What the heck is "Unfun"?

[Gentlegamer]

In my opinion, the OP's general characterization of several of the "unfun" opinions that have been expressed at this messageboard are largely accurate.

Broad characterizations can fall anywhere on the inaccurate/accurate spectrum, with tendency to be towards the somewhat inaccurate side the broader the statement is.

***************************

I had been thinking of starting my own thread on the topic of fun/unfun, but with a different premise: the purpose of the game is not to have fun. Fun is a byproduct that can be experienced through game-play, but it is not the object of the game itself. It is far too subjective a feeling to be the actual object of the game. Without going into more detail, I will say that it is analogous to the feeling of "joy," as described by C. S. Lewis in Surprised by Joy. It will always elude you if you make it the object of your activity.

 

[psionotic]

Very well said and I think this is exactly what many of us are getting at. I know that my group hates it when a DM "cheats" to keep a character alive just for the sake of keeping that character alive. FOR OUR GROUP....with out the risk of death or other bad things, the game is not fun to us...

I totally agree. I hate hate hate it when a DM fudges to save my character, especially when s/he is so clumsy at it as to be obvious. The players have to feel like there's something at stake.

Actually, I think that dying *is* fun, and I'm one of those players who will rarely take a resurrection, because I also hate how easy they are to obtain in 3.x. But while dying rocks my socks, I still think that level drain is no fun at all.

 

[Sundragon2012]

There was no reason for what this thread turned into. Some posters have added new and useful things and that's good, but the level of hostility here was really too much as were attempts to completely threadcrap this thread out of existance.

Lets keep any further conversation civil with no derailings, threadcrappings, insults, mean spiritedness, etc. I am not off the hook because I can be bullheaded about something I feel strongly about.

Please Read​

I would like to apologize to folks that I, through my posts, inadvertantly insulted, or mischaracterized in order to make my point. It was not my intention to do either if that is what I did do. I still stand behind my point because I believe it is valid. I was bothered a lot by what I have been reading online about core assumptions in the game over the past few weeks and perhaps projected some measure of my anger into posts that, in retrospect, could have been more thoughtfully written.



If I managed to anger you....good that's part of the reality of feeling something deeply and reacting to a strongly contrary position about which you may feel passionately. Be mad at me for being so wrong and I'll feel the same way....then maybe there can be a passionate, yet civil thread about the topic of fun/unfun.


Let bygons be bygons and all that...hey at least we love the game enough to get mad.

















And for you few who agreed with me, I want to thank you for being wise and insightful enough to see how right I am.



Sundragon

 

[Sundragon2012]

In my opinion, the OP's general characterization of several of the "unfun" opinions that have been expressed at this messageboard are largely accurate.

Broad characterizations can fall anywhere on the inaccurate/accurate spectrum, with tendency to be towards the somewhat inaccurate side the broader the statement is.

***************************

I had been thinking of starting my own thread on the topic of fun/unfun, but with a different premise: the purpose of the game is not to have fun. Fun is a byproduct that can be experienced through game-play, but it is not the object of the game itself. It is far too subjective a feeling to be the actual object of the game. Without going into more detail, I will say that it is analogous to the feeling of "joy," as described by C. S. Lewis in Surprised by Joy. It will always elude you if you make it the object of your activity.

Not a bad idea.

I agree with your position that fun is a byproduct of the gaming experience and that the C.S. Lewis quote is spot on.

My players and I love the game (RPing games not just D&D) because it provides the opportunity for great battles, challenges, drama, engaging stories, interesting and immersive characters, occasional hilarity, etc. The fun is IMO the realizing of these things. We have always found ourselves having fun doing what we love to do and not doing what we love to provide ourselves with fun....seems a*s-backwards to me to do it any other way.



Sundragon

 

[Nifft]

negative pants

Fort DC 24 to remove.

Cheers, -- N

 

[pawsplay]

Troll or not, one thing is sure: D&D has not been "unfun" for 30 years, otherwise the game would have died long ago. And it has not become "unfun" all of a sudden either...

Encumbrance has always been unfun. 4e is doubleplusgood.

 

[Tarek]

A lot of the things listed as "unfun" might be annoyances and obstacles to the player, but that's exactly the point; the challenge is in managing those annoyances and turning them into what you do want.

Like the halfling who can't wield the ogre's greatsword... it'll take time, but he should be able to find some NPC who'll trade. That's a roleplaying challenge.

The things I find 'unfun' are things like "the golf bag full of weapons" with different materials and magical effects needed to bypass 3e's version of DR. In 1st, we had "can only be damaged by silver OR magic." So you could get by with one blunt magic weapon, one stabbing magic weapon, and one slashing magic weapon. Since some weapons could both stab and slash, you could end up needing only two magic weapons; one blunt, one stab/slash. +3 weapons generally accounted for everything except the most powerful demons and devils.

In 3.5e, the DR entry reads "can only be damaged by magical silver". So you end up with magic silvered cold iron blunt weapons, magic silvered cold iron stabbing weapons, magic silvered cold iron slashing weapons, magic silvered adamantine holy axiomatic weapons, etc. etc. etc.

In D&D Online, Turbine listened to its players get disgusted with the situation and added a new magical enhancement: "Transmuting". i.e. the weapon turned into whatever it needed to turn into to bypass DR. I don't know if this enhancement is officially available in pen and paper, but it sounds like a damn good idea, and I'll build it into my campaign as a house rule that all magic items get "transmuting" for free.

THAT is the kind of thing I find annoying and unfun. Especially since it only matters for those characters that aren't heavily optimized. The enlarged raging barbarian warshaper spiked chain specialist does enough damage that it powers through DR anyway.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

In 3.5e, the DR entry reads "can only be damaged by magical silver". So you end up with magic silvered cold iron blunt weapons, magic silvered cold iron stabbing weapons, magic silvered cold iron slashing weapons, magic silvered adamantine holy axiomatic weapons, etc. etc. etc.

The point of DR is generally that it's a defense. It's not meant to be ignored every time, so it's not expected that a fighter will have one of each or that you'll know every time what you need. If you don't have the right weapon, most monsters should be very tough but not impossible. If you do have the right weapon, the monster should be fairly easy.

Now, in some cases, maybe DR really is meant to be so good as to be nearly un-bypassable. A pit fiend, for example, is the top-tier devil. It would make great dramatic effect for the party to go up against one, get trashed, run away, research the monster's weaknesses, quest for the holy silver sword "Purifier," and then go for a rematch.

The trouble is that 3.5 allows damage values to get way too high. If you reduced the benefits for 2-handed weapons (maybe just +1 Str modifier and 1.5X Power Attack), you could probably get by with the common DR being 3 and 7 rather than 5 and 10. (I'd keep the top tier at 15 or maybe even move it higher.)

 

[Nifft]

@ Tarek: 3.5e DR did two things: The first was indeed to make DR harder to penetrate. However, at the same time they reduced the penalty for failing to penetrate.

In 3.0e, with DR 50/+3, the golem basically meant "go home, kid". You needed a weapon THIS BIG to even think about playing.

In 3.5e, with DR in the 5-15 range, even if you fail to penetrate, you are still effective. It means you are rewarded for having the right gear, but even if you don't have it, you can still contribute.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Zimri]

My criticism is of an attitude amongst some who feel that the fun of playing the game with a well designed, interesting character, isn't enough anymore.

Sundragon

Right now then how many of those do you want to make in one session because of bad die rolls ?

It takes me some time to create a personality for my characters, and it would feel like I was "cheating" on my current one to have a back up ready. So when my well designed, interesting character dies 3 combat rounds into the start of a new campaign it is "unfun" for me to sit out the next 4 hours of the night and then try to force a new Well designed, interesting personality to coalesce by next weekend.