What the heck is "Unfun"?

[Sundragon2012]

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.

If bookeeping and paying attention to minutea is unfun for the players, they really need to sit behind the DMs acreen. Much of the DMs job is rooted in paying attention to details, the details of an entire setting as opposed to one character.

I love DMing because I enjoy details. For me its the details that make a setting come to life. When a player complains I think that the souls of DMs in the afterlife return to this world and make the player rolls 1s on important saving throws. Yep, that's what happens, so watch the complaining.

I can tell you that those who enjoy DMing are outnumbered by players several times to one. I think it takes a certain personality type to DM for years and years and love it. Not a superior type, just one different from those who are dedicated players.


Sundragon

 

[SavageRobby]

The more I read about 4e, the more they seem to be going the direction of Savage Worlds. And thats not a bad thing.

I'm an old school guy, and love AD&D and C&C, finding them chock full of "fun" (as its being discussed), but I have to admit that I really love Savage Worlds as well. I've been spending time stealing the best elements of SW and putting them into my C&C game. If 4e does this for me, I think it will be plenty of fun.



I see a bigger and bigger disconnect between those who want verisimilitude (or a close portrayal of reality, as close as you can get with Dragons and magic and such), and those who want cinematic action. IMO, gritty & verisimilitude come at the expense of having some of the "unfun" elements discussed. To solve those "unfun" issues, you get a more cinematic game. I see a place for both, but I think the market researchers have decided that cinematic wins out in terms of sales to the new gamer (or the WOW players).

 

[SavageRobby]

If bookeeping and paying attention to minutea is unfun for the players, they really need to sit behind the DMs acreen. Much of the DMs job is rooted in paying attention to details, the details of an entire setting as opposed to one character.

Go DM a game of C&C or Savage Worlds, and you'll quickly find that DMing doesn't have to be that way. DMing 3x might have had to be that way, but that doesn't mean 4x has to. And if the direction the designers are going, more power to them.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Yeah, that bookkeeping can be unfun all right.......

BTW, D&D is not a game in which it is necessary to be competetive with others at the table, but that doesn't mean that there isn't competition ongoing. When your characters fight orcs, the DM takes the role of those orcs, and they probably are competing with your PCs.

Or else, really, why roll dice at all? Why not just sit around and tell cool stories?



RC

 

[Insight]

Re: Unfun

I'd like to see a drastic reduction in the rules elements that bar you from an action "You can't...", changing them to making it harder to succeed "It's harder to..."

It's not fun when the rules prohibit you from doing something. It's a challenge when the rules make it harder for you to do something when you've made a decision that is detrimental to your situation.

 

[an_idol_mind]

While I'm not going to go into a list of things I think are fun and unfun, I think this topic is interesting, and I hope the 4th edition designers take a good long look at what they consider unfun before just yanking it out of the game. The big problem areas will hopefully be smoothed over, but only taken out if there is no other solution. Doing otherwise could lead down a slippery slope.

For example, lots of people seem to believe that save or die/save or be removed from combat are unfun. If the solution is just to pull those effects out of the game, though, it hurts some of the drama in the game as well as the setting. That means the basilisk and the medusa have to either be taken out of the game entirely or stripped of their signature powers because the risk of petrification is deemed unfun.

Hopefully, any examination of things that are deemed unfun will be looked at long and hard before being removed from the game.

 

[Cadfan]

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.

May I paraphrase: "Kids these days! Arr! Get offa ma lawn!"

If you look at the things getting labeled unfun, I think you will notice a trend. The things being described as "unfun" tend to involve 1) a lot of bookkeeping for an in game effect of minor importance, 2) "losing" for reasons outside of the players control, or 3) disputes between players and DMs regarding control of the setting.

Regarding 1) if I have a magical quiver that can hold 300 non magical arrows, and it takes me 100 rounds of shooting at full capacity to use up those non magical arrows, and if it costs me a trivially small amount of gold relative to my wealth to replenish those arrows, then why SHOULD I keep track of them? Doesn't this remind you of magical components? Sure, an element of realism is added, but an element of realism would also be added by making wizards count out how many units of bat guano they are carrying, and we don't do that. Should we? Would it be fun counting out all the different magical components a wizard might hypothetically need, making a list, and marking down each time he uses one?

Regarding 2) it really isn't that fun to lose for reasons outside of your control. Even if its realistic. I suspect you agree, but you changed that complaint in your mind from "its unfun to die due to a random saving throw" into "its unfun to die! Waaaah!"

Regarding 3) this is an eternal fight between DMs and players for control of the game. I'm sure you feel it is "unfun" for a DM to be forced to permit warforged or monks in a campaign world he designed. You should then recognize that its unfun for a player to be told he can't play a warforged monk character he designed. Considering that this issue is not going to be decided by the rules of the 4th ed, I'm not sure why you brought it up. Every gaming group has to come to a balance between the DMs desire to run the game he wants, and the players desire to play the game they want. They reach this equilibrium by considering things like friendship ties within the group, strength of preference, and the availability of alternate games. This has nothing to do with instant gratification, it has to do with your preference for DMs over players. There is no objective answer to the question, "is it better for a DM to make an exception and allow one warforged character in his campaign world, perhaps by writing a unique creation story for him, or is it better for the player to find something else he'd like to play?"

 

[Cadfan]

You know what else is funny about this thread?

There's a thread in this forum making the EXACT OPPOSITE COMPLAINTS as this thread.

This guy thinks that 3e+ has led to a lack of respect for verisimilitude, a demand for instant gratification, and (though he doesn't say so explicitly) diminished respect for DMs.

The other thread has people in it who believe that 3e+ has "reduced creativity" by binding the game down with all kinds of rules (ie, increased verisimilitude in a way which they do not like), and replaced instant action with spreadsheet oriented character construction.

 

[Sundragon2012]

The more I read about 4e, the more they seem to be going the direction of Savage Worlds. And thats not a bad thing.

I'm an old school guy, and love AD&D and C&C, finding them chock full of "fun" (as its being discussed), but I have to admit that I really love Savage Worlds as well. I've been spending time stealing the best elements of SW and putting them into my C&C game. If 4e does this for me, I think it will be plenty of fun.



I see a bigger and bigger disconnect between those who want verisimilitude (or a close portrayal of reality, as close as you can get with Dragons and magic and such), and those who want cinematic action. IMO, gritty & verisimilitude come at the expense of having some of the "unfun" elements discussed. To solve those "unfun" issues, you get a more cinematic game. I see a place for both, but I think the market researchers have decided that cinematic wins out in terms of sales to the new gamer (or the WOW players).

I'm old school in a variety of ways. I think slower leveling up is best, that the fun of the game is playing the game and not necessarily tied to aquiring powers and other stuff, that settings have their own flavors and dynamics that shouldn't be watered down for the sake of unlimited choices, that DMs aren't just arbiters of "core" canon law ie. sacred rules and some other ways as well.

The problem with the cinematic vs. versimilitude camps is that their needn't be a mutually exclusive attitude from either camp. I have had some high cinematic action in my games, but at the same time versimilitude never suffered, well not enough to destroy the suspension of disbelief. There is a fine line sometimes and it takes skill as a DM/GM to know where the line is.

I'm creating a setting for eventual publishing and am weighing the merits of different rule sets. I am interested in 4e (wait and see on this one), true20 and runequest. Is Savage Worlds OGL? I'll check into Savage Worlds because I have heard good things. I would like to make it suitable for 4e if possible but if it seems I'm swimming uphill by trying to create a certain kind of setting with an innappropriate ruleset.



Sundragon

 

[Dragonblade]

May I paraphrase: "Kids these days! Arr! Get offa ma lawn!"

If you look at the things getting labeled unfun, I think you will notice a trend. The things being described as "unfun" tend to involve 1) a lot of bookkeeping for an in game effect of minor importance, 2) "losing" for reasons outside of the players control, or 3) disputes between players and DMs regarding control of the setting.

Regarding 1) if I have a magical quiver that can hold 300 non magical arrows, and it takes me 100 rounds of shooting at full capacity to use up those non magical arrows, and if it costs me a trivially small amount of gold relative to my wealth to replenish those arrows, then why SHOULD I keep track of them? Doesn't this remind you of magical components? Sure, an element of realism is added, but an element of realism would also be added by making wizards count out how many units of bat guano they are carrying, and we don't do that. Should we? Would it be fun counting out all the different magical components a wizard might hypothetically need, making a list, and marking down each time he uses one?

Regarding 2) it really isn't that fun to lose for reasons outside of your control. Even if its realistic. I suspect you agree, but you changed that complaint in your mind from "its unfun to die due to a random saving throw" into "its unfun to die! Waaaah!"

Regarding 3) this is an eternal fight between DMs and players for control of the game. I'm sure you feel it is "unfun" for a DM to be forced to permit warforged or monks in a campaign world he designed. You should then recognize that its unfun for a player to be told he can't play a warforged monk character he designed. Considering that this issue is not going to be decided by the rules of the 4th ed, I'm not sure why you brought it up. Every gaming group has to come to a balance between the DMs desire to run the game he wants, and the players desire to play the game they want. They reach this equilibrium by considering things like friendship ties within the group, strength of preference, and the availability of alternate games. This has nothing to do with instant gratification, it has to do with your preference for DMs over players. There is no objective answer to the question, "is it better for a DM to make an exception and allow one warforged character in his campaign world, perhaps by writing a unique creation story for him, or is it better for the player to find something else he'd like to play?"

Fantastic post! QFT!