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

[Azzy]

One person’s fun ends when it infringes on someone else’s fun.

Pretty much. The whole group needs to be in on the fun, else something needs to be fixed.

 

[aco175]

I know I have at times written about fun trumping something else. Most of these involve rules and interpretations not directly covered. Questions like "Should I allow the PC with +15 to Athletics skip rolling to jump up to a 10ft ledge?" "Should a longsword be allowed to use finesse?"

If there is no big deal or reason to not do it- then do it and have fun. If there is a bad player at the table you need to at least talk with him and tell him.

 

[SmokeyCriminal]

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.

I'll admit that my post sounds really self serving at the surface. That it encourages anti-social or A-hole behaviour. I think it's because I tried to keep the post as short and concise as I could.

I agree that each participant should try to make sure everyone else is having fun. But that's only because I think that's a fun way to play, and because It's easy enough for me to have fun that I can turn my attention away from myself and help other people have their fun, but again that's only because A) my fun is taken care of, and B) helping other people have fun is also fun for me.

It would be unfair if it was mandatory or it was the job of everyone to be responsible for everyone else's fun, even tho it sounds like best way to play.

For example: If, for whatever reason, you don't think it's fun to make jokes, and at the end of the session someone says to you "Everyone was telling jokes except you, it affected how much fun we could have had, next time make jokes so we can all have even more fun." That would be unfair to you.

The reason I say just do the things that are fun for you, is because the majority of people think exactly like you do. They like being helpful and sharing. That's fun for them. That's what they'll naturally do. But if you make it mandatory, it has the possibility of being a burden that can hurt your fun.

Also not everyone can "have fun" as easily. For some people it takes a lot of effort, and concentration, and time. Id much rather they spend their time making sure that they have their fun and not worry about me having mine. If I find out that they interrupted their fun, or that they wern't able to reach their fun, because they stopped so I could have my fun, because they felt obligated, I would feel guilty, and I'd tell them to never feel obligated to do that. First take care of your fun and then, if you want, help me with my fun.

 

[SmokeyCriminal]

"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.

That's really cool, and interesting. I've always considered D&D to be fundamentally anarchistic. You have to opt-in for everything. The game, the group, the party, and the only thing your responsible for and can control is your own actions.

 

[SmokeyCriminal]

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.
.

It's funny because I love, specifically, making sure the DM is having as much fun as possible. I sorta consider the DM to be "my audience." I love looking over at the DM and seeing them shocked, worried, amazed. Watching them burst laughing, and wincing, and pouting, and grin maliciously. Just trying to squeeze as much reaction as possible from them.

I think it's part sympathy, and part morbid sadism. Sympathy because I know they spent time on the campaign and want them to feel justified and encouraged. Sadism because I love watching them be on cloud 9 as I kill and burn all that they love and create. There's nothing better then looking over and watching the DM be completely absorbed and enthralled with a huge grin on their face as I rain destruction and chaos down upon their beautiful little world.

 

[JonnyP71]

Sadism because I love watching them be on cloud 9 as I kill and burn all that they love and create. There's nothing better then looking over and watching the DM be completely absorbed and enthralled with a huge grin on their face as I rain destruction and chaos down upon their beautiful little world.

Isn't that one of the key reasons precisely why we DM? We build, the players destroy!

 

[Sunseeker]

That's really cool, and interesting. I've always considered D&D to be fundamentally anarchistic. You have to opt-in for everything. The game, the group, the party, and the only thing your responsible for and can control is your own actions.

Well, sort of, but by controlling your own actions you can also control the table. Talking about out-of-game activities may be enjoyable for an individual or multiple individuals at the table, but it may also drastically decrease the "fun" the table has. By not engaging in this, you can increase the overall "fun" of the table, by taking a minor hit to your own fun.

As someone who regularly power-builds (for no real reason other than it comes naturally to me) I can very easily take in-game character actions and personal player actions that will increase the fun of the entire group but cause no real decrease in my own fun. I can choose to give the DM a hard time to get my way, or I can choose to just roll/role with it.

There is a player at my table who constantly demands explanations for everything she simply cannot "roll with it" in I'd say, 80% of situations. This very obviously decreases the DM's enjoyment of the game and the rest of the players, to compensate I often am just "chill" with anything that happens, smoothing out situations this other player roughs up (I'm very much the co-DM for this table), even at times when I'd like to put up a fight, I don't because it's not going to impact my enjoyment much (lets say, 1-2 points) and it's going to improve everyone else's enjoyment by 2-3 points) that's a very worthwhile gain for a very low cost.

 

[Jester David]

Like all activities, you're doing it right as long as everyone is having fun. If your fun is impacting someone else's fun you're being a selfish jerk and need to knock it off.

I think it is the DM's job to enable fun. They can't guarantee fun, or *make* people have fun, but they can set things up for people to enjoy themselves.

 

[Henry]

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.

To me, this may be the best response for the question. If each person is concerned about making the game fun for everyone else at the table, everybosy wins. If I'm giving gifts of roleplaying opportunities to my fellow players, if the GM is using backstories for the people who took the time to craft them, if the shy player is making an effort to meet halfway, if the more flamboyant player is taking pains to accomodate the shy player, etc. everyone is getting their 15 minutes of spotlight and the machine turns as intended. Is it always perfect? Of course not, but in my experience when everyone keeps this in mind it's successful far more times than it's not.

 

[MNblockhead]

Pretty much. The whole group needs to be in on the fun, else something needs to be fixed.

Sure, with the caveat that the group will ultimately have to set the bounds of their game. Some folks are very rigid about what they think a good game should be. They can set their fun boundaries so large that it is hard for other players to not infringe on them.

I think many of us make all this more complicated than it needs to be by not addressing it with clear communication from the beginning.

I'll also say that being flexible has served me well. I like to find pickup games when travelling, which has helped me play with a wide variety of people and play styles. I do my best to read and adopt to the tables preferred style (grimdark or humorous high fantasy? heavy role playing or highly tactical? meta-gaming okay or a capital offense). I find that I'm able to have fun with nearly any group.