When "playing it wrong" is more fun

[definiteFreakyFishGuy]

For those of you who don't know, there is a thread in D&D general that has over 1887 pages and counting. A lot of interesting discussions there, but one recurring exchange is this idea that one doesn't enjoy a particular TTRPG because they are "playing it wrong."

"If you didn't enjoy this game, it's because you played it wrong"

But... what if "playing it wrong" is actually more fun?

To kick of this thread, I'll share a personal example. I'm currently doing a solo Ironsworn: Starforged campaign. I tried a few times, but my most successful & enjoyable campaign is the one in which I decided to kind of screw the rules a bit. I completely skipped over the world building step, choosing a nebulous kinda modern with maybe slightly futuristic tech on a planet that could very well be earth. For the character building step, I only assigned the stats but didn't do any backstory, assets, nothing, not even an Iron Vow, the key theme in every Ironsworn games. (If you want more details, I talk about it here: Good solo games).

Another example, I am currently playing DND 5e, and I am planning to get the Grappler Feat (2014) next time my halfing barbarian levels up, while using 2024 grappling rules.

Curious to hear your thoughts and experiences!

EDIT: I'm both shocked and pleasantly surprised that no one has called me out for my plans to take the 2014 grappler feat...as a halfling.

 

[Jd Smith1]

In both War Hammer Fantasy, and Degenesis, I changed the the effect of Warpstone/Sepsis to a more 'intentional' corruption, because otherwise there would be literally no campaign.

And in Degenesis I moved the factions (cults) to a more true-to-their-beliefs mode, because to use it RAW required a lore density that was not just daunting, but often wholly illogical.

 

[overgeeked]

Yep. Do it all the time. More often than not the rules get in the way, so we ignore them. This happens all the time in just about every game I play or run.

Some examples.

Playing unoptimized characters. This is wildly more fun for me because the whole point, the whole fun of the game is facing and overcoming challenges. Optimization reduces the challenge of the game, therefore reduces the fun. But playing an unoptimized character increases the challenge of the game, therefore increases the fun.

Playing in pawn stance. In recent years with the rise of OC play and the 20-page backstory, it comes across as almost heretical to play an RPG in pawn stance. I don't care. It's so much more fun. I don't care if a character dies, it's an easily replaceable token in a game. It doesn't matter than the game piece is damaged or destroyed in the fiction. I can roll up another in under five minutes. If you can't be arsed to roll a new one, write in Junior or the Third after your character's name and keep playing.

Call of Cthulhu 7E. I really dislike the opposed roll system in 7E so I do it wrong by either bringing back the old Resistance Table or using blackjack-style opposed rolls. So much more fun. Also using the lethality rating from Delta Green, it's wrong but it's also so much quicker and more fun to use.

 

[James Gasik]

Had a couple of instances like this crop up recently- we just started playing Tales of the Valiant, so there's a few new things. One was the Bard's ability to allow players to spend a healing surge with a bonus equal to their Cha.

They were telling people that they could add their Con to this, and when I questioned him, he looked at me "you always add your Con to healing surges".

I'm pretty sure he's wrong, but thinking about it, what's the harm in letting him hand out another couple points of healing with his ability?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Roleplaying games are about the stories one creates, not the "board game". If the "board game" (IE rules) were the most important thing... GMs wouldn't need to describe scenes and then ask us "What do you do?"... because the "board game" would already have the order of operations of what we do lined up for us. No one sets up Ticket To Ride and then asks the participants "What do you do?" as though they have complete freedom to make whatever choices they want. The participants know what they have to do, it's one of three options as proscribed by the rulebook. And they follow the instructions of the rulebook to do what they need to do to succeed in the game and win.

But in RPGs the participants have complete freedom to do whatever they wish, creating the narrative they create which has nothing to do with the rulebook. They are inventing their own story with their own characters. And what they end up creating is what is actually important in the playing. All the rules are doing is giving suggestions to the participants as to some of the options they have for what they could do. But they don't have to follow them. They can "play the game wrong" and ignore and any all rules and suggestions and still create a fantastic and compelling story. Because the "rules" ultimately are not important.

 

[payn]

Is “TTRPG” now a stand in for pineapple pizza?

 

[Theory of Games]

1. You can play the game however you like
2. If your rule changes significantly alter how the game plays, you're probably playing the wrong game

 

[RenleyRenfield]

For those of you who don't know, there is a thread in D&D general that has over 1887 pages and counting. A lot of interesting discussions there, but one recurring exchange is this idea that one doesn't enjoy a particular TTRPG because they are "playing it wrong."

"If you didn't enjoy this game, it's because you played it wrong"

But... what if "playing it wrong" is actually more fun?

...
Curious to hear your thoughts and experiences!

I think there are two parts to this, but only one of the parts is important.

The first is that, if a game is more fun when not played by its intended rules and playloops (or if interacting with the rules as written ruins fun) = then its a very poorly designed game (mechanically and possibly in other ways). And I think it's important to acknowledge and talk about a game that has bad rules where most players need to fudge, ignore, or house rule it to make it work. That conversation can lead to improvement in later editions or finding a different game/system that does not require such modifications or ruin fun.
- But.... this isn't important. It's just a honest review of a product and its poor design as a lesson learned for other designers.

The second is that its perfectly fine and often very fun, to hear how other players have altered rules, or play loops to make a game work for them. I think that can be inspirational for those who like a game, but need some ideas to get past parts that don't work for them.
A good example of this is Shadows in Wraith the Oblivion. Sorry, but its just not fun to let fellow players torment you as your Shadow, annndd then jump back into their own character and try to alter that voice and opinion and ideas too... its too much work, not enough fun (for us) and so we let the GM handle the Shadows. Works great. We use all the rules, we abide by the play loops, we just dont play the roles as intended.
- This is important, because your games should be fun, and you get to decide how that fun takes shape and what rules need to be altered or left out to have that fun!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But... what if "playing it wrong" is actually more fun?

I mean, it often is, both on a macro and micro level, with RPGs.

Like, the way D&D is played now is absolutely "playing it wrong" compared to the approach D&D was designed for, up to and including 1E. But "playing it wrong" was more fun for more people so it became the dominant mode of play (in this case essentially a mode of play initially inspired by the Dragonlance adventure series).

Or with Vampire: The Masquerade, an awful lot of people, like, maybe even a plurality (I hesitate to suggest a majority) played it was "Trenchcoats and katanas" or "Superheroes with fangs", i.e. more like an episode of Highlander (the TV show) or Forever Knight or Buffy/Angel or a similar action-drama with good supernatural beings biffing bad ones, and that was absolutely NOT one of the listed suggestions of ways to play VtM (though it wasn't a million miles from "Mean streets", which is one of the three approaches they suggest, it's just a lot less cynical). 2E VtM did seem to roll with this, eventually, as even did 2E Mage (c.f. "Tales of Dark Adventure", which basically fully allows for magically flying a motorbike through a stained-glass window whilst hosing down Terminator-Xes with your dual-wielded SMGs whilst guitars wail in the background!). Then Revised struck back with a vengeance, actually changing the rules and setting details to try and stop "Badwrongfun" of this kind (notably most of the original VtM people had left by then, including Rein*Hagen).

And on a micro level, with individual characters, it can often be more fun to play something weird and which might not be mechanically optimal (though it may still be optimized - a different thing to optimal) nor a "standard concept" or "standard trope" or w/e, but which is actually a lot of fun. Hell sometimes the rules are sufficiently whack that what is optimal or even just functional is not what the game says it is (this was much more common in the 1990s, to be fair).

But as @RenleyRenfield says, if you are intentionally "playing it wrong", on a macro or micro level and NOT having fun, then you do need to ask the valid question: is this merely because of my own choices to not follow suggested approaches? Countless games have been condemned by people for not being things that they never said they were, for not being things they weren't designed to be. That said, if a game claims to be X, and isn't, it's fair to critique it for that.

 

[definiteFreakyFishGuy]

Is “TTRPG” now a stand in for pineapple pizza?

Is that a reference to a meme? FWIW, I used to be an anti pineapple pizza person, but now I actually love it. Same with anchovies. I guess getting old does things to your palette.