What the heck is "Unfun"?

[Majoru Oakheart]

It isn't that things we've been doing for the last 20 years were always "unfun", it's that we tolerated them because we HAD to, the rules said that's the way it worked and we accepted it.

People are actually sitting back and saying "If I could make a new version of the game where the things I don't like about it were gone, what would I remove?" And the list you're getting is the "unfun" list.

There's going to be things we don't like about any game. However, in the past we were told that certain things NEEDED to stay since they were NEEDED for the game. You needed to have 9 levels of spells where you prepared them in advance. You NEEDED to have a list of every weapon that's ever historically existed and every armor so you can realistically create any period of Earth's history. Wizards NEEDED to be extremely powerful for one fight in exchange for being really weak in all the other fights.

All of these things were accepted. Partially because that's the way it's always been done, and partially because no one could think of a better way. I mean...how do you balance the ability to shoot fireballs with the ability to swing a sword? The ONLY way (or at least the old way of thinking was) that they had to have only a couple of uses of the ability per day and make them REALLY weak the rest of the time.

The new thinking says "There are lots of examples in books and movies of fighters being able to do some AMAZING things with swords, nearly on the magical level...why not just give them abilities that are just as powerful as a fireball but in a different way?" And people are responding to that with "Yeah...that makes sense...why didn't we think of that before? Now that we think about it, we sat back an envied all of those wizards for doing all sorts of cool things and wished my fighter could to. I wasn't having as much fun as I would have WITH those powers." So, people are saying things are "unfun".

 

[Sundragon2012]

I'm going to summarize my response to the earlier parts of this by simply referring you to the dictionary. Well, a single word in the dictionary: competitive. Examine the definition of the word as it applies to sports. Got it clear in your head? Okay, now here's the tricky part - understand D&D isn't that.

As for this little closing sentiment here, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that most D&D players know life isn't fair when you're nine, having been nine already. Hell, I'll bet most of them know the bigger secret (and I'll even let you in on it) - it doesn't get any more fair at 15, or 19, or 25, or 40. Life, as it turns out, kinda sucks sometimes. For everybody. More important lessons for D&D players of all stripes include:

• Fresh air, the sun, and vegetables will not kill you at low exposures.
• D&D is not a substitute for actual life experiences.
• Your play style is not objectively better. Hell, it might not be subjectively better. But it's fun, so keep at it.
• Soap: Not just a decorative element in the shower!
• Your dice are perfectly random. Unless someone else in the group touches them.
• D&D is not, however over-burdened your 'realistic' house rules may be, life. It is thus not beholden to the Sometimes It Sucks clause.

D&D isn't supposed to be competitive between the DM and the players. I am 100% against an adversarial relationship between DM and players. However, where you have it wrong is that there is a distinct competition for survival between PCs and their enemies. Their enemies often want nothing more than to kill them and should be played in a manner befitting that motivation. The PCs on the other hand are often just as intent on killingn them and that is the way it should be in these kinds of circumstances.

There are winners and losers in fantasy fiction, myth and in all fantasy RPGs since the beginning of the hobby. If the good guys die against the BBEG then they die and there may be no chance to return depending on the nature of the setting and the situation. When the good guys kill the BBEG there is celebration. There most certainly is competition, the competition for survival in heroic fantasy makes it HEROIC.

Anything is sterile and distinctly unheroic and unfun.

The rest of your post has nothing whatsoever to do with my point in the context of gaming. If some gamers need to take more showers and enjoy more of the "real" world than that is between them, their loved ones and their god(s).



Sundragon

 

[Doug McCrae]

The very idea that someone could complain that "I felt that my character was useless because he couldn't use his sword on the demon, werewolf, vampire, angel, etc. and I think that the rules should make sure that I am relevant in every encounter no matter what" is unfortunate IMO.

There should be great challenges, challenges that player's have to rack their brains over, "oh my god my sword couldn't affect this creature, I need to research how to defeat it."
Fantasy fiction and folklore is filled with creatures that skill alone cannot defeat and aganst whom wits are greater than steel.

The lesson I learned is that two-weapon fighting sucks, so next time I'll go for two-handed PA. Doing massive damage is a more effective means of getting past DR than having a weapon of the right material as it also helps you kill non-DR creatures faster.

In that particular game fights tended to be over in about 3 rounds so it was vital to make each round's action count. The time taken to change weapon was often too long. Also it was a Savage Species game so we had no knowledge skills to tell us what materials were required anyway.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I have no problem if a DM limits whats what Race/Class combinations are available. Saying I can't play a Warforged in this campaign in the DM's perogative.

There are; however; things I find 'unfun':

Twiddelling my thumbs for a large portion of a combat because I rolled a 1 on a saving throw (against my best save none-the-less).

Shooting things with a crossbow when I'm supposed to be using magic and/or attacking something and hope I roll a 20 so I actually hit.
(Please note: this is fine in small doses. I don't mind fighting a golem (pre-orb spells) so the fighter has a chance to shine or being the fighter attacking a tank critter that has a really low touch AC so the wizard can shine... every so often. I don't want to have the magic using PC firing the crossbow every session though. He's the magic user. He should be using magic.)

Those are the two big ones. There are some minor ones (why do I need to keep track of copper pieces at level 20?) but I think those qualify more as "annoying" than "unfun", for me at least.

 

[StarFyre]

maybe it's just me

As sundragon said..

in my current 3.5 campaign (with some modified/house rules of course), planescape setting (using 2E materials for all the background info removed from 3.5E monster manual), my players had to help someone, which would take them to teh abyss (they didn't know this).

One player was smart enough (screw the intelligence of the character..my goal is also to help my players become better actors (ie. roleplayers) AND to learn problem solving skills, etc in real life, so I am ok with them using their own intelligence, etc to solve problems, puzzles, etc..but not using background knowledge for creatures they never faced in the game before....long story). anyways, one player asked, what type of 'enemies may we face in this area you are sending us?"

My notes, mentioned, if anyone asked, not to tell WHERE, but mention cold iron weapons would help as many creatures in the area appear almost immune to normal stuff.

So my friends asked me (out of character, since it's not in PHB, do I use cold iron in my campaign)..i replied of course. So then in character, they went shopping. Now the dumb part was..they only bought 1 cold iron dagger?!?!? (what the hell were they thinkign!)

in the ensuing adventure (the next session...we don't have many fights in my campaigns)...the battle was with 1 bar-iguara, who summoned several dretches (I modified summoning, so it's like 2E....attrition..demon summons help, that help summons help, etc..the way it should be damnit)

due to tehir bad planning, only 1 person could hurt the enemies..but due to my experience as DM, I was certain the battle itself, while challenging, and 'logical' for the setting, was not overly insane.

They won, but it took a while!!! 12 or 15 rounds, with lots of tactical movement (or so attempts).

In the end, they learned...not to charge the stuff like that, to equip properly, etc.

Next time they went to a new place, they planned better.

I want my friends to get better.

I firmly believe, tactical combat, asking questions, learning as if this was real life, puzzles, riddles, logical puzzles, etc all help them problem solve in real life (IF the difficulty is hard enough...even many of my boss battles are hard enough to be considered more of a puzzle on how to get by it..since toe to toe won't work!!!).

It sounds like every edition of table top games is moving away from such challenges and just making it a pure #s game

Sanjay

 

[Doug McCrae]

I would think that it would be important to make sure that the archers are actually able to shoot the arrows they're firing at the orcs they're trying to kill. I don't know that arrows should have the same unlimited quality as bullets in a John Woo film.

I can see three options here:

1) Keep track of every arrow, which means marking one off every time you shoot.
2) Unlimited arrows, a la John Woo.
3) A different kind of system which makes it possible to run out of arrows. Perhaps Buffy-style where the DM gives you a hero point in exchange for saying you run out at a dramatically appropriate point.

To my mind, (1) is by far and away the worst solution. It's boring, error prone and undramatic. The extra realism isn't worth the hassle, by far. (2) and (3) are much better.

Likewise with money I would like to see a more general system. Perhaps wealth could be a +modifier. Minor purchases are waived, major ones require a roll against a DC.

Same with encumbrance. PCs tend to be ridiculously strong anyway. Assume they can carry the typical backpack and gear without toting up the weight of every last iron spike.

All of this very much relates to the '20 minutes of fun packed into four hours' comment in my sig. When you're spending most of your time at the game table keeping track of arrows and money, calculating encumbrance and other unfun activities such as haggling with shopkeepers or mapping, it's easy to see why there's only 20 minutes of fun in a session.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Another thing I find unfun is totalling up and dividing treasure. This can take ages if each monster slain has pp, gp, sp and cp*, various art objects, gems, trade goods and magic items.

The best solution I've found is to unify the loot more - a few big hoards, a few powerful items.


*And that's another unfun thing. Electrum pieces. What in the name of Jesus was the point of those?

 

[Sundragon2012]

I can see three options here:

1) Keep track of every arrow, which means marking one off every time you shoot.
2) Unlimited arrows, a la John Woo.
3) A different kind of system which makes it possible to run out of arrows. Perhaps Buffy-style where the DM gives you a hero point in exchange for saying you run out at a dramatically appropriate point.

To my mind, (1) is by far and away the worst solution. It's boring, error prone and undramatic. The extra realism isn't worth the hassle, by far. (2) and (3) are much better.

Likewise with money I would like to see a more general system. Perhaps wealth could be a +modifier. Minor purchases are waived, major ones require a roll against a DC.

Same with encumbrance. PCs tend to be ridiculously strong anyway. Assume they can carry the typical backpack and gear without toting up the weight of every last iron spike.

All of this very much relates to the '20 minutes of fun packed into four hours' comment in my sig. When you're spending most of your time at the game table keeping track of arrows and money, calculating encumbrance and other unfun activities such as haggling with shopkeepers or mapping, it's easy to see why there's only 20 minutes of fun in a session.

I get what you are saying, and though part of me can agree with a bit of it, the annoying versimilitude DM within me screams at the idea of John Woo arrows. There is something cinematic and dramatic about being down to your last arrow.

Green Ronin's True20 system has a wealth mechanic that might interest you as it isn't about cataloguing the last copper piece.

But yeah, I think that assuming certain things like some torches and iron spikes and other negligable essentials can be overlooked.

I am of the line of thinking that there is fun in the game via playing the game through your character and his or her interactions. Cinematic combats are great, but by the same token there are plenty of things in the game that add to drama that are grittier and therefore more challenging. Crossing wilderness in the winter seeking shelter from a coming storm while fleeing the hill giants tracking you through the snows is cool too as is in character role-playing social interactions with other PCs and NPCs.



Sundragon

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Another thing that strikes me as pretty funny is that a lot of "unfun" things players seem to dislike are directly connected to how much bookkeeping they have to do for their one player character.

Makes me wonder if DMing isn't the most unfun activity of all.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In the end, they learned...not to charge the stuff like that, to equip properly, etc.

Next time they went to a new place, they planned better.

That's something the players can fix fairly quickly though. The only thing I could do was change my character, since I was pretty much locked into the two-weapon fighting build.