You've repeatedly asserted the rules are not good enough as written.

[Humphrey]

Aramis, obviously your definition of broken and my defnition of "broken" are totally different. As far as I can tell your definition is that ANY ONE rule would benefit by ANY modification in ANY circumstance whatsoever. Under this ABSURD and STUPID defnition, I agree with you, all games are 'broken.' I would define "broken" as totally unplayable.

Your comment about "gygaxian cancer" is pure dogmatic zealotry. It is as ridiculous as the "bubble of market inefficiency" argument for why we should all play d20. You and I have a different opinion about how RPGs should be played. Just because you have a religious zeal for your OPINION does not make it right. Reasonable people can disagree. Unfortuntely, I fear that ou are not reasonable.

I do believe that one rule (out of hundreds) in MG is stupid and inane. I do not find the rule in any way reasonable. That is my opinion of that rule. You are welcome to your opinion on that rule (though I might point out that it is not an optional rule that can be "invoked for a variety of reasons," it is manditory if you are playing the rules as written, whenever a player misses or skips a session they are rewarded with a point of temporary mouse nature, which, BTW, is HUGE for the mouse nature 2 mouse). I have played the game. I did not find that the rule added in any way to the enjoyment of the game by anyone and for philosphical reasons I DON'T LIKE IT. I happen to think that the is NEVER an excuse to reward players for not playing. You don't have to agree with me, but that doesn't mean I have to abandon my opinion either. And if criticizing ONE rule in a game is enough to constitute a rant against the game, and cause you to resort to petty name-calling, then what is the point of EVER trying to discuss anything related to a game with you?

IMHO, 'good enough' is vastly different from 'perfect.' To me 'good enough' means that the rules don't overly interfere with the story being told and work most of the time, 'perfect' means that NO tweak of the rules EVER under ANY circumstances could EVER improve the experience of ANY player playing the game. I have asserted that NO set of rules is 'PERFECT' as written, however I would agree that most are 'good enough.' In my nearly 40 years of RPG experience, something outside of the rules almost always crops up. It doesn't matter if Luke Crane or Gary Gygax wrote the rules, because NO ONE is perfect. If you want to continue to insist that Luke's games are 'PERFECT' in all ways, and all situations, that is your prerogative, but IMHO only a complete moron would stake out such an untenable position.

In all of my posts, I have NEVER claimed that anyone else is wrong if they want to dogmatically follow the rules as written. I have stated that I find that often some deviation increases the enjoyment of the group I am playing with. I have been very insistent that different people like different styles of play and should play in the way they prefer. It is you that seem bent on forcing other to play the game the way you consider to be 'right' or to be branded as a cancer. The fact is that we are a small enough (and unfortunately dwindling) 'niche' hobby that it is really harmful to the hobby as a whole to be so dogmatic and exclusionary.

[luke]

I do not feel like this discussion is being carried out in good faith. Thus I'm just going to skip the flame outs and close the thread.

-L