Spinning off per request.

So, here's my contention:

QuoteI do think that exploring the idea of "Why is this fun?" is worthwhile. Most GMs can stumble around, putting things in their games and come to a fun experience, but analyzing why things are fun can help us put more fun things in games, and avoid not-fun things.

Discuss while I gather my thoughts.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1095715Spinning off per request.

So, here's my contention:



Discuss while I gather my thoughts.

It's fun if the Players and GM enjoy the game.

It isn't fun if the GM or Players get upset, get into arguments or don't speak for a year after a session.

However, different gaming groups have different ideas of what is fun and what isn't, so it's hard to pin down specific things that are fun.

One thing that I've learned a bit about in terms of why it's fun from playtesting my own mechanics is why advantage/disadvantage is a vastly superior mechanic to the modifiers it replaced.

First is the tactile feedback element. Rolling dice provides tactile stimulation and rolling another die is more engaging than adding static modifiers.

Second is the endorphin rush of what I call "save vs. failure." I tested both static and re-roll mechanics for my system, but from the moment one of the players who'd rolled a 3 was reminded they got to roll twice and got a 20 I knew it was all over. Something like that sticks in your head in a way that lining up modifiers to even twice the statistical bonus the re-roll provides can't match. You were going to fail, but then succeeded.

Psychologically that is immensely powerful in creating powerful positive associations.

Surprises are fun, as long as they don't occur so often as to lose their element of surprise.  Measuring that is, of course, highly subjective in the nature of the surprise, the degree of the surprise, and different players/groups preferences on amount and kinds of surprises.

Maybe Ralph Koster's Theory of Fun would be of interest. Over analysis of fun tends to ruin fun, either by moving to something rote that is not fun, or just because analysis spoils fun.

I read James Carse's Finite and Infinite Games a long time ago; I wonder if a lot of dissatisfaction with RPGs is that they are finite games (rules and boundaries, but unlike finite games winners and losers are mostly beside the point) that try to be infinite games (played in order to keep playing).

Quote from: Chris24601;1095730One thing that I've learned a bit about in terms of why it's fun from playtesting my own mechanics is why advantage/disadvantage is a vastly superior mechanic to the modifiers it replaced.

+1, and I want to stress that for me playtesting was the key element that led me to the same conclusion. The advantage mechanic isn't as mathematically precise as modifiers can be, but it's way more fun!

The takeaway for me is that what is "fun" is best evaluated in play.

Quote from: rawma;1095743Maybe Ralph Koster's Theory of Fun would be of interest. Over analysis of fun tends to ruin fun, either by moving to something rote that is not fun, or just because analysis spoils fun.

I did mention Koster's Theory of Fun in the previous thread. I rooted around last night, but couldn't find my copy.

QuoteI read James Carse's Finite and Infinite Games a long time ago; I wonder if a lot of dissatisfaction with RPGs is that they are finite games (rules and boundaries, but unlike finite games winners and losers are mostly beside the point) that try to be infinite games (played in order to keep playing).

Interesting. I'll have to put that on my book list.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1095715What is fun?

At the table, there is geek fun. And there is serious fun. Players choose their fun.

As we discuss fun, I think its okay to discuss what may be fun for particular groups instead of demanding any aspect of fun must be universal.

For instance, point buy chargen to min/max your character. To me, that's anti-fun, but to many gamers, that's the best part of the RPG.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1095715Spinning off per request.

So, here's my contention:



Discuss while I gather my thoughts.

The Forge folks had a concept to that: Flags. Basically, it's a way for players to say to the GM (and to the other players) what they find fun or interesting and want to see more in the game. It may be implemented in a way as simple as a class choice (someone who picks a fighter is saying to the GM he wants to bash stuff), or as involving as mechanics like Beliefs in Burning Wheel or Passions in Pendragon (which prompts the GM to bring related stuff to the game).

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1095754I did mention Koster's Theory of Fun in the previous thread. I rooted around last night, but couldn't find my copy.

Sorry, I didn't look back through the earlier thread. I seem to recall that there was a legitimate PDF of the original edition of Koster's book on the internet but maybe I'm thinking of something else.

Like creating "story", I think creating "fun" is mostly self-defeating in an RPG; for the former you at best get the GM telling you a story they made up. So you add conflict to the game world because it's something that should be there, not because it serves some Grand Theme. It should just emerge from the elements of the game. Not to say that people can't list elements that would be fun for them, and combine those into a game, but fun is easier to come by if you don't try too hard (maybe because people are too quick to throw out things that don't seem like they'd be as fun, and you end up having only a large bowl of sugar for dessert).

Quote from: rawma;1095790It should just emerge from the elements of the game. Not to say that people can't list elements that would be fun for them, and combine those into a game, but fun is easier to come by if you don't try too hard (maybe because people are too quick to throw out things that don't seem like they'd be as fun, and you end up having only a large bowl of sugar for dessert).

That's a good point... even desirable qualities need contrast... no one is beautiful if EVERYONE is beautiful. Fun is reliant on pacing... doling it out in discreet servings, rather than serving it through a wide-open hose... "Here comes the FUN!!!"

I think a distinction also needs to be made between "fun" and "enjoyable."

I enjoy chess. I enjoy it a lot when my opponent has sufficient skill to challenge me. But I'm not exactly having fun when I'm in the middle of a tough match.

Personally I'll take enjoyment over fun any day.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1095784As we discuss fun, I think its okay to discuss what may be fun for particular groups instead of demanding any aspect of fun must be universal.

For instance, point buy chargen to min/max your character. To me, that's anti-fun, but to many gamers, that's the best part of the RPG.

True. For some, breaking out the minis for map combat is fun.

I'm unclear on the dividing line between "fun" and "enjoyment".

Has "fun" taken on a too high emotional definition? AKA, can fun be low key?