D&D 5E Defining fun

[ExploderWizard]

[originally posted by Minigiant in a recently closed thread]

Well the orc isn't a PC, so 99% of the time no one spent twenty plus minutes creating it and planning to role play it long term. So no.

But you can't one shot an orc in Next anyway. They have the Relentless feature.

Essentially MM has been in his speech, writing, and game design saying that having a PC do nothing before it dies is bad or unfun.


It is a core question of Next's design. Do we keep a traditional aspect of gameplay even if it is unfun?
Doing nothing in a fight because you missed attacks the whole (very short) fight is not fun. Do we keep it?

[ End quote]

This is an interesting topic of its own and I would like to continue the discussion about the decision making process that determines what is, or isn't fun, with regard to the design of D&D next.

It is not my intent to try and re-open the whole damage on a miss debate, so PLEASE lets keep this on topic.

What is, or is not perceived as fun informs a wide variety of design decisions. Everything from combat lethality, encumbrance & resource tracking, and the inclusion of at-will magical abilities is tied to a particular vision of what "fun" is, measured in some objective fashion. The various assumptions about fun throughout the 40 year history of D&D have come to define the feel of play as well as the actual objectives of the same.

We cannot have any common ground regarding what is fun until the objectives of play are identified. Beyond "having fun" (which is like a snake eating its own tail in the quest to ultimately define fun via play objective criteria) what are the features of gameplay that draw you into the activity rather than doing something else that is also fun? For those of us involved enough with D&D to spend time in places like this discussing it, along with the hours we spend preparing and running these games there has to be elements that we can identify that are the reason we spend so much of our time doing THIS for fun instead of other things.

So lets start with that. What I find so fun that keeps drawing me in is the excitement and unpredictability of emergent gameplay and how enjoyable that is to share with others. That we can collectively imagine such entertaining scenarios, that can literally go anywhere, without the aid of technology. Returning time and time again to look for answer to: what happens now?

Lets hear some other opinions about what is most fun about the D&D experience.

​

 

[delericho]

'Fun' is one of those things that is really hard to define but quite easy to identify when I see it. It's also much easier to describe things that aren't fun than things that are.

For the most part, the things I find fun in an RPG are the 'soft' things that don't really have anything to do with mechanics at all - the storytelling, the characterisation, the banter around the table, and so on. So, in general, what I want from a game is mechanics that don't get in the way of those aspects, but beyond that it doesn't much matter.

But, yes, one of the things that I find is most definitely not fun is where a character proves to be useless, either because the mechanics just don't support the archetype right, because the character is just built badly, because a freak run of luck means that he constantly misses, or simply because some other character/class/build that is present at that table does the same thing better.

For example, the most recent time I played 4e I was running a Gladiator in a Dark Sun game. In one of the key encounters I found myself hit by one of my not-infrequent runs of hideous luck, and every single Daily or Encounter power I used resulted in a miss (even if I stacked up mods to hit on a 4). That encounter proved to be a massive exercise in frustration, and most definitely not fun.

So I have considerable sympathy for the notion that a character shouldn't just be rendered useless if at all possible.

(On the other hand, that encounter was then counter-balanced by the next one, where I hit virtually every time and thus did really well. And, also, I would argue that that risk of a freak set of bad rolls was probably a necessary risk in the game. It's just that, at the time, it really sucked. )

My gut feeling is that such runs of freak bad luck might be best handled with an escalating bonus that applies to attack rolls and damage (say +2 to each for each 'failed' round). That way, the failures can't go on forever, and when you do hit you hit really hard, which has its own appeal. But that probably wouldn't have worked in that game, what with 4e's Daily/Encounter/At-will paradigm.

Another option, and one that the DM of that game has since adopted, is to give each player a handful of reroll tokens each session, which also go a long way towards mitigating the problem - either you accept the lost round (your choice), or you reroll and probably hit (success!), or you reroll and still fail (adding to the bank of hilarious stories of Delericho's bad dice). Which, in any of the three cases, represents a 'good' outcome.

 

[Hussar]

Like Delericho, I would agree that it's probably easier to define "fun" by it's opposite, rather than try to draw a box around what actually constitutes "fun".

For me, the biggest thing that gets in the way of fun is any mechanic which takes too long to resolve. "Too long" here is a scientifically defined term which states that it is the length of time it takes for me to stop enjoying whatever it is we're doing.



But, that being said, any mechanic which relies on multiple steps or a calculator in order to resolve it is likely not going to be fun to me.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Asked and answered.

http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

 

[Desdichado]

To mad-lib Justice Steward, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["fun"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the [edition of D&D] involved in this case is not that."

I dislike accounting in my games. I dislike an inordinate amount of time being dedicated to absolving rules questions or tactical discussions. I dislike a poor, plodding, pace. I dislike aspects of the game that can drive conflict between players (as opposed to between characters. Which can be fun, if done with the right attitude.) I dislike sitting around waiting for long periods of time while other folks are off flipping through books or agonizing over some minute tactical advantage. I dislike games that encourge the players to lose interest and get distracted.

I like a game that moves quickly, enables fun, swashbuckling action, I like roleplaying interesting characters with my friends, and bantering back, and forth. I enjoy hanging out with my friends, and feeling like we're all actively engaged as much of the time as possible. Risk is fun. I'll take sitting around on my laurels because my character died any day over feeling like regardless of what I do, my character can't possibly fail no matter what.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I like the concept of looking at what is not fun and going from there.

For me, what is most not fun is a feeling of non-participation. I do a lot of boardgaming, more than roleplaying right now, so take a relatively common boardgame: Settlers of Catan. In that game, you've got settlements on a hex map with resources gathered when a certain number comes up on a 2d6. When an entire turn goes around the table and your numbers never come up, that's a lack of fun. when it happens multiple times in a row, you start to lose interest in the game. If it goes any longer, you wonder why you're playing.

The same thing can happen in a roleplaying game. It doesn't even have to be tied to bad rolls. When you find that you aren't participating to the level of other people, the game starts to drag. Take a D&D 1e fight against a monster with immunity/magic where you're the guy without magic, or a 3e rogue in a very basic encounter with some constructs, or a 4e slog against a MM1 solo, etc. In those scenarios, you might as well pull out your phone and start playing Bejeweled or something for as much participation as you're doing.

Then you get into things like death in round 1 before you even get to act, or needing a 17 to hit, or other things that rely too much on randomness to get past. There's nothing you can do, mechanically.

I think one of the main problems with this in D&D systems is that if you roll to attack and miss, it means nothing happens. There's nothing interesting in "fail... next" gameplay where failure can be common. Taking a situation where you enter "fail... next" gameplay, the DM has to really think of his or her toes, move forward, and start making things interesting for you. This isn't really something that can be handled by rules, so rules should, IMO, be set up to avoid these situations or you end up with my original Catan scenario where you're waiting for the random rolls to come up in your favor, and until you do, you wish you were anywhere else.

 

[billd91]

But, that being said, any mechanic which relies on multiple steps or a calculator in order to resolve it is likely not going to be fun to me.

Note to Hussar: Do not play with off-board artillery in Advanced Squad Leader. They published a flowchart supplement just to make it easier.

 

[am181d]

I do a lot of boardgaming, more than roleplaying right now, so take a relatively common boardgame: Settlers of Catan. In that game, you've got settlements on a hex map with resources gathered when a certain number comes up on a 2d6. When an entire turn goes around the table and your numbers never come up, that's a lack of fun. when it happens multiple times in a row, you start to lose interest in the game. If it goes any longer, you wonder why you're playing.

In these situations, i find it helps to swear increasingly loudly after every roll. Shaking my fist also helps! And sometimes I twitch my right eye for extra effect.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But, yes, one of the things that I find is most definitely not fun is where a character proves to be useless, either because the mechanics just don't support the archetype right, because the character is just built badly, because a freak run of luck means that he constantly misses, or simply because some other character/class/build that is present at that table does the same thing better.

For example, the most recent time I played 4e I was running a Gladiator in a Dark Sun game. In one of the key encounters I found myself hit by one of my not-infrequent runs of hideous luck, and every single Daily or Encounter power I used resulted in a miss (even if I stacked up mods to hit on a 4). That encounter proved to be a massive exercise in frustration, and most definitely not fun.

So I have considerable sympathy for the notion that a character shouldn't just be rendered useless if at all possible.

(On the other hand, that encounter was then counter-balanced by the next one, where I hit virtually every time and thus did really well. And, also, I would argue that that risk of a freak set of bad rolls was probably a necessary risk in the game. It's just that, at the time, it really sucked. )

Getting a bit deeper into root causes, would you say that it was the failure itself that made things not fun, the relative time it took to resolve a combat that you substantially failed in, or both that was the main cause of a fun deficit?

"Too long" here is a scientifically defined term which states that it is the length of time it takes for me to stop enjoying whatever it is we're doing.

Having experienced this with Chartmaster, I can sympathize.

I like the concept of looking at what is not fun and going from there.

For me, what is most not fun is a feeling of non-participation. I do a lot of boardgaming, more than roleplaying right now, so take a relatively common boardgame: Settlers of Catan. In that game, you've got settlements on a hex map with resources gathered when a certain number comes up on a 2d6. When an entire turn goes around the table and your numbers never come up, that's a lack of fun. when it happens multiple times in a row, you start to lose interest in the game. If it goes any longer, you wonder why you're playing.

The same thing can happen in a roleplaying game. It doesn't even have to be tied to bad rolls. When you find that you aren't participating to the level of other people, the game starts to drag. Take a D&D 1e fight against a monster with immunity/magic where you're the guy without magic, or a 3e rogue in a very basic encounter with some constructs, or a 4e slog against a MM1 solo, etc. In those scenarios, you might as well pull out your phone and start playing Bejeweled or something for as much participation as you're doing.

Then you get into things like death in round 1 before you even get to act, or needing a 17 to hit, or other things that rely too much on randomness to get past. There's nothing you can do, mechanically.

I think one of the main problems with this in D&D systems is that if you roll to attack and miss, it means nothing happens. There's nothing interesting in "fail... next" gameplay where failure can be common. Taking a situation where you enter "fail... next" gameplay, the DM has to really think of his or her toes, move forward, and start making things interesting for you. This isn't really something that can be handled by rules, so rules should, IMO, be set up to avoid these situations or you end up with my original Catan scenario where you're waiting for the random rolls to come up in your favor, and until you do, you wish you were anywhere else.

Do you think that real time between opportunities is the largest contributing factor or does ' failure= no change' mean a lack of fun even if an opportunity to go again comes up every couple minutes?

In the event of the latter, what sort of failure consequences do you think would be applicable yet not drive results toward a failure spiral? Nothing getting any worse is about as painless a failure as I can think of.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Do you think that real time between opportunities is the largest contributing factor or does ' failure= no change' mean a lack of fun even if an opportunity to go again comes up every couple minutes?

In the event of the latter, what sort of failure consequences do you think would be applicable yet not drive results toward a failure spiral? Nothing getting any worse is about as painless a failure as I can think of.

Kind of. I think the length of streaks of nothing is the largest factor. So, if nothing interesting is happening for one combat, but each combat takes only 3-5 minutes, then it isn't that important that you had a boring combat. If combat, on the other hand, takes 10-20 minutes, then you've entered a bad situation.

Even then, take an example combat where you need a 17 on a d20 to hit on a "long" encounter. Every roll is going to feel like a slog, and when I personally do it, it isn't going to seem that uplifting, because I know I'm probably not going to hit for a while. Just that future expectation of failure is going to bring the moment down.

To answer the second question, if failure has more consequence than "... next" then the game can be built in such a way that failure is less common. The benefit of a system in which failure leads to some kind of change in outcome is that even failure feels participatory. Failure conditions don't have to be incredibly bad. They could be something as simple as you fall prone, another enemy joins the combat, you get surrounded, and so forth. They don't have to be direct penalties or damage. So, if you fail roughly 5%-8% of the time, but something interesting happens when you do fail, you can start to look at those failures as interesting events instead of time wasters, which is how I see a miss in D&D right now. Simply a time waster.