D&D 5E Thievery in 5e - still relevant?

[Micah Sweet]

Verisimilitude just means that the game logic is coherent and the world seems truthful and immersive. I don't see how boredom or unfun situations help with that. Focus on the fun doesn't mean "get to the action". It literally depends on what your table and yourself are considering fun. If you know what that is, than it makes absolutely sense to optimize for most fun in your game session.

If fun means different things for different people, then it's meaningless to speak about generally.

 

[pemerton]

Boring is subjective. I'll keep beating that drum.

Upthread you advocated against consistent fun. In the context of a game, the most salient contrast to fun is boredom. But now you're rejecting boredom too?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Upthread you advocated against consistent fun. In the context of a game, the most salient contrast to fun is boredom. But now you're rejecting boredom too?

Sometimes you have to do unfun things to get to the fun you want, and sometimes what one person sees as unfun isn't for another.

I'm a complicated guy.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Fun is subjective, boredom is subjective, verisimilitude is subjective, immersion is subjective, dissonance is subjective...
...natural language is vague...

...numbers, probabilities, jargon, balance... not so much.

 

[bloodtide]

Provided we allow for the fact that fun, in the context of a complex game like a RPG, is a pretty nuanced thing, then fun in every moment of the play of a game seems pretty realistic to me. There are other games that achieve this; why shouldn't a RPG aspire to it?

This is a perfect example of the Modern Gaming Mindset and the Classic Gaming Mindset.

The Modern game is a Happy Fun Time every second of play. Endless laughs and joy and sunshine and warm fuzzy feelings. And not only to the game rules set out a game that can be nothing but happy fun, but the game play by the gamers is set to only be happy fun.

The Classic Game is Hard Fun at best, and beyond unrated Nightmare fuel at worse. And this is where you get the complex advanced concept that anything can be fun if you are in the right frame of mind. And games that have rules that are grim and dark, but also game play set to be all sorts of emotions.

The Modern Game play keeps things on a nice steady even keel, with only some gray bumps now and again.

The Classic Game play is very open to anything, but especially to deep dark things that could break players and send them running from the game.

One exampe of This can be expressed easily by any effect that takes a character out of gameplay for a time like sleeping, paralzation, and such.

The modern game rules will likely not even have such effects. And if they do, they are altered to be the most fun. A good example is the save each round to over come the effect. The cry here is simple: gamers will say it's "no fun" to just sit there and not be able to play the game as their character is hit by an effect. And more so, as such things are disliked, even if they are in the rules, the GM will simply not use them.

The classic game is full of such effects and they are common enough. Players can expect to "sit around" a lot and "not get to play their character". Except the players here take this in stride as part of the game and accept it. They can accept something they don't like in the game as it makes sense in the game. And the GM here will use them whenever the chance comes up.

 

[payn]

I see we have reached the "Nintendo hard" is the best way to play portion of the discussion.

 

[Parmandur]

I see we have reached the "Nintendo hard" is the best way to play portion of the discussion.

Nintendo hard is awesome, but surely not a One True Way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I see we have reached the "Nintendo hard" is the best way to play portion of the discussion.

To be fair, there is definitely value to the concept. I have fond memories of the "Nintendo hard" games I played, win or lose. Challenge, even high challenge, is fun, and perhaps there is value in introducing people to the idea.

 

[pemerton]

To be fair, there is definitely value to the concept. I have fond memories of the "Nintendo hard" games I played, win or lose. Challenge, even high challenge, is fun, and perhaps there is value in introducing people to the idea.

I thought you were against fun as lacking verisimilitude!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I thought you were against fun as lacking verisimilitude!

Very cute. I explained my position above (a post to which you didn't respond, I notice). Fun and verisimilitude are orthogonal.