Sundragon2012
First Post
Sometimes when I hear the term unfun, I think of the term "instant gratification." In the 4e discussions I am seeing this word more and more
On various RPing boards, including this one I have seen certain things labeled as unfun including, for example:
That a halfling PC might not be able to use an ogre's magical sword that is part of the treasure because it is simply too large.
That encumbrance should be done away with.
That limiting the player's options in regard to character races that are part of the setting is unfun and limits their creativity when the race in question ie. warforged do not fit in the setting without really changing the feel of the setting.
That even the basics of versimilitude such as not having anime style 7ft long swords with 8 inch diameter blades in a internally consistant setting is unfun.
That a DM mandating only certain classes based on the nature of the setting such as a Teifling paladin in Conan's Hyboria is unfun.
That the very real possibility of character death is unfun in an adventure game where the point is to face terrible foes and hopefully be victorious, but with absolutely no guarantees. There is NOTHING heroic about guaranteed victory.
In the above examples, I am paraphrasing various issues, but the point it that in the decades I have been DM I have never really encountered the kind of disregard for versimilitude as well as the sense of anything goes entitlement and instant gratification that I have seen since the dawn of 3e.
Honestly, I have run really fun and satisfying games for my players in campaigns and settings that have certain atmospheres and natures that do not allow for this IMO odd atittude I am seeing recently. When I ran a ravenloft campaign, none of my players thought it was unfun when they were placed in scary situations where is seemed hopeless (though it really wasn't). In Dark Sun you either survived or died by the strength of your sword, your magic and a steady supply of water. Every IMO quality setting has its own feel and integrity and playing and DMing in a given setting is in itself fun. Facing and overcoming challenges is fun. Achieving something is fun, even if that something is an increase in your character's reputation and notoriety and not a cool new magic item or power.
I think that when a setting is deprived of its atmosphere and core assumptions for the sake of "fun" ie. instant gratification of any and every whim is unfun and my players would agree. When all concerns for realism (such as needing water in a Dark Sun campaign, or facing the dark and sobering reality of Midnight) are cast aside because someone thinks their character should have the right to step all over the believability of the setting, I feel the setting and the campaign is damaged and unfun.
I would argue that if one bastardizes a setting by trying to avoid the impression of avoiding every possible thing that can in any way be construed as "unfun" one might as well not bother with a setting at all and stick to the colorless vanilla of the unnamed core D&D world, whatever that is.
It isn't that the DM shouldn't attempt to fit a character concept, race, feat, class, etc. in the setting if it can sensibly be added. However, some of these things can alter the feel of the setting until it destroys either the atmosphere or the necessary suspension of disbelief. And no, just because a setting has dragons and wizards doesn't mean that anything goes. One could add pink unicorn PCs to ravenloft, warforged to Dark Sun (where metal is nearly nonexistant), half-orcs to Dragonlance (no orcs), Inuyasha style anime big silly swords and whatnot to Eberron, little girls in parochial school girl dresses and mighty magical powers (Sailor Moon) into Midnight but ust because you can doesn't mean you should. Fantasy isn't necessarily synonomous with whimsy. Whimsy is fantasy but not all fantasy is whimsy.
Not allowing these things is not unfun, its just respecting the nature of the setting you've chosen.
Sundragon
On various RPing boards, including this one I have seen certain things labeled as unfun including, for example:
That a halfling PC might not be able to use an ogre's magical sword that is part of the treasure because it is simply too large.
That encumbrance should be done away with.
That limiting the player's options in regard to character races that are part of the setting is unfun and limits their creativity when the race in question ie. warforged do not fit in the setting without really changing the feel of the setting.
That even the basics of versimilitude such as not having anime style 7ft long swords with 8 inch diameter blades in a internally consistant setting is unfun.
That a DM mandating only certain classes based on the nature of the setting such as a Teifling paladin in Conan's Hyboria is unfun.
That the very real possibility of character death is unfun in an adventure game where the point is to face terrible foes and hopefully be victorious, but with absolutely no guarantees. There is NOTHING heroic about guaranteed victory.
In the above examples, I am paraphrasing various issues, but the point it that in the decades I have been DM I have never really encountered the kind of disregard for versimilitude as well as the sense of anything goes entitlement and instant gratification that I have seen since the dawn of 3e.
Honestly, I have run really fun and satisfying games for my players in campaigns and settings that have certain atmospheres and natures that do not allow for this IMO odd atittude I am seeing recently. When I ran a ravenloft campaign, none of my players thought it was unfun when they were placed in scary situations where is seemed hopeless (though it really wasn't). In Dark Sun you either survived or died by the strength of your sword, your magic and a steady supply of water. Every IMO quality setting has its own feel and integrity and playing and DMing in a given setting is in itself fun. Facing and overcoming challenges is fun. Achieving something is fun, even if that something is an increase in your character's reputation and notoriety and not a cool new magic item or power.
I think that when a setting is deprived of its atmosphere and core assumptions for the sake of "fun" ie. instant gratification of any and every whim is unfun and my players would agree. When all concerns for realism (such as needing water in a Dark Sun campaign, or facing the dark and sobering reality of Midnight) are cast aside because someone thinks their character should have the right to step all over the believability of the setting, I feel the setting and the campaign is damaged and unfun.
I would argue that if one bastardizes a setting by trying to avoid the impression of avoiding every possible thing that can in any way be construed as "unfun" one might as well not bother with a setting at all and stick to the colorless vanilla of the unnamed core D&D world, whatever that is.
It isn't that the DM shouldn't attempt to fit a character concept, race, feat, class, etc. in the setting if it can sensibly be added. However, some of these things can alter the feel of the setting until it destroys either the atmosphere or the necessary suspension of disbelief. And no, just because a setting has dragons and wizards doesn't mean that anything goes. One could add pink unicorn PCs to ravenloft, warforged to Dark Sun (where metal is nearly nonexistant), half-orcs to Dragonlance (no orcs), Inuyasha style anime big silly swords and whatnot to Eberron, little girls in parochial school girl dresses and mighty magical powers (Sailor Moon) into Midnight but ust because you can doesn't mean you should. Fantasy isn't necessarily synonomous with whimsy. Whimsy is fantasy but not all fantasy is whimsy.
Not allowing these things is not unfun, its just respecting the nature of the setting you've chosen.
Sundragon
Last edited:
