Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 8576025" data-attributes="member: 20564">NO.&nbsp; By definition, fun is the objective of every game, over reasonableness. Now, reasonableness/unreasonableness can and will impact your fun. But you need to measure it in fun.That is not a playstyle difference, it's part of the definition about why people play games.Which I had address in the earlier post about converting reasonableness to fun.&nbsp; If something is unreasonable causing lots of unfun for a group, that's a problem.&nbsp; But again, unreasonableness -- as and by itself -- is not the problem, it's how it impacts the fun of the game.A &quot;reasonable&quot; board game about war might be bogged down in endless approvals for money from civilain governments, civilian support or not for war, battle fatigue, etc.&nbsp; Fun for some, too crunchy for others.&nbsp; An unreasonable one might just focus on the strategy and the tactics and be more enjoyable for the majority.You are telling me that, if a group of players got together in a team-based game like D&amp;D to create a group of all stealthy characters, that the majority of them would be having more fun if the game mechanics were that they could not work as a team because the odds were too slim and they needed to split the party often and have some people sitting idle?Sorry, that's not - to use the term you've been espousing - reasonable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 8576025, member: 20564"] NO. By definition, fun is the objective of [I]every[/I] game, over reasonableness. Now, reasonableness/unreasonableness can and will impact your fun. But you need to measure it in fun. That is not a playstyle difference, it's part of the definition about why people play games. Which I had address in the earlier post about converting reasonableness to fun. If something is unreasonable causing lots of unfun for a group, that's a problem. But again, unreasonableness -- as and by itself -- is not the problem, it's how it impacts the fun of the game. A "reasonable" board game about war might be bogged down in endless approvals for money from civilain governments, civilian support or not for war, battle fatigue, etc. Fun for some, too crunchy for others. An unreasonable one might just focus on the strategy and the tactics and be more enjoyable for the majority. You are telling me that, if a group of players got together in a team-based game like D&D to create a group of all stealthy characters, that the majority of them would be having more fun if the game mechanics were that they could not work as a team because the odds were too slim and they needed to split the party often and have some people sitting idle? Sorry, that's not - to use the term you've been espousing - reasonable. [/QUOTE]

Verification