"Fun"

[Steely Dan]

Guess what? For some people, tracking ammunition *is* fun

Yeah, but the kind of people who find that fun, are often not fun people.

 

[Imaro]

Because the players are not having fun.



This is covered under bad DMing 2.



Exactly.



DMG p.27, "Paying attention".

Ok..

Point 1 : If they aren't having "fun" then either they don't like interaction or the DM isn't playing the interaction in a fun and engaging manner. Either way it's a really broad-based example of what's not fun for characters, assuming a mix of player types, there is nothing (except how the DM plays it out) that is inherently unfun about this example. We don't all play a combat/skill challenge boardgame hong.

Point 2: Huh? If the players aren't sure or familiar with this style of game enough to know they can talk to the guards...Right, ok they will still know to do this. OK.

Point 3: Exactly... what? I was using an example of why interaction can be fun yet not necessarily push the story forward...you know the opposite of what you claim for point 1.

Point 4: Yes communicating with your players and understanding what they want is key, yet it is contradicted by what we are talking about here for no good reason. Again hong, everyone doesn't play D&D as a combat/skill challenge boardgame. I would hope that in reading this paragraph that you could actually look beyond your own particular style of play for D&D to realize their are a multitude of playstyles and wants as far as the game is concerned and some of these criticisms of the tone and influence the game sets are valid, whether you agree they are the best for your game or not.

 

[Cadfan]

If they aren't having "fun" then either they don't like interaction or the DM isn't playing the interaction in a fun and engaging manner.

Or, interaction isn't inherently fun. Interaction can be fun. It may be fun. It is not automatically fun, even when roleplayed well. And while interaction may realistically happen between PCs and NPCs, if that interaction is not likely to be fun, perhaps because it involves a rote exchange of pleasantries with an unimportant NPC, move along.

I believe the point of the paragraph is clear to anyone not being hypercritical.

 

[Imaro]

Or, interaction isn't inherently fun. Interaction can be fun. It may be fun. It is not automatically fun, even when roleplayed well. And while interaction may realistically happen between PCs and NPCs, if that interaction is not likely to be fun, perhaps because it involves a rote exchange of pleasantries with an unimportant NPC, move along.

I believe the point of the paragraph is clear to anyone not being hypercritical.

This makes no sense... Combat isn't inherently fun, because it involves an hour long time period of using the same powers over and over again.

Skill challenges aren't inherently fun (and I'm really starting to think they are no better than the one roll challenges of 3.5), because they just involve rolling a die over and over again.

Etc.


Different people find different things fun, I can use your argument above for almost any aspect of the game, especially when carried out in a repetitive and unimaginative way by the DM. I mean if social interaction is inherently boring, why not just play boardgames...or a mini combat game?

 

[Mallus]

This I disagree with, as I disagree with the idea that there is anything at all to do with storytelling that is required.

I agree that a lot of D&D campaigns have nothing to with storytelling. This is usually unintentional, however.

Instead, it is closer to history and real life.

Even though it's historically been (self) described as 'game of heroic fantasy adventure'?

Because the paradigm explicit in 4.0 produces a false sense of achievement

Unlike the real sense of achievement the previous editions provided when your character stabs an elf to death? Wait, hong already covered this (using fewer words).

...who are not artificially-inflated into precious, unique snowflakes but instead win and earn their place through a combination of player skill and genuine effort in-character against opposition that is not (in rules, at the very least) different from them.

Note that you're complaining about unearned 'special snowflake' status being conferred to the PC's at the same time you're trying to confer equally undeserved 'special snowflake' status on D&D itself, and by extension the people who play it like you do. (Who knew D&D was chock-full of potential arete just waiting to bust out).

The most excellent that this hobby has to offer...

See what I mean?

...as it produces an experience superior to Classical Drama

So we should shoot for Oedipus at Minas Tirinth?

The unspoken assumption that tabletop role-playing games require any form of story-telling in the mode of most fictional work as a medium is wrong, and at times I must correct that notion.

What have you done other than say 1) D&D is not fiction, 2) D&D should be pointless and tedious unlike (good) fiction but like the actual world, and 3) suggest this somehow makes D&D an artform?

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Point 1 : If they aren't having "fun" then either they don't like interaction or the DM isn't playing the interaction in a fun and engaging manner.

Or the player(s) in question are bored with (apparently) pointless interaction.

I have no problem with my DM asking us what we order in the tavern I would likely have a problem with my DM asking us if we enjoyed our meals and making us say why in heavy detail.

I'm one of these people that play for the story that gets created. Don't get me wrong, I like the combat aspect of it and the game I'm in would qualify (by most) as combat heavy. But after a session or two noone would mistake it for 100% combat.

I have no problem with my DM describing a city in general detail. When my DM start describing the third begger I'm going to wonder.

I like interacting with NPCs. I like having my character surrounded by NPCs. My previous character that made it to level 27 was a cleric of Sune and had the Epic Leadership feat. But I also want the story of the campaign to move forward.

Is there a reason to describe the meal in the tavern? Is there a reason to interact with the guards? If there is (and 'because one of the players wants to' qualifies as a reason - at least until I get sick and tired of the player describing how his third helping tastes different from his first and second) then fine. If there isn't, then let's get on with it.

 

[Cadfan]

This makes no sense... Combat isn't inherently fun, because it involves an hour long time period of using the same powers over and over again.

This is actually quite true. Combat isn't inherently fun. Put your level 25 PCs in situations where they have to fight small groups of level 1 enemies. They might enjoy it the first time, but it will very quickly grow stale. Combat grows stale in the same situations that pc/npc interaction goes stale- when its being done by rote, without challenge, repeatedly, and/or for no meaningful story purpose.

Skill challenges aren't inherently fun (and I'm really starting to think they are no better than the one roll challenges of 3.5), because they just involve rolling a die over and over again.

Also true. Skill challenges aren't inherently fun. Skill challenges grow stale in the same situations that pc/npc interaction goes stale- when its being done by rote, without challenge, repeatedly, and/or for no meaningful story purpose.

Different people find different things fun, I can use your argument above for almost any aspect of the game, especially when carried out in a repetitive and unimaginative way by the DM. I mean if social interaction is inherently boring, why not just play boardgames...or a mini combat game?

"Interaction isn't inherently fun" does not equal "interaction is inherently boring." This even more obvious than the way that a statement in a paragraph about skipping extraneous detail that mentions handwaving talking to guards at a gate does not equal advice to always skip interaction with guard NPCs under all circumstances.

 

[hong]

Ok..

Point 1 : If they aren't having "fun" then either they don't like interaction or the DM isn't playing the interaction in a fun and engaging manner. Either way it's a really broad-based example of what's not fun for characters, assuming a mix of player types, there is nothing (except how the DM plays it out) that is inherently unfun about this example.

One more time. The context (not promulgated, but should be obvious to anyone who is not a silicon chip) in the bad DMing 1 example is that of a DM dragging out a conversation long past when the players have found it boring. This does not mean conversation is "inherently unfun". It means that there can arise situations where conversation is found to be unfun. Such situations are illustrated by bad DMing example 1.

Is this clear?

We don't all play a combat/skill challenge boardgame hong.

You say this like it's a positive thing.

Point 2: Huh? If the players aren't sure or familiar with this style of game enough to know they can talk to the guards...
Right, ok they will still know to do this. OK.

One more time. You said

IMHO, if all the players are interacting with the guards and having fun I don't see how the interaction is "wasted" even if it doesn't progress the story.​

and so, if the players are indeed having fun, the DM would be foolish to cut short the conversation. This is what is illustrated in bad DMing example 2.

I suppose that now, in a manner analogous to what you did with bad DMing example 1, you will leap on this illustration to claim that not everyone wants to waste time talking about stuff and nonsense and there is nothing wrong with this DMing example either.

Point 3: Exactly... what? I was using an example of why interaction can be fun yet not necessarily push the story forward...you know the opposite of what you claim for point 1.

You said

Now if after the initial interaction, no one is interested, by all means move along.​

One might conclude that you were thus expressing agreement with the notion that a good DM should move the session along, if nothing of great interest to anyone is happening. This is indeed the notion being conveyed by the DMG paragraph in question, hence "exactly". Is this clear?

Point 4: Yes communicating with your players and understanding what they want is key, yet it is contradicted by what we are talking about here for no good reason.

Nonsense.

Again hong, everyone doesn't play D&D as a combat/skill challenge boardgame.

You say this like it's a positive thing.

I would hope that in reading this paragraph that you could actually look beyond your own particular style of play for D&D to realize their are a multitude of playstyles and wants as far as the game is concerned and some of these criticisms of the tone and influence the game sets are valid, whether you agree they are the best for your game or not.

Of course there are a multitude of playstyles. And all of them involve having fun. Your point being...?

 

[AllisterH]

Or the player(s) in question are bored with (apparently) pointless interaction.

I have no problem with my DM asking us what we order in the tavern I would likely have a problem with my DM asking us if we enjoyed our meals and making us say why in heavy detail.

I'm one of these people that play for the story that gets created. Don't get me wrong, I like the combat aspect of it and the game I'm in would qualify (by most) as combat heavy. But after a session or two noone would mistake it for 100% combat.

I have no problem with my DM describing a city in general detail. When my DM start describing the third begger I'm going to wonder.

I like interacting with NPCs. I like having my character surrounded by NPCs. My previous character that made it to level 27 was a cleric of Sune and had the Epic Leadership feat. But I also want the story of the campaign to move forward.

Is there a reason to describe the meal in the tavern? Is there a reason to interact with the guards? If there is (and 'because one of the players wants to' qualifies as a reason - at least until I get sick and tired of the player describing how his third helping tastes different from his first and second) then fine. If there isn't, then let's get on with it.

THIS.

This is what I got from the DMG. If you're visiting the city, why are you roleplaying with the guards? I mean, when I go out of town to another city, I don't stop to talk to the local constabulary unless I have a reason to.

Honestly, how many of us talk to the gatekeepers other than a simple nod and hello.

 

[hong]

I mean if social interaction is inherently boring, why not just play boardgames...or a mini combat game?

1. Flexible victory conditions whereby everyone can "win" (very important)

2. More scope to advance your character (powerups)

3. Wider range of encounters, both combat and noncombat

4. Greater personal identification with a single character as opposed to a group

5. A cooperative rather than competitive activity

... or was that a rhetorical question?