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

[Sunseeker]

"Fun" in a collective game is group fun. I mathed this out years ago on this very forum, it's essentially a version of utilitarianism. If Bob gets +10 fun from doing his own thing, but that results in -5 fun for everyone else, in a 5-person game, that -20 fun from everyone else outweighs Bob's +10 fun.

Some people don't get to have their "ultimate fun" of turning into dragons and summoning eldritch horrors so that other people can have their "moderate fun" of killing orcs with swords. If 4 people are still having "moderate fun" that outweighs Bob having "no fun at all". And Bob might want to find a different group if his fun is incompatible with the rest of the group.

 

[JonnyP71]

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?

Whose fun matters most?

To put it quite frankly - if you have to give a specific answer to this, it is the DM's. It can be a long, laborious and often thankless task running a game, and unless the DM is getting some enjoyment from it then everyone's fun suffers.

From my own point of view, I don't enjoy overly strategic games, I don't enjoy gaming with players who are only about the numbers, I don't enjoy playing on grids, I like classic fantasy, with classic races, I don't enjoy sci-fi, I don't like Eberron, and I don't want to use the monster races in VGTM.

So I won't. Because I would not be as invested in the game, and the eventual result would be somewhat underwhelming.

If the players want any of those things they need to find another DM. If my fun is not your fun then don't play in my game.

On a group level though, it is the fun of the majority that is key to success. It's all about finding the right group, the right blend of people, and the right DM. If there is one player who wants something totally different then they should go elsewhere to find it, if that would spoil the fun of the majority.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

One person’s fun ends when it infringes on someone else’s fun. Finding that balance isn’t always easy, but player and DM alike are responsible for it.

And yeah, it totally drives me up a wall when someone comes up with their character concept, then either plays the same character they always play, or they play them with all the personality of a token being moved around a boardgame. In a game with such wondrous variety, it seems a waste to me. As a DM, it gives me less to work with to make the game more fun and interesting.

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.

 

[Warpiglet]

It is as simple as playing checkers in a sense. We are all supposed to have fun together. If a character is predicated on disrupting the campaign and swimming against everyone else's current there is a problem.

Recently, my DM wanted a good group to take on some evil plots in his campaign. Most evil characters would need extra incentive to help and manufacturing reasons to help the other players etc. did not sound like that much fun to him. We also have a few newer players with us.

But I wanted to play a darker character...we discussed it. My LN focus on smashing evil was a fine fit. I was not neutral and only self interested. My LN character values the team. He is just not as focused on mercy missions as some of the other characters. No big deal. We compromised and he modified his rules to "no evil or chaotic neutral characters, please."

Work together. Everyone should win. There are a few who like to disrupt but I have rarely ever seen anyone TALK with them about compromising. People usually suffer quietly and complain on forums. I am all for agreements about tone and purpose.

We have also had a fair share of evil parties. Here again, we knew where we stood. The DM I mentioned loved those campaigns but we also had an understanding.

 

[nswanson27]

I liken this sorta situation to roommates that have different standards for what "clean" is.
On the one extreme, you have a total slob who just is interested in keeping things so it's not a health risk or a fire hazard.
On the other extreme, you have the OCD clean freak, who will say that the smallest amount of disorder is "messing up the place".

I find that the solution to such scenarios is really for each person to first humbly acknowledge where they sit on the spectrum, and can candidly admit if and how where they sit on that spectrum will be an issue for others to get along with. This is opposed to jumping to conclusions based on them being "right" and the other being "wrong", and will assume whatever nasty/unfounded/weird thing they want about the other's character and their intentions to justify that position.
Once this is squared away, usually the whole effort to talking about things in a respectful way and reaching a compromise is much easier, and everyone in general will just have more fun.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

That is very self serving "me first" view of fun. Role playing is a very social activity and much like holiday gifts, it is better to give than receive.
Each participant should endeavor to make sure that everyone else is having fun. This includes the DM. You get back what you give. So if there are six people in your gaming group, and you concentrate on making sure that the other five people are having fun (and they are doing likewise for you and others) then your enjoyment will be magnified. Everything is more enjoyable when it is heartily shared.

 

[Warpiglet]

That is very self serving "me first" view of fun. Role playing is a very social activity and much like holiday gifts, it is better to give than receive.
Each participant should endeavor to make sure that everyone else is having fun. This includes the DM. You get back what you give. So if there are six people in your gaming group, and you concentrate on making sure that the other five people are having fun (and they are doing likewise for you and others) then your enjoyment will be magnified. Everything is more enjoyable when it is heartily shared.

Frankly, I do not play with others who are unable to share toys. Maybe I did not like to share toys when I was a kid. In grade school, our biggest concern was having the most powerful character and messing up the campaign world. I get it. The little kid is still in there.

However, I cannot ignore the state of my friends or other players. I explain things to new players if they are confused. I do not constantly stop them from making decisions. Neither do I situate myself in a good party and constantly do antisocial things that either force them to look the other way (out of character) or get into PvP nonsense that no one likes.

The DM puts a lot of time into his campaign. I try to make good use of the creation and act as if it matters. The worst person to play with is the person who does not think of others.

It only takes a little consideration for everyone to have a blast. However, it has to be purposeful. If we simply play it like a videogame and pretend the other characters are controlled by the computer, the whole enterprise existing just for my enjoyment alone, it gets old really fast for everyone except the narcissistic star of the show.

 

[BoldItalic]

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?

Fun is when everybody laughs.

So far, the "Laugh with this post" score for this thread is .... zero. This thread is no fun at all. Whose responsibility is that? Everyone, including me, now that I've posted in it. What does this tell you? What does it tell all of us? That we are all taking the subject of fun too seriously. There ought to be a word for that.

I thought about making up a Latin-ish word, but it's hopeless. The Latin word for "fun" (ludus) is the same word as the word for "a game". In Latin, all games are automatically fun because there is no semantic difference between the two things. If everybody played D&D in Latin, there wouldn't be a problem.

Maybe Greek? There's a Greek word κέφι that means fun in the sense of conviviality and cheerfulness, so that seems pretty close to what we should be aiming for in D&D. A suitable word for "serious" might be σοβαρός (which is cognate with our word "sober"). Put the two together and you get σοβαρόκέφι which sounds a bit like a tavern with no beer. Yup. Works for me.

"You arrive back at the village, looking forward to a long rest and a spot of carousing, to find that the tavern has run out of beer. What do you do?"

 

[Warpiglet]

Fun is when everybody laughs.

So far, the "Laugh with this post" score for this thread is .... zero. This thread is no fun at all. Whose responsibility is that? Everyone, including me, now that I've posted in it. What does this tell you? What does it tell all of us? That we are all taking the subject of fun too seriously. There ought to be a word for that.

I thought about making up a Latin-ish word, but it's hopeless. The Latin word for "fun" (ludus) is the same word as the word for "a game". In Latin, all games are automatically fun because there is no semantic difference between the two things. If everybody played D&D in Latin, there wouldn't be a problem.

Maybe Greek? There's a Greek word κέφι that means fun in the sense of conviviality and cheerfulness, so that seems pretty close to what we should be aiming for in D&D. A suitable word for "serious" might be σοβαρός (which is cognate with our word "sober"). Put the two together and you get σοβαρόκέφι which sounds a bit like a tavern with no beer. Yup. Works for me.

"You arrive back at the village, looking forward to a long rest and a spot of carousing, to find that the tavern has run out of beer. What do you do?"

Leave the f-ing tavern and find a convenience store! That is too anachronistic....I mean find a good-looking farmer's daughter with a fresh keg she is willing to share with a heroic band here to save the countryside...

I agree though. There should be lots of high-fives and celebration together. Instead of worrying that I will get looted by my friend and otherwise betrayed, I want to root for him to run the last orc through so we avoid a TPK.

The best thing to hear at the table (to me) is holy-s--t! We (emphasis on we) did it!

 

[Warpiglet]

delete