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.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Another solution would be to design the system such that the difference between an uber-built character and a normally built one is simply not as significant within the game as it is now.

Lan-"I've met that player ofetn enough to not want to again"-efan

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, there's the rub isn't it? The new fictional positioning has to be an improvement over the current one or it's hardly a reward. So, as an example, I do good stuff in Traveller, I get a new ship which is better than my old ship. Or I become more important in the setting - head of a company or something like that. Which, in turn, leads directly to mechanical benefits. I am now head of the company, thus I can use the company's resources to further my own goals.

You can mitigate, sure, but, I really don't think you can entirely remove it.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

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



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

Oh stop your constant whining and edition war claims every time someone mentions 4th edition in a negative way. This is a thread about fun and I don't find the edition fun in the least.

 

[Mistwell]

Things I don't find fun...People who complain because they miss in a game and claim this feeling of uselessness...

OK, but can you at least empathize, a little, with the situation I described here?

Of the six people I routinely play with, one of them gets discouraged when he feels like his character is not making much of a difference in an encounter.

Part of that problem is right now the game is a form of escapism from a difficult time for this player. He works all day on a hard newer job, he has few friends near where he lives (which he moved to relatively recently, away from his lifelong friends), and then in the evenings he is taking care of a newborn who is fussy lately. Taking care of a newborn in the best of times is difficult, and it's even more so when they're teething or sick. Bottom line, his life is a bit rough and he uses D&D online with his friends as a form of brief escapism, playing the role of this hero doing good and making things happen in a fantasy world.

So in those brief breaks when he gets to play and engage in that escapism, he wants to feel like he's making a meaningful impact on what's going on. If he's going to escape into the role of a hero doing good - he wants his hero to be heroic and actually doing the good.

So if he just wiffs multiple times in a row, or if his character is paralyzed for an entire battle, I can hear him getting discouraged. To him, the little time he had to try and escape into the fantasy of the game left him as frustrated as real life.

That issue wasn't as prominent for that player when we were playing live, and he didn't have a newborn. But right now, it's having an impact. So it might be in his best interest to play a character that is more likely to have an impact on the encounter throughout the encounter. Even if that means his average damage goes down, or his defense goes down, I think he'd be happier if he felt like his character was "doing something" every round.

 

[pemerton]

But, there's the rub isn't it? The new fictional positioning has to be an improvement over the current one or it's hardly a reward. So, as an example, I do good stuff in Traveller, I get a new ship which is better than my old ship. Or I become more important in the setting - head of a company or something like that. Which, in turn, leads directly to mechanical benefits. I am now head of the company, thus I can use the company's resources to further my own goals.

You can mitigate, sure, but, I really don't think you can entirely remove it.

Those are good points which I was wondering about but hadn't properly thought through when I made my post.

If the fictional positioning of the PCs never changes, that sounds pretty boring - in the D&D context, the most boring dungeon crawl ever, maybe. But as you point out, once fictional positioning changes then it can open up new opportunities which some players may be better at exploiting than others.

When I look at 4e (to choose an uncontentious example!), the idea of everyone getting a paragon path or an epic destiny seems to be to give every player a chance to get something rewarding both mechanically and in terms of fictional positioning. For this to work as an antidote to min/max-caused imbalance, three things have to be true: (i) the designers have to achieve decent mechanical balance across the different PC build elements; (ii) the players have to choose elements which deliver the improved fictional positioning that works for their PCs (eg if I want to play a scholar I choose the right sort of path); (iii) the GM has to engage equally with each of the players' chosen improvements of fictional positioning (eg frame scenes where being a scholar matters). Spelled out like that, it's quite demanding on both the designers and the GM! If anyone gets it wrong, skilled players can spot the break points and play to them in their choices.

The analogue in Traveller would be a player who works to get his PC head of the diplomatic service, but the GM never frames interplanetary political disputes.

D&D in particular has such strong traditions about the GM's power not just in framing scenes, but in deciding what those scenes will be about, that it's hard to see how opportunities for optimisation can be avoided even if the focus is on fictional positioning. 13th Age at least provides an interesting model on the PC build side: its background system means that each player can choose fictional positioning for his/her PC which is mechanically equal across PCs (common bonus pool, metagamed setting of target numbers); but it still relies on the GM getting step (iii) right, and you can see this issue being played out in discussions on the forum about how to handle the player-input aspects of 13th Age (and it's further complicated by the fact that both Icons and One Unique Thing are distinct moving parts from the backgrounds).

The above probably isn't very coherent - just some thoughts prompted by your reply.

 

[Ichneumon]

OK, but can you at least empathize, a little, with the situation I described here?

"Empathy? We don't need no stinkin' empathy!"

D&D's a game that delivers fun via multiple avenues. There's actually playing the game, which has the joy of the unexpected, interactions with other players and the DM, plus the exploration and conquering of the game world. There's the more individual pleasure of my PC getting better and acquiring more stuff - some folks might dismiss that as a pig pleasure, but damn it, I like. D&D also delivers fun outside of the time you spend playing. There's thinking about what you'd like your PC to do, what else you would like to play, and for DMs there's constructing fun scenarios.

Reading the books is also a good source of fun. You can read rules, spells, monsters, magic items, and imagine how they might play out in your game. It's arguable that the anticipation of one day being able to cast a wish or wield a holy avenger is even better than actually doing so. Overall, a good D&D book inspires you with possibilities for what your games can include. That's fun.

 

[Eric Hughes]

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.

/snip

Oh that is easy. Reward both Low and High. In my old college home game we let player chose any stats they wanted. Catch was the we gave an experience point bonus to low stats. It worked pretty well.

In Arcanis:RPG (New Arcanis), stats run from 2-9 in a point buy system. A persons Fate Score meaning special flexible bonuses usable once per adventure is determined by the LOWEST attribute. Then there is the clock system of initiative, which rewards big weapons with big damage, but a slow speed. (Less attacks) and small weapons with more attacks. For example you get to strike with a dagger twice as often as you get to strike with a great sword. Character creation is designed to develop story.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Oh stop your constant whining and edition war claims every time someone mentions 4th edition in a negative way. This is a thread about fun and I don't find the edition fun in the least.

Fair enough. That opinion is as valid as any other but not particularly helpful in identifying why 4E isn't fun for you.

Another solution would be to design the system such that the difference between an uber-built character and a normally built one is simply not as significant within the game as it is now.

Lan-"I've met that player ofetn enough to not want to again"-efan

This is one of the many reasons I enjoy OD&D so much. Stat generation is very random but there isn't this feeling of hopelessness if you don't get certain benchmark scores and if another player happens to get a higher stat than you, it is NOT going to make your character worthless in comparison. The difference between a 12 STR fighter and an 18 STR fighter is that the stronger fighter gets an XP bonus and can carry more stuff. In AD&D a good % roll could mean as much difference as +3 to hit and +6 damage, which does make the 12 STR fighter look very wimpy in comparison.

The fact that a character, no matter what scores get generated, is only as good as player's decisions in actual play is a feature not a bug.

OK, but can you at least empathize, a little, with the situation I described here?

I can to a point, but those are the breaks when you play a game in which the actual contributions of the player are largely marginalized by the system. If nothing of meaningful importance can be accomplished without hitting a benchmark on a die roll then get used to this type of dissappointment and suck it up. It was the game you signed up to play. You knew going in, that game revolved around menu options and target numbers that had to be hit. When playing such systems you can have strings of really good luck AND bad luck. The point is, if you are only satisfied and entertained when experiencing good luck, you are setting yourself up for a letdown playing such games.

When you allow your feeling of self worth to be attached to and the game measures meaningful contribution to be determined by how well the dice roll, this kind of thing will happen very often. I have been playing a bugbear fighter in a friend's 4E game for about a year now and if I had judged satisfaction and fun purely on the luck of my dice then I would have quit months ago. There have been good streaks and bad streaks and a fair amount of meh thrown in for good measure. Through it all, the laughs and good times experienced with friends had very little to do with the outcome of the die rolls.

 

[Sadras]

Fair enough. That opinion is as valid as any other but not particularly helpful in identifying why 4E isn't fun for you.

Why, oh why, would you do that?

 

[Sadras]

Oh that is easy. Reward both Low and High. In my old college home game we let player chose any stats they wanted. Catch was the we gave an experience point bonus to low stats. It worked pretty well.

Nice idea.
Can you elaborate how much was this bonus in experience points? As in was it an additional 10% of the session (fixed amount) or was it dependent on how low the stat was, which would mean a higher XP yield for lower stats?