What the heck is "Unfun"?

[DM_Jeff]

I haven't read all these posts but from what I've read elsewhere "unfun" is also known as "challenges".

It really stinks in Monopoly when you don't land on the property you want five times around the board, so maybe they should make a new edition where you automaticlaly land where you want after a few tries. Brilliant.

-DM Jeff

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

I haven't read all these posts but from what I've read elsewhere "unfun" is also known as "challenges".

It really stinks in Monopoly when you don't land on the property you want five times around the board, so maybe they should make a new edition where you automaticlaly land where you want after a few tries. Brilliant.

-DM Jeff

Sorry, what's the challenge in "First round! Make a Fort save or don't play in this hour long combat" again?

Or to make my own ill-considered analogy, the new edition of Monopoly where there's a Chance and Community Chest card (1 each) that says "Return all your money and property to the bank and return to Go. Your turn is over".

 

[Sundragon2012]

Wait, "only have your character to worry about"? . I also have a job, a fiancee, bills, my homebrew worlds and smaller campaign settings, my cat, some historical reading, and a hotter-than-all-hell 9' by 9' custom-built Necromunda board (WiP) to worry about. Gaming is 5 hours a week, give or take, ......snip....

Not even worth responding to really considering the fact that we all know that everyone has other non-game things to do. I am obviously speaking of in-game responsibilities. Sweet Baby Jeebus if the internet doesn't seethe with this kind of crap.

Read the posts above I have admitted that ridiculous micromanagement is unnecessary. I am advocating good versimilitude to maintain a level of suspension of disbelief nothing more and nothing less. If you see me claiming otherwise feel free...and quote me in context.



Sundragon

 

[psionotic]

It really drives me crazy when people equate a desire to remove the 'unfun' elements of a game with the need to be babied with instant gratification. This is a perjorative, straw-man argument.

The 'Un-Fun' elements I would like removed are these:

1) Unnecessary bookkeeping: Get rid of durations by rounds, and make them by encounter (or something equally elegant). I don't want my players (or worse, my cabal of Red Wizards) to require a pile of 10 siders that I click over every time a turn comes up. It slows down play, and is invariably forgotten/inaccurate.

2) Multiple resolution rolls. For example, Player A wants to disintegrate a demon. They have to:
a) Roll a ranged touch attack, compare against touch AC
b) Roll spell resistance, see if they punch through.
c) Demon rolls a save, to see if they resist the majority of damage.
d) Player rolls damage dice, anywhere from five to 40! of them.
Yes, the player can roll his d20s at the same time, but that doesn't make it much better.

3) Wal-Mart magic items. Probably my biggest complaint about 3.x is that all of the Magic has been taken out of them, and they are no more interesting or rare than housewares. Yes, a DM can reduce the #, but the subsytems (DR, anyone?) are built specifically to require characters to carry around, for example, three +1 longswords, all of different materials. It has no personality, no spark, and is completely un-fun.

So please, can we drop the 'players just want everything handed to them' rhetoric? That really isn't what people are asking for when we say the game should up the fun.

 

[Gallo22]

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.

How hard is it to keep track of 20-30 arrowa??? Give me a break. We need a rules change for this????????!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

[Glyfair]

I think the 'unfun' bandwagon is like everything else: it started off being something very specific and some people took that to mean that everything that thwarted them should be take away.

Also, one thing that applies here is that people have varied tastes. What is "unfun" to some may not be to others. A lot of people think that because they have fun that something isn't "unfun." When it comes to a table "unfun" is determined by the group. When it comes to D&D as a whole, what is "unfun" is decided by the majority of the customers and the designers.

Removing the 'unfun' is about getting rid of the silly, stupid things that probably sounded good in 1977 but as time has gone on, we've seen that they simply are annoyances and that most people house-rule them away or ignore them.

Indeed, I think a good example of things that are "unfun" are those things that "most people house rule or ignore." That's a sure sign.

My example, mapping. In my experience the only people I have ever seen have fun with mapping were adversarial DMs who delighted in confusing the players. I have never seen a player who felt that mapping added to their game. I believe they are out there (and there were likely more in the early days), but they are a rarity.

Removing the 'unfun' is something you do with a scalpel, not a shotgun.

I mostly agree with this. However, a new edition is when a scalpel approach isn't always appropriate. A hacksaw is sometimes appropriate. However, that doesn't mean everything gets hacked. However, judicious hacking and rebuilding can show great dividends when a new edition is released.

 

[Gallo22]

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.

It does not have to be that way, but what if you and your group want ot that way?

 

[SavageRobby]

Sorry, what's the challenge in "First round! Make a Fort save or don't play in this hour long combat" again?

However, perhaps the problem that needs to be fixed in this case isn't the failed save issue, its the length of combat. For me, its not the failed challenge that is unfun, its the abysmally long combats.

(That is one reason we stopped playing 3x. Its something I hope is addressed in 4x.)

 

[Gallo22]

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?"

Again and over and over again. All these issues can be easilly handled with a DM who know s what he/she is doing. Everyone is stuck in this "the rules say this" mentality. If your playing with a group that is like this, change, or start running the game your way and DM.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

You know, your tone aside, I'll be honest, Sundragon. After that ridiculous list of non-issues you opened with, I haven't been engaging you with any degree of seriousness, and I guess it'd be more polite to do otherwise or bow out.

Since you're busy trying to prove your playstyle objectively right, I'll guess you didn't read my list of lessons very clearly or attentively and not continue responding to your arguments on this matter.

Have a good thread.