Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"It's not fun when..."
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8858110" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>It's not fun when the distribution of power over the gameplay space is <em>sharply</em> skewed. AKA: "Casters rule, martials drool." To be a full spellcaster is to have <em>enormous</em> power over the game-space, power that can only really be curbed "by the rules," because that power is simultaneously well-defined and highly open-ended, <em>on top of</em> whatever the spellcaster can persuade the DM to let them do. This inherently and deeply unequal distribution of ability to affect the game causes a lot of issues for a segment of the playerbase...which is why the "LFQW" debate continues to rage on today. This could be addressed with a variety of different solutions, or a group of such solutions: lowering or diluting* the power of magic so it doesn't provide <em>that</em> much more control over the gameplay space, giving non-casters more codified power over the gameplay space, making all characters spellcasters and thus eliminating the distinction (often criticized, despite the fact that no edition has ever actually <em>done</em> it), separating utility magic from other forms of magic and making that separate system require more significant investment, or removing spellcasting classes so only non-casting options are available (again, oft criticized but never actually done before.)</p><p></p><p>Ironically, it is often not fun when the game is designed to pursue fun <em>über alles</em>. This can easily lead to a shallow experience, or a slow degradation of that fun over time. It's related to the problem of happiness: <em>trying to be happy</em> usually fails, often miserably, while dedicating your time and resources to something outside of or beyond yourself, despite not being <em>directly</em> happiness-creating, is often quite successful at producing happiness. (This is not some random theory thing, either; actual psych research has shown that people who put the most emphasis on being happy are consistently the <em>least</em> happy people, and even that <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/curious/201009/the-problem-happiness" target="_blank">simply being <em>informed</em></a> about the benefits of happiness can cause people to experience less joy!) Hence, it is unwise and likely even counterproductive to make fun <em>über alles</em> the goal of one's game design. One should instead identify the overall kinds of experience one wishes to evoke in players (e.g. wonder, excitement, dread, tactical acumen, etc.), and then set design goals which will (hopefully!) serve that end effectively and efficiently. One is likely to then find that fun almost <em>accidentally</em> falls out of the game in question. (This does not mean one should never ever <em>consider</em> fun as part of the design process. Just that focusing on fun <em>over all other considerations</em> can in fact actually be harmful to the experience of playing a game.)</p><p></p><p>It's not fun when a game describes itself as something it isn't, only for players to discover this <em>after</em> they've started playing. This is a major criticism I have of 3rd edition. It bills itself as a cooperative teamwork fantasy roleplaying game: a merry band of <em>peers</em>, supporting one another as they adventure through the dangerous, magical wilds of the world. Instead, mechanically, it is almost totally focused on individual contributions and the evaluation of events within a single turn. Action economy is king (as it is in almost any game--TTRPG or CRPG or whatever--that has such a thing), and the specific action economy of 3e dictates that teamwork-synergy is almost always inferior to simply doing something yourself. Heal an ally? No, don't bother--you're wasting an action to <em>un-do</em> an enemy action, rather than to <em>do</em> something to the enemy. Instead, use that spell slot to blow up the bad guys, getting the fight closer to resolution. Buff? Even worse! Now you're trading the <em>realized act</em> of doing something productive for the <em>potential possibility</em> of someone else doing something slightly more productive than they already would have. The rules themselves incentivize self-centered thinking and ruthless <em>personal</em> optimization. 5e has fixed some of these problems by introducing more sticks into the design of magic (Concentration being the big one), but by and large it has preserved an awful lot of what led 3e so astray. Fixing this is would require rewriting a significant portion of spells so that synergy and teamwork actually do provide bigger benefits than ruthless personal optimization. If one were designing a brand-new game, one would need to start from the presumption that teamwork <em>should be better</em> than solo contribution, and thus review all mechanics as they are introduced to see if they actually support that design goal. (Incidentally, that's an example of a design goal, which follows from the intended-play experience of <em>teamwork</em>.)</p><p></p><p>*Dilution, in this sense, would be stuff like forcing casters to roll for certain kinds of powerful utility spell effects, so that magic is not an instant-win button anymore.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8858110, member: 6790260"] It's not fun when the distribution of power over the gameplay space is [I]sharply[/I] skewed. AKA: "Casters rule, martials drool." To be a full spellcaster is to have [I]enormous[/I] power over the game-space, power that can only really be curbed "by the rules," because that power is simultaneously well-defined and highly open-ended, [I]on top of[/I] whatever the spellcaster can persuade the DM to let them do. This inherently and deeply unequal distribution of ability to affect the game causes a lot of issues for a segment of the playerbase...which is why the "LFQW" debate continues to rage on today. This could be addressed with a variety of different solutions, or a group of such solutions: lowering or diluting* the power of magic so it doesn't provide [I]that[/I] much more control over the gameplay space, giving non-casters more codified power over the gameplay space, making all characters spellcasters and thus eliminating the distinction (often criticized, despite the fact that no edition has ever actually [I]done[/I] it), separating utility magic from other forms of magic and making that separate system require more significant investment, or removing spellcasting classes so only non-casting options are available (again, oft criticized but never actually done before.) Ironically, it is often not fun when the game is designed to pursue fun [I]über alles[/I]. This can easily lead to a shallow experience, or a slow degradation of that fun over time. It's related to the problem of happiness: [I]trying to be happy[/I] usually fails, often miserably, while dedicating your time and resources to something outside of or beyond yourself, despite not being [I]directly[/I] happiness-creating, is often quite successful at producing happiness. (This is not some random theory thing, either; actual psych research has shown that people who put the most emphasis on being happy are consistently the [I]least[/I] happy people, and even that [URL='https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/curious/201009/the-problem-happiness']simply being [I]informed[/I][/URL] about the benefits of happiness can cause people to experience less joy!) Hence, it is unwise and likely even counterproductive to make fun [I]über alles[/I] the goal of one's game design. One should instead identify the overall kinds of experience one wishes to evoke in players (e.g. wonder, excitement, dread, tactical acumen, etc.), and then set design goals which will (hopefully!) serve that end effectively and efficiently. One is likely to then find that fun almost [I]accidentally[/I] falls out of the game in question. (This does not mean one should never ever [I]consider[/I] fun as part of the design process. Just that focusing on fun [I]over all other considerations[/I] can in fact actually be harmful to the experience of playing a game.) It's not fun when a game describes itself as something it isn't, only for players to discover this [I]after[/I] they've started playing. This is a major criticism I have of 3rd edition. It bills itself as a cooperative teamwork fantasy roleplaying game: a merry band of [I]peers[/I], supporting one another as they adventure through the dangerous, magical wilds of the world. Instead, mechanically, it is almost totally focused on individual contributions and the evaluation of events within a single turn. Action economy is king (as it is in almost any game--TTRPG or CRPG or whatever--that has such a thing), and the specific action economy of 3e dictates that teamwork-synergy is almost always inferior to simply doing something yourself. Heal an ally? No, don't bother--you're wasting an action to [I]un-do[/I] an enemy action, rather than to [I]do[/I] something to the enemy. Instead, use that spell slot to blow up the bad guys, getting the fight closer to resolution. Buff? Even worse! Now you're trading the [I]realized act[/I] of doing something productive for the [I]potential possibility[/I] of someone else doing something slightly more productive than they already would have. The rules themselves incentivize self-centered thinking and ruthless [I]personal[/I] optimization. 5e has fixed some of these problems by introducing more sticks into the design of magic (Concentration being the big one), but by and large it has preserved an awful lot of what led 3e so astray. Fixing this is would require rewriting a significant portion of spells so that synergy and teamwork actually do provide bigger benefits than ruthless personal optimization. If one were designing a brand-new game, one would need to start from the presumption that teamwork [I]should be better[/I] than solo contribution, and thus review all mechanics as they are introduced to see if they actually support that design goal. (Incidentally, that's an example of a design goal, which follows from the intended-play experience of [I]teamwork[/I].) *Dilution, in this sense, would be stuff like forcing casters to roll for certain kinds of powerful utility spell effects, so that magic is not an instant-win button anymore. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"It's not fun when..."
Top