What the heck is "Unfun"?

[Nifft]

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.

Fully agree. Needs to be said more.

Thanks, -- N

 

[The_Gneech]

So Saturday I was playing a nonstandard race barbarian, size large, and in the dungeon we encounter a crazy golem thing made up entirely of magical stone tablets. Most of the rest of the group is size small (long story), so their d4-based weapons are bouncing off its DR. With my 2d6+5+1d6 (fire) battleaxe, I'm pretty much the only one in the party who can hurt it.

The wizard casts enlarge on me, making me size huge -- I now have a 3d6+6+1d6 (fire) battleaxe! Yeah, baby!

However, whenever you hit this golem with a melee attack, it automatically triggers a random spell effect. In my case, cause fear. I got a reflex save to avoid the spell "blast" (missed), and a willpower save to resist the effect (also missed) -- so after hitting it once, my huge barbarian was out for the rest of the fight, cowering in the corner like the Cowardly Lion.

The rest of the party did manage to nick it into submission eventually.

Was this "unfun"? Well ... yeah, kinda, in the same way that having your behind handed to you by a superior football team would be. But it's also part of the game! "You win some, you lose some," is a necessary element of sustained enjoyment. "You win some, and then you win some more," is a surefire recipe for people quickly becoming tired of the game and finding something else to do with their Saturday night.

Is 4E going to go that route? I'm not sure. I certainly hope not! But after trying to hash out things with Mike Mearls re: his rust monster remake and seeing the thought process behind it, I think it's a valid concern.

-The Gneech

 

[Brother MacLaren]

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.

Why? There have been dozens of RPGs made over the past 20 years. Huge array of systems and rules. Why didn't you play a system that was more fun for you? And if you have been playing such a system, does the hobby not benefit from having a diverse array of games with different rulesets for different styles? Why must D&D change to be more like other games? I wouldn't walk into a GURPS forum and recommend that they change their rules to be more like D&D -- I'm sure their rules are great for people who like GURPS since they knew what they were getting. If you HAVEN'T switched to another system, why not? Why have you felt forced to stick with D&D's unfun rules?

Gamers have "voted with their wallets" and most, I think, chose D&D from among the TRPGs. So in that regard, one might surmise that D&D is the most fun to the most people.

 

[Cadfan]

Gamers have "voted with their wallets" and most, I think, chose D&D from among the TRPGs. So in that regard, one might surmise that D&D is the most fun to the most people.

"Most fun" /= "Objectively maximized fun which cannot be improved upon."
"Most fun" /= "No other system has fun bits which can be stolen to replace less fun bits in D&D."

 

[SavageRobby]

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 are just arbiters of "core" canon law ie. sacred rules and some other ways as well.

Heh. I think in this short paragraph you've already made it clear you're not the target audience for 4e. Faster leveling (and more of it!) and getting "kewl new stuff" seems to be an overriding theme in 4e.

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.

Hmm. How to say this. For actual implementations of games, I think you can blur the line between cinematic and verisimilitude, in the exact manner you suggested: "well not enough to destory the suspension of disbelief" - but that is in-game. The game you play itself acquires reality in your imagination-space, and so its easier to suspend disbelief. Reading a ruleset, that is, analyzing it apart from an actual implementation of the game, has its own dynamics, and its much easier to view the uncoupling of the two elements as there is no emotional attachment to the game itself to cloud one's vision. Or put another way, when not playing the game but studying the rules independently, I think its much easier to see the division of those two camps.

I think both camps have their own definitions of fun, too, and what is fun in one is not necessarily fun in another. Savage Worlds has a cool mechanic where you have as much ammo as you need - until you roll a critical failure, at which point you run out. Very cinematic? Very un-realistic - you could go through multiple combats and never run out of ammo - or run out of ammo, acquire more and immediately run out again with a second critical failure. (And we haven't even mentioned Bennies, a player mechanic that allows for re-rolls, among other things, so that the player could have simply re-rolled the critical failure to avoid running out of ammo.)

If I was trying to be a simulationist, that mechanic would bug the snot out of me (and truth be told, it did upon first read). But I've shifted from my old school mentality to the other side of the fence, and to me, its simply more fun. Its more dramatic. Its more like grabbing arrows and firing at the oncoming hordes, then suddenly reaching back and realizing you're out - and screwed (very movie-like, and great for player-based drama/tension), and its less like carefully counting and husbanding each arrow and taking careful stock of how they're used. Both are valid approaches, and both are fun to different types of gamers (and unfun to others) - and both ultimately accomplish the same thing in different ways, which is creating a decision moment when a player runs out of arrows.

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.

Savage Worlds is not OGL. Its not remotely d20. But it does have licensing opportunities. You'd need to contact the PegInc guys. (Email me if you're interested and I can probably point you in the right direction).

That said, its billed as a "Fast! Furious! Fun!" game (their tagline). Its pulpy and heroic and cinematic, but with some excellent nods to more realism (handling of wounds, the best and simplest fatigue system I've seen yet, and handles combat tricks like "look over there!" and sand in the face and other cinematic staples extremely well). It has its limitations - BTB the magic system is very tactical, and not at all strategic (something D&D magic is).

I hear the designers talk about their more incremental leveling, and that is exactly what SW does (much like other non-class based systems). When you "level-up" you can basically pick one incremental addition to your character - increase an ability, your fighting skill, a non-combat skill, add an Edge (similar to feats), etc - instead of getting an entire package of increases.

 

[Sundragon2012]

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

Absolutely not. There are plenty of players in their 20s who feel as I do about internal consistancy and versimilitude in their campaigns. Lots of teens might not feel the same way but I didn't when I was a teen either...well until my late teens anyway.

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?

You make a point in regards to spell componants and I always check to see how many 5,000gp jewels a mage is carrying for example. However, the arrow analogy falls flat as a comparison to spell componants because any DM who allows a wizard to cast 300 fireballs without even the appearace of componant aquisition is IMO crazy.

What is so darned difficult with keeping track of such simple things when you having nothing but your character to worry about?

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!"

Random saves are a vital part of the game as are hopefully rare save or die effects. This is a dice based game and there is an element of randomness. If someone doesn't want that they can hang out with their friends and play make believe without dice, rules or danger. I have seen the "Waah, its unfun to die" attitude and its amazing and is only had by new players who think you be able to respawn like you are playing a video game.

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?"

The DM can never, ever be forced to provide anything. The DM's responsibility is to provide a fair, exceting, dramatic, vividly realized, fun game with understandable rules and a consistant setting (if this is desired). The fact is some DMs suck and don't provide this, if this is the case the players have to live with it or find another game.

Setting consistancy requires limits, period. Anything goes, kitchen sink D&D is fine for the nebulous, undefined core setting but not for anything that exists as a published setting. If the player knows that his DM runs a Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Midnight or Hyborian campaign then they aren't entitled to a warforged monk. Can't accept it find another game.

If on the otherhand the DM is running a non defined setting ie. a life support for dungeons setting, then the player can feel entitled to a warforged monk especially if one can have a half-dragon, half demon ranger, warlock, hulking hurler. It all depends on the groundrules of the setting.

Having said that, the DM decides what is allowed and disallowed in his or her game. There is no struggle for control, there may be rational discussion and disagreement, but the DM is the final arbiter of what is exists in the world. The players have a right to come up with a character concept that fits in the setting. With rights come responsibilities. If the DMs obligation is to create a fun setting and guide a quality campaign for his players, then the player's have an obligation to respect his or er decisions and the integrity of the setting.

Also, because no one creates a character without DM input...if the DM has any good sense at all, the warforged monk would not be created in the first place because there would be communication between the player and DM.



Sundragon

 

[Raven Crowking]

It should be noted that the design goals for instant gratification and sustained fun are often at odds with each other. What is "unfun" for one might be necessary for the other.

Of course, "unfun" (like "wrongbadfun") really means "This isn't what I like, and I don't want to compromise".

RC

 

[WayneLigon]

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. Removing the 'unfun' elements to D&D is a very specific process and it's not supposed to be about the tone and feel of the GM's world.

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. There might be a good point in some campaigns for keeping track of every stick of Encumberance, but for most people it's something that contributes to that '20 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours' feeling. A lot of the resource management - but not all of it - is just make-work in a vain attempt to create some sort of balance to the whole thing. Or was just poorly thought out and now has acquired the status of Sacred Cow just because it's been there so long. Like that piece of deadwood in the corner office that's been with the company for 30 years and hasn't contributed for the last 20.

Removing the 'unfun' is something you do with a scalpel, not a shotgun. Every impedence to success can't be removed, nor should it conflict with the restrictions a GM places on his world.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Good post, WayneLigon.

 

[Sundragon2012]

...snip high quality content.....

Removing the 'unfun' is something you do with a scalpel, not a shotgun. Every impedence to success can't be removed, nor should it conflict with the restrictions a GM places on his world.

Sweet post in its entirety. I'm sigging the last line...and I never do that.



Sundragon