D&D 5E Fun, fun, fun... 'till the DM takes the T-Bird away

[Li Shenron]

So many claim that "fun" is the only thing that matters... and then see the DM as the main potential threat to that!

But I'd like to ask what fun and whose fun are you really talking about?

Because maybe someone creates a character of a chosen class, say Cleric, because of "nifty powers" and then proceeds to completely disregard the narrative and roleplay her PC disorderly and counterintuitively, pretty much against the description of the chosen alignment and religion. Then claim it's her way of having "fun" and nobody should take it away.

But what if this spoils the fun for everyone else at the table? What if the rest of the group (including the DM) hates characters being played inconsistently or idiotically, losing touch with the narrative or breaking suspension of disbelief?

Whose "fun" matters most? Does each person at the table have the rights to unbound fun individually? Should you take into account what the others at the table feel about it? Do you try to measure it in terms of how many people at the table enjoy it?

 

[mellored]

Those are questions of morality that humanity has struggled with forever. Would take a life to save several others? Would you take your own?

The closest thing to a universal rule is "don't be a dick", and "different strokes for different folks".

 

[S'mon]

Everyone's fun is important. The GM's fun is most important since you need him/her to be having a good time in order for there to be a game at all, and certainly a fun game. The GM's fun is approximately as important as the fun of the player group as a whole. But everyone has a duty to everyone else to facilitate their fun.

A player or GM whose fun comes at the expense of other players is a problem that needs dealing with.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

In most situations, a group is not required to include specific people. If the way someone is playing is impacting the fun of the rest of the group, then that should probably be explained to them.
If they still insist that that is the only way that they will have fun, and that they intend to continue at the expense of the rest of the group, they it is probably best that they simply not get invited to the game any more.

Not that this situation is not the same as the way one player plays is only affecting one other player. The point should still be raised and talked out, but ultimately its probably the DM's call as to who they are willing to run games for.

 

[transtemporal]

The closest thing to a universal rule is "don't be a dick", and "different strokes for different folks".

Whatchu talkin' 'bout Willis?

 

[transtemporal]

I think players should play their characters within the genre and tone set for the campaign. It's not cool if someone decides to play a character completely at odds with the setting. It breaks the dramatic consistency and suspension of disbelief.

I would explain the genre and tone of the setting to the person (along with some movie suggestions) and see if you can get them to change their approach. If they don't want to do that, ask them to leave.

 

[Shiroiken]

To me, it's important to have fun. I won't play in a game for more than a session or 2 if I'm not having fun. I also won't run a game for longer than 2-3 sessions after I stop having fun. Not ever session is going to be fun, and there's going to be different levels of fun, but overall you should feel that it's worth your time.

You shouldn't be having fun at the overall expense of others. I've known players/DMs who only find fun in ruining the fun of others and refuse to play with those people (or associate with them out of game, really). Sometimes you might need to step on the fun of another player or DM, especially if you are the DM, but in general you shouldn't. This often means you have to temper your fun to expand the fun of the group (you get less, but everyone gets more). Batman characters, rules lawyers, and inappropriate roleplay (such as the chaotic chaotic characters, silly characters in a serious campaign, etc.) are common examples of things that people find fun, but usually come at the expense of the fun of the group.

 

[SmokeyCriminal]

I think everyone is responsible for their own fun, and only their own fun. No one should feel entitled or expect to have someone else hand them "fun." That's your job.

I feel bad when DMs think that it's their job to make sure everyone else is having fun. That if someone didn't have fun it's because they didn't do something right. A DMs job is to set scenes, apply the rules, and run NPCs, and that's it. If a DM thinks it's fun to world build, or homebrew, or teach the rules, or settle player arguments, then they should. But if not, it's not their job or responsibility to do it, and they shouldn't feel bad or like they're not a great DM unless they do.

If multiple people are not having fun playing together because of whatever reason. They should talk about it and try to find a compromise where they can have fun. If they can't find a compromise or don't want to compromise then that's okay. They just stop playing together.

I think the best groups are the one's where everyone else's fun is a lot of fun for you to experience or witness, and they in turn love watching or experiencing you have your fun.

Maybe the only exception are brand new players who have no idea what to do or expect. Helping them learn how to have fun, showing them examples of ways they can have fun, giving them some fun so they know what it's like. But only do it if it's fun for you.

 

[Wulffolk]

If you are not having fun because of another person's behavior then it boils down to just a few questions.

What is your tolerance level for that behavior?
How long can you tolerate it?
Is it possible to constructively communicate your concerns with the other person?
Are they willing to adjust their behavior?

Based on those answers there are only 3 solutions:
1 - Everybody comes together as a group of mature adults and sorts out their differences.
2 - You move on to something else you actually enjoy.
3 - The group decides to exclude the other person.

Sometimes the definition of what is "fun" for two different people is mutually exclusive, and it is time to move on.

 

[CydKnight]

Those are questions of morality that humanity has struggled with forever. Would take a life to save several others? Would you take your own?

The closest thing to a universal rule is "don't be a dick", and "different strokes for different folks".

Put another way, the law of universal free will states that you may do whatever you want in life as long as it does not infringe upon the free will of others.