D&D 5E Defining fun

[Mistwell]

This this this this 1000 times.

That's like someone complaining Monopoly isn't fun unless they always get Boardwalk and Park Place.

Since everyone is blissfully strawmanning this argument and pretending people are advocating a complete removal of the ordinary miss from the game, you're next on the list to be asked the question directly and then pretend it was not asked.

WHO is saying that ordinary misses should be removed from the game, and why would your argument not apply to a spell that does damage on a miss?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Since everyone is blissfully strawmanning this argument and pretending people are advocating a complete removal of the ordinary miss from the game, you're next on the list to be asked the question directly and then pretend it was not asked.

WHO is saying that ordinary misses should be removed from the game, and why would your argument not apply to a spell that does damage on a miss?

I'm not going to name any names but there are several people here and on the WoTc forums who complain about missing and want something to happen on a miss instead of nothing at all. A miss should be a miss unless it's some kind of area of effect like an explosion.

 

[Obryn]

I'm not going to name any names but there are several people here and on the WoTc forums who complain about missing and want something to happen on a miss instead of nothing at all. A miss should be a miss unless it's some kind of area of effect like an explosion.

All the time?

There is nobody who wants every form of missing or failure to be removed from the game. (If you know of someone, please do post names, because they should have a chance to tell you if you're misinterpreting them.)

There are people - like me - who think that options (with costs) which lessen the consequences of certain kinds of small-scale failure are pretty good as a mechanical option. Like an ability which says, "You only fall if you fail a Climb DC by 10 or more, instead of 5." Or "On a failed Intimidate check, your target's attitude towards you only worsens if your roll misses the target DC by 5 or more." And so on.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm not going to name any names but there are several people here and on the WoTc forums who complain about missing and want something to happen on a miss instead of nothing at all. A miss should be a miss unless it's some kind of area of effect like an explosion.

You dodged, so I will ask again. Who is advocating for removing ALL ordinary misses from the game?

The answer is nobody. Nobody is advocating for that. Including Great Weapon Fighting as an option for three fighter-types in the game is in no way, shape, or form removal of all ordinary misses from the game.

So show me someone, anyone, who is advocating removal of all ordinary misses from the game. If you cannot, then the argument that you and I think three other people have made in this thread is a total strawman. You guys are patting each other on the back for taking a firm stance against something that NOBODY has advocated. It's like you guys patting each other on the back for taking a stance against publishing the players handbook on a roll of toilet paper.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Talk about a faulty premise. Show me one person here who advocated for removing "missing-no-damage" from the game?

You have ONE option for a few fighter-types. You have some spells for spellcasters. You have I think one or two alchemical items. That's it. The huge bulk of the game remains with the concept of "strikes", people are just asking for a few more of the other types, of which have always been in the game (spells have always had a "half damage on a save" in the game).

Good thing they haven't removed "missing the point" from message boards. My point was that removing things from games because they are "unfun" is bad design, period. If it makes for bad gameplay, remove it. But "unfun" things are necessary, otherwise it isn't a game.

 

[ThirdWizard]

My point was that removing things from games because they are "unfun" is bad design, period.

There's no way that can always be true.

 

[Obryn]

Good thing they haven't removed "missing the point" from message boards. My point was that removing things from games because they are "unfun" is bad design, period. If it makes for bad gameplay, remove it. But "unfun" things are necessary, otherwise it isn't a game.

I think you might be mushing a few different meanings together, here, and it's coming across overly broad.

I mean, where I'm sitting, the point of a game is having fun with your friends, so kind of by definition you want more fun, and fewer roadblocks between players and fun.

Where it gets all confused and twisted up, I think, is that challenge - and hence, the possibility of failure - is a pretty common kind of fun that's integral to most RPGs, D&D included. This link, posted up-thread, lays out a really solid groundwork about things that are considered fun in game design. Stuff like DoaM isn't generally about failure or being unfun or anything; it's a mechanical choice made to lessen the consequences of certain kinds of failure. Much like making mechanical choices to lessen the odds of failure, it's a way to get better at your job through spending character resources.

There's all kinds of discussion to be had about peoples' preferred odds of failure, consequences of failure, level of challenge, etc. But when it's boiled down to "someone complaining Monopoly isn't fun unless they always get Boardwalk and Park Place" or "You have to be able to strike out in baseball," it's just weird because there's nobody actually arguing anything like those positions.

 

[Mistwell]

Good thing they haven't removed "missing the point" from message boards. My point was that removing things from games because they are "unfun" is bad design, period. If it makes for bad gameplay, remove it. But "unfun" things are necessary, otherwise it isn't a game.

No, that's not what you said, and if it's what you meant you chose a poor way to communicate it. What you said was,

Should striking out, or strikes in generally be removed from baseball? There has to be some unfun parts of any game to make the fun parts worthwhile. Otherwise, the entire game is "unfun."

Removing striking out, or strikes in general, is not the equivalent of adding a few things which are not strikes to the game. Adding a few non-strike parts is not the equivalent of removing all the unfun parts. And adding a few non-strike parts does not make the entire game "unfun". All of your equivalencies were false.

And I know you're trying to justify it as a "design philosophy" but that's even more a canard as you know quite well that's not the overall design philosophy and we're talking about a very tiny subset design element in a much larger design philosophy that includes an overwhelming majority of ordinary misses (strikes) in the game.

For example, to run with your baseball analogy (though I detest argument by analogy for these sorts of scenarios) adding foul shots that don't count as a final strike (though previously they did) was an addition to the baseball rules which did not take away from the fact that the game involves strikes, and yet it was a non-strike addition to the game. It didn't make baseball in general unfun, nor did it serve to replace the overall design philosophy for baseball with strikes and runs. But some of the reasons for that rule are similar to the reasons for the damage-on-a-miss, in that it was more fun to continue the batting if the batter had just managed to hit the ball on what would have been a strike out, despite the fact his "hit" missed the fair part of the field.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

For example, to run with your baseball analogy (though I detest argument by analogy for these sorts of scenarios) adding foul shots that don't count as a final strike (though previously they did) was an addition to the baseball rules which did not take away from the fact that the game involves strikes, and yet it was a non-strike addition to the game. It didn't make baseball in general unfun, nor did it serve to replace the overall design philosophy for baseball with strikes and runs. But some of the reasons for that rule are similar to the reasons for the damage-on-a-miss, in that it was more fun to continue the batting if the batter had just managed to hit the ball on what would have been a strike out, despite the fact his "hit" missed the fair part of the field.

That rule was adopted in 1901 to stop players from intentionally fouling off pitches they didn't like and upsetting the balance between hitting and pitching. It was not adopted because fouling off balls was "unfun." My objection is to any rule change made because something is "unfun." If it's a legitimately needed change to mechanics, then by all means, change it. For instance, way back in the beginning of baseball, any batted ball was considered in play. That was a rule change needed to keep gameplay in the field of play, it was not changed because it was "unfun." Else Randy Johnson would have never been allowed to pitch, as facing him HAD to be "unfun."

 

[Obryn]

My objection is to any rule change made because something is "unfun." If it's a legitimately needed change to mechanics, then by all means, change it. For instance, way back in the beginning of baseball, any batted ball was considered in play. That was a rule change needed to keep gameplay in the field of play, it was not changed because it was "unfun." Else Randy Johnson would have never been allowed to pitch, as facing him HAD to be "unfun."

Okay, I think I get the confusion.

Nobody is arguing that every single step of every process in the game, or that every single outcome, must be fun in and of itself. If you think that's the argument, that explains a lot about the sorts of analogies you're making. In the example above, keeping in mind that professional sports aren't played for the fun of the players, the ultimate goal of that rule change was to make the game as a whole more entertaining - in other words, fun - for the crowds.

You're mixing up the macro-level and micro-level fun parts, and focusing on the micro-level when I (and I think Mistwell?) are focused on the macro-level. Failure in and of itself probably isn't much fun at the micro-level, but the threat of it must exist at the macro-level for the overall fun of the game. That's why nobody is arguing that failure should be impossible or whatever. And why snide comments about Boardwalk or striking out are completely - if I might say - coming out of left field.

If you're not sitting down at the game table in order to have fun, I guess I don't know why you're playing a game in the first place.