D&D General When does the system "work"?

[loverdrive]

I, personally, find it extremely unlikely that any TTRPG is truly unplayable, and do not believe it is possible to design a game that is genuinely, unequivocally impossible to have fun with. Hence why I have such a dim view of any use of "fun" as a mark of a successful game.

...especially if the group invokes rule zero left and right.

 

[Oofta]

For me a system works when it lets me play the game with enough flexibility to build the character I want (within reason) and then get out of the way of the stories we want to tell. In other words, a system that gives me enough detail to run the game by giving me rules on how to run things at a high level without dictating too many details.

No game will ever be perfect at this, of course because everyone has different expectations on the balance of "enough" rules without being "too much". I think that, for the most part, 5E does a pretty good job. No more leafing through the books to find the exact rule for this particular situation like 3.x, no "what does the power say" or "you can't do that because there's a power that explicitly does that" of 4E.

 

[payn]

I think if the challenge rating (CR) is accurate you could say the system is working. It's likely you have a tightly bound math system that is difficult or impossible to break. Provides a real classic combat as sport experience. Reliable, accurate, and totally predictable to make running the game easier.

 

[GMMichael]

Given the D&D forum location:

The system works when players want to buy more D&D books, while having a fun session of fiction creation that stands on the required use of sacred cows: six abilities, attack rolls vs. AC, alignment, character classes, and several items that aren't included in the SRD (like...beholders?). (Sorry THAC0.)

Or when Sage Advice would approve of everything that transpires?

 

[Professor Murder]

The system works when it provides a Goldlocks zone of experience.

• Combat is neither too long or too short, too easy or too difficult.
• The rules are not too complex to be non-intuitive nor are they too simple so that they fail to cover most things that happen in the course of the game.
• Characters are not too bloated so that players can't decide to do when called upon to act but not too bare bones that players feel they rarely get to shine.
• Players and GMs alike don't feel as if it is more like work than fun but also don't end up having to put in no work at all, making the fun cheep and in the end devalued.

"Moments to learn, years to master." is an old trope, but It's apt. Barrier to entry should be low, while encouraging deeper exploration should also be present.

 

[MGibster]

I don't think that "fun" is a useful metric. I mean, if the game wasn't fun it basically means that it just plain sucked, and "not sucking" is the lowest possible bar to clear.

When it comes to games, my enjoyment is the most useful metric for determining whether or not a system works. And it's not necessarily a binary choice between fun and not fun as there are various levels of fun. There are plenty of games out there that I'd rather not play, not because they're not fun, but because I'd rather spend my time playing these other games that are more fun.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

The system works when it provides a Goldlocks zone of experience.

• Combat is neither too long or too short, too easy or too difficult.

What about systems that don't include combat, or that intentionally keep combat encounters extremely short (maybe one or two rolls)?

If that system is for a premise and tone that specifically deemphasizes combat, isn't it working as intended?

 

[Stalker0]

I have generally defined "winning Dnd" as "a game in which all players get moments to feel cool and special, and the DM is enjoying themselves compared to the amount of work required to run the game".

If the system does that, then its working.

 

[dave2008]

I don't think that "fun" is a useful metric.

I disagree, it is the only metric that I care about when I play a game.

EDIT: I do realize it is not a useful metric for comparative analysis though

 

[billd91]

I disagree, it is the only metric that I care about when I play game.

Yeah, I generally agree there. But I think there are different levels of focus we can give here and loverdrive is clearly angling for one a bit closer than the 10,000 foot view.