D&D 5E Defining fun

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Things I don't find fun.

1: 4th edition D&D.
2: People who complain because they miss in a game and claim this feeling of uselessness.
3: Games that are always in this big hurry to get to the next level.

 

[darjr]

On Sunday I will be getting together with some friends for board games. Undoubtedly, J will suggest we play Through the Desert. An observer will see five guys sitting around a table, sighing heavily as we take turns placing camels on the board. It will be a frustrating experience! At the end of the game we will all sit back, satisfied with our decision-making. We will all enjoy the mental challenge. None of us will have fun. We will play again.

Forbidden Island, the board game. Stress in a box! IN A BOX!

love that game.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I'm not sure how to define "fun," so it applies universally, but I am certain that "badwrongfun" is always what someone else is doing, not me.

 

[Hussar]

I'd just like to thank the participants in this thread for giving me a morning giggle. Great answers. Posreps abound. Well done you.

Things I don't find fun.

1: 4th edition D&D.
2: People who complain because they miss in a game and claim this feeling of uselessness.
3: Games that are always in this big hurry to get to the next level.

Well, at least we managed to go two pages without someone drive by thread crapping and edition warring. Sigh.

 

[howandwhy99]

"Are we having fun yet?"

How do we know when we're having fun anyways? Like a billion people tuned in to watch the Superbowl and they didn't even play in that game. Where's the fun in that? I would suggest not worrying about defining fun and instead do what you want to do. Then see if others find it fun too.

However, for "game fun" try:
1. Starting competitive game in balance between players.
2. Design a game with great depth, yet a low barrier to entry.
3. Allow for tons of variety so people can get creative.
4. Don't make the objective so difficult it can never be accomplished.
5. Make the game recognizable to the players so they can easily identify with it.

 

[Obryn]

Asked and answered.

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

Very good article. Really good stuff, there.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It's the stuff I always have. You know, the stuff that everyone else on these boards gets wrong. Objectively.

 

[Eric Hughes]

One of this morning's posters stated that what he found fun was the "Soft Things". Banter, friendship, comradely, characterization and story. In particular I have to say that a rules set that does not get in the way of these idea's is grand.

One thing that I find so interesting is that this comment not only parallels my opinion of fun, but it parallels the design goals of the system that I currently exclusively play. It arose out of the heyday of the 3.5 living games, and was designed to be a contrast to the quirks of that system. Namely complexity, and the ease with which 3.5 can be Min-Maxed. (Mostly due to the plethora of options that where developed after the original design of the system.)

One thing I don't like is the "Min Max arms race". What I am referring to the that one player out of 20 that feels the sole reason to play a RPG is to build the "Ultimate PC" and break the system. This causes the GM to have to ramp up the encounters to match the toughest PC at the table. Eventually, the other players have to sacrifice character development for combat effectiveness. Min Maxing therefore becomes a necessity for survival. Saddly, this doe not make the Ultimate PC builder happy, because what he want is domination of the encounter, not effectiveness. So the cycle escalates. The 3.5/Pathfinder engine disproporsanitely rewards this kind of behavior on the part of the min-maxer by publishing an endless stream of poorly play tested 'crunch'.

Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of people that enjoy the nearly limitless options the 3.5 and PFS engine offer. More power to that crowd. If your gaming group doesn't have a Min-Maxer at your table 3.5/PFS is a fine game to play. But the bigger your gaming group, the more likely you are to have "that one guy" who ruins the experience for everyone.

Wouldn't be nice to play a system where the mechanics actually punish Min-Maxing and reward the character development of the "Average PC?"

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Wouldn't be nice to play a system where the mechanics actually punish Min-Maxing and reward the character development of the "Average PC?"

But that's the problem though. I'm not 100% sure how you would achieve rewarding "character development" without min-maxing. Any time you reward anything, you run the risk that someone can figure out a way to game the system and minimise cost while maximising benefits. It doesn't matter what the system is. And, to be fair, there's nothing wrong with the impulse. it's simply rational play to make choices based on a cost/benefit ratio.

If I'm playing a fighter, and I put my best roll in Strength, have I min/maxed? I recently got told that having an 18 Strength fighter in 2e was a maxed out, twinked character. To me, anyone playing a fighter will automatically put their max score in Strength, because, well, that's the most rational place to put it. Why jack up Int, for example, at the expense of Str, if you are playing a fighter in D&D? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do so.

Now, the problem comes when it goes over board and takes over everything. Your so called one in twenty player whose only purpose in playing is to build as powerful of a character as he can.

But, to be honest, I haven't run across that player very often. I'm not sure if we really need to build the system to prevent that player. A better solution, IMO, would be advice in the DMG for how groups can moderate this behaviour and channel it so that the table keeps enjoying the game.

 

[pemerton]

Wouldn't be nice to play a system where the mechanics actually punish Min-Maxing and reward the character development of the "Average PC?"

But that's the problem though. I'm not 100% sure how you would achieve rewarding "character development" without min-maxing. Any time you reward anything, you run the risk that someone can figure out a way to game the system and minimise cost while maximising benefits. It doesn't matter what the system is.

If the rewards in question are rewards within the fiction, whose connection to the mechanics is only that they change the fictional positioning of the PC(s), then that can reduce "min-maxing" (mechanical optimisation) and encourage character development.

I think Classic Traveller aspires to this sort of play, at least in part.