What the heck is "Unfun"?

[pemerton]

I think 4e is likely to continue the trend of taking for granted that players are important contributors of gameworld elements. After all, it is this approach that sells splatbooks and their ilk.

This need not be the end of D&D as we know it, however.

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.

An alternative possibility is this: the players and GM jointly construct the setting. We work out whether or not the setting includes Warforged by seeing what the players want for their PCs.

I can imagine the response to this new rule in 4.0: "Players do not need to track ammunition. However, the DM can have them run out of ammunition at any moment he deems suitably dramatic." That would certainly model action movies, but I'm betting it would go over like a lead balloon.

It would. But as you almost certainly realise there is an alternative that better balances the roles of players and GMs:

the DM gives you a hero point in exchange for saying you run out at a dramatically appropriate point.

 

[pemerton]

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 question is: does the current DR system in D&D actually produce these sorts of events during play? I suspect it mostly does not.

 

[pemerton]

In my D&D game, each player chooses a RP goal based on their character's personality. Each game in which you meet your goal, you gain 1 AP.

This is a marked mechanical change from vanilla D&D. It certainly has nothing to do with verisimilitude - for there is no reason within the internal logic of the gameworld why achieving one's goals should make one more likely to succeed at one's goals in future.

If you are happy with this mechanic, I don't understand your apparent insistence (on this and other threads) that the only (or at least principle) source of pleasure in playing D&D is operational success.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

This is a marked mechanical change from vanilla D&D. It certainly has nothing to do with verisimilitude - for there is no reason within the internal logic of the gameworld why achieving one's goals should make one more likely to succeed at one's goals in future.

Psychological momentum? Feeling encouraged?

I'm not sure either of those apply so much as it's a roleplaying reward, but I'm always amazed at how often my group's plans succeed for as long as they keep going.

"A workable plan now, carried out with surprise and enthusiasm, is better than a perfect plan tomorrow."

 

[pemerton]

This is a marked mechanical change from vanilla D&D. It certainly has nothing to do with verisimilitude - for there is no reason within the internal logic of the gameworld why achieving one's goals should make one more likely to succeed at one's goals in future.

Psychological momentum? Feeling encouraged?

I'm not sure either of those apply so much as it's a roleplaying reward, but I'm always amazed at how often my group's plans succeed for as long as they keep going.

You're right, you can try and interpret it that way. But it then opens the possibility that Blackguards or Liches can drain Action Points with their fear or despair auras, and other in-game psychological considerations of that sort. Which I find a bit unsatisfying.

I think it's easier to just be upfront about the metagame nature of these mechanics, instead of contorting the gameworld's internal logic to fit them into it.

 

[hong]

Though it is hard to disprove, fortunately there's also not much to be gained by doing so. Reality would be just where you left it.

Unfortunately, you missed this bit:

The assertion, however, forms the basis on which the claim can be said to have any relationship with reality.​

Why do you like talking about flying spaghetti monsters?

 

[Shadeydm]

If his sole purpose is to threadcrap, I will continue to ignore the accumulation of turds.

That does seem to be the case more often than not.

 

[Shadeydm]

Raven Crowking-

You claim that the "extraordinary claims... etc" argument is a non rational way of avoiding actual debate by concealing baseline assumptions behind a catchy phrase. However, what I see is that your denial of the possibility of common frames of reference coupled with your insistence that extensive baseline assumptions and world views must be fully elaborated upon before discussion can occur is actually the real non rational way of avoiding discussion, this time by obscuring the possibility of immediately beginning the conversation behind extensive obfuscation on the nature of shared perceptions of reality.

Biggest sentence ever!

 

[Sundragon2012]

The Opening Question: What the heck is "Unfun"?

The Answer: Threadcrapping, Derailing and Threadkilling. Turning threads into courtroom proceedings filled with fascinating yet preposterously obscure and off-topic discussions of the nature of evidence and the nature of "extraordinary claims." It might be more interesting if some EXTRAORDINARY claim was actually made. Anyone who thinks my OP made such claims needs to rethink their definition of the word.

I even thought that maybe, just maybe apologizing for unintentionally offending some folks would allow things to go back to normal. Unortunately this was not the case and this has become an "Unfun" thread.

Raven Crowking, you fought the good fight. I'll discuss the implications of risk-less fantasy role-playing, the reason IMO the Great Wheel, alignments, and vancian magic need to go, why each setting needs its own planar cosmology, etc all day long but we've gone gone aground on this thread and there is no turning back.

"He's dead Jim."

-Deforest Kelley​

RIP The "What the Heck is Unfun" Thread RIP
9/13/07​

Sundragon

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd like to nominate this sentence for honorary Kantian status.

Cheers, -- N

Sorry, KarinsDad says we Kant.