A discussion thread . . .
Is fun enough?
The argument was made to me recently that a game’s mechanics are secondary to whether or not you are having fun. It goes something like this: so long as everyone enjoyed themselves, it doesn’t matter if the game’s mechanics were a little sloppy, or if the game didn’t introduce something new to the equation.
Long-time listeners of the podcast will already know my response to this (see: my experiences with the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game). But I responded in this particular instance in a way that was a little more thoughtful than I ever have on the cast:
“I guess I just view fun as table stakes. Fun should be a given. All of my players could probably gather at my house to play Mario Kart for three hours, too, and we would have just as much fun as we do when we play RPGs. And yet we don’t do that. We play RPGs. In fact, there’s probably a reason we choose RPGs over Mario Kart, despite the fact they are probably equally fun. Within that whole range of reasons, for me (and for a fair number of players, I suspect) is an appreciation for rules; an appreciation for the creative process of the designer; the fun of seeing how a specific story idea can be translated into unique mechanics; comparing a designer’s later work to their earlier work; and so forth.”
Thoughts? Am I way off-base here? Is fun the only thing that matters?
Fun isn’t the only important outcome to all the games. Sometimes story is more important than fun… Engaging in the creative process is more satisfying than endless hours of Mario kart, and engaging in a story with my friends is more rich and rewarding than staring at a screen with them. But I agree that both are equally fun. I would argue that story is what RPGs are about and fun is a common side effect of good story and creative people. Therefore mechanics should never get in the way of a good story, but should in fact drive to more interesting story. Things like Ribbon drive mechanically driving story tone by what is a part of your playlist aids in the creative process. Fiascos random story prompts that organically become a unique experience… These are what I’m about.
Fun isn’t the only important outcome to all the games. Sometimes story is more important than fun… Engaging in the creative process is more satisfying than endless hours of Mario kart, and engaging in a story with my friends is more rich and rewarding than staring at a screen with them. But I agree that both are equally fun. I would argue that story is what RPGs are about and fun is a common side effect of good story and creative people. Therefore mechanics should never get in the way of a good story, but should in fact drive to more interesting story. Things like Ribbon drive mechanically driving story tone by what is a part of your playlist aids in the creative process. Fiascos random story prompts that organically become a unique experience… These are what I’m about.
There’s a song I heard, with lyrics thus:
“At the end of it all, Gamers play what we play
Not for game over, But rather for what we take away!”
Fun is definitely a selling point. But The Gauntlet has played games that were not “fun” per say, but gave us something. We played Call of Cthulu, and while we did have “fun”, the game itself is not fun. What we got was the experience of playing that game, of seeing things go crazy, of exploring the mechanics and being able to say we gave it a try.
Now looking at the argument, the person in the thread you were talking to would argue that I still had fun, and their point stands. But I disagree, what was not fun was the game, it was the table experience I took away from it, and from all games I play. Characters and ideas, story hooks and experiences, and sometimes, a dark cloud of thought that hangs over my head as I try and process what just happened.
The game is a medium. It’s important to make it one that makes worth the experience.
There’s a song I heard, with lyrics thus:
“At the end of it all, Gamers play what we play
Not for game over, But rather for what we take away!”
Fun is definitely a selling point. But The Gauntlet has played games that were not “fun” per say, but gave us something. We played Call of Cthulu, and while we did have “fun”, the game itself is not fun. What we got was the experience of playing that game, of seeing things go crazy, of exploring the mechanics and being able to say we gave it a try.
Now looking at the argument, the person in the thread you were talking to would argue that I still had fun, and their point stands. But I disagree, what was not fun was the game, it was the table experience I took away from it, and from all games I play. Characters and ideas, story hooks and experiences, and sometimes, a dark cloud of thought that hangs over my head as I try and process what just happened.
The game is a medium. It’s important to make it one that makes worth the experience.
Fun is a by-product many different factors, but a game’s mechanics can add to or diminish the fun at a table. A bad game is one which diminishes or diverts fun at the table. A game that doesn’t add to the fun by introducing a new way of interacting with other players at the table or a new way of considering old problems is a big problem, because it becomes group dependent. Good games should work with people that are strangers, because they encourage and cultivate fun. Dungeon World involves all the players at the table, no matter their role, in a way that DND doesn’t – it asks players to take ownership, where in DND you can skate by passively and feel like you wasted your time. If the game is a mess, you can’t engage with the group, because you’re fighting against the game itself. A game that gets out of the way and just gives you a framework (lots of microgames do this) are preferable to rules heavy games in that they allow you to get to the good part faster – interacting with the group.
Fun is a by-product many different factors, but a game’s mechanics can add to or diminish the fun at a table. A bad game is one which diminishes or diverts fun at the table. A game that doesn’t add to the fun by introducing a new way of interacting with other players at the table or a new way of considering old problems is a big problem, because it becomes group dependent. Good games should work with people that are strangers, because they encourage and cultivate fun. Dungeon World involves all the players at the table, no matter their role, in a way that DND doesn’t – it asks players to take ownership, where in DND you can skate by passively and feel like you wasted your time. If the game is a mess, you can’t engage with the group, because you’re fighting against the game itself. A game that gets out of the way and just gives you a framework (lots of microgames do this) are preferable to rules heavy games in that they allow you to get to the good part faster – interacting with the group.
Every complex eurogame I’ve ever played suggests that there’s far more to take away from a game than merely “fun”.
Every complex eurogame I’ve ever played suggests that there’s far more to take away from a game than merely “fun”.
I choose to see this issue and many other questions of what is required in this way:
“What is necessary is predicated by what one’s end goal is.”
In order to understand what is enough you must first identify what your goal is. If your goal is singularly to have fun then solid rules, a good story, a cohesive group, and a myriad of other factors that make up a objectively “Good” RPG or story game are not necessary.
The more precise your goal becomes the clearer and more numerous do your needs become. To have fun one needs very little. To create a story with in an RPG using a comprehensive set of effective rules requires far more. In this case having fun or enjoying the process is of no consequence.
In order to understand what your requirements are you must know your goal/s and their priority . You should also note that no one truly has the same goals. There are role-players whose top priority goal is to have fun and there fore all else is secondary. There are those who are trying to express themselves creatively which can be painful and as far from fun as one can get. Everyone has a different set of goals which requires a different set of needs.
We of the Gauntlet have all played games with rules that are sound and many, and we have played games where the rules were few and idiotic. Because we are a mostly cohesive group with years of experience we make fun happen regardless of the effectiveness of a game’s rules. That does not mean that the process could not be helped by a well thought out set of guidelines.
For you having fun is not your priority goal. So a game that facilitates fun is not enough. It must also be an objectively “Good” game.
For me I am looking for escapism, an interesting and unique story, and to enjoy myself in some way. Based on these goals effective rules is some where in the top 25% of my requirements. But it falls below many other factors.
I choose to see this issue and many other questions of what is required in this way:
“What is necessary is predicated by what one’s end goal is.”
In order to understand what is enough you must first identify what your goal is. If your goal is singularly to have fun then solid rules, a good story, a cohesive group, and a myriad of other factors that make up a objectively “Good” RPG or story game are not necessary.
The more precise your goal becomes the clearer and more numerous do your needs become. To have fun one needs very little. To create a story with in an RPG using a comprehensive set of effective rules requires far more. In this case having fun or enjoying the process is of no consequence.
In order to understand what your requirements are you must know your goal/s and their priority . You should also note that no one truly has the same goals. There are role-players whose top priority goal is to have fun and there fore all else is secondary. There are those who are trying to express themselves creatively which can be painful and as far from fun as one can get. Everyone has a different set of goals which requires a different set of needs.
We of the Gauntlet have all played games with rules that are sound and many, and we have played games where the rules were few and idiotic. Because we are a mostly cohesive group with years of experience we make fun happen regardless of the effectiveness of a game’s rules. That does not mean that the process could not be helped by a well thought out set of guidelines.
For you having fun is not your priority goal. So a game that facilitates fun is not enough. It must also be an objectively “Good” game.
For me I am looking for escapism, an interesting and unique story, and to enjoy myself in some way. Based on these goals effective rules is some where in the top 25% of my requirements. But it falls below many other factors.
Fun is certainly a requirement. No one would play a game where the rules made fun impossible. Most bad games are those that have rules that get confusing, take a lot of time or effort, draw you out of the game, make things unfair, or general make playing painful for one or more participants. A common example are games where a player can be skipped several times in a row or where their favorite class is useless. Mediocre games give you something to do while having fun. A lot of party games fall in this category like apples to apples. The game itself is just word association but the fun comes from people justifying their choices or throwing in bizarre cards to get a laugh. Good games not only allow but encourage fun. They give options and clarify what players should be doing instead of limiting them.
We could probably have fun just hanging out and telling stories, an RPG should enhance this by doing a few simple things:
1. Get us all on the same track, setting up an idea and a tone.
2. Give a framework for accomplishing tasks, especially for new players, without limiting other possibilities.
3. Reward people for good RP and creative thinking.
4. Make it a game and make it fair. Sometimes the dice/cards don’t go your way and you fail but that is the game right. That is why you have fun when you “beat” the game.
Fun is certainly a requirement. No one would play a game where the rules made fun impossible. Most bad games are those that have rules that get confusing, take a lot of time or effort, draw you out of the game, make things unfair, or general make playing painful for one or more participants. A common example are games where a player can be skipped several times in a row or where their favorite class is useless. Mediocre games give you something to do while having fun. A lot of party games fall in this category like apples to apples. The game itself is just word association but the fun comes from people justifying their choices or throwing in bizarre cards to get a laugh. Good games not only allow but encourage fun. They give options and clarify what players should be doing instead of limiting them.
We could probably have fun just hanging out and telling stories, an RPG should enhance this by doing a few simple things:
1. Get us all on the same track, setting up an idea and a tone.
2. Give a framework for accomplishing tasks, especially for new players, without limiting other possibilities.
3. Reward people for good RP and creative thinking.
4. Make it a game and make it fair. Sometimes the dice/cards don’t go your way and you fail but that is the game right. That is why you have fun when you “beat” the game.
I am taking a break from end-of-year grading, so I’ll make this brief.
Fun has a period of time in which it has high quality pay off, high levels of fun on a consistent basis, but eventually you reach a point of diminishing returns, a “half-life” if you will. Even things that are perceived as simple entertainment follow this rule: Mario Kart 8 isn’t as consistently fun on races 1000-1200 as it was for races 1-1000. Good game mechanics lengthen the half-life of a game, they keep us engaged, challenged, rewarded, and coming back to the table. A game that is fun but has crappy mechanics is likely to be a one shot, maybe two, but you aren’t going to get the kind of sustained quality that you could get from something designed well.
…ok, back to the pit of essays…
I am taking a break from end-of-year grading, so I’ll make this brief.
Fun has a period of time in which it has high quality pay off, high levels of fun on a consistent basis, but eventually you reach a point of diminishing returns, a “half-life” if you will. Even things that are perceived as simple entertainment follow this rule: Mario Kart 8 isn’t as consistently fun on races 1000-1200 as it was for races 1-1000. Good game mechanics lengthen the half-life of a game, they keep us engaged, challenged, rewarded, and coming back to the table. A game that is fun but has crappy mechanics is likely to be a one shot, maybe two, but you aren’t going to get the kind of sustained quality that you could get from something designed well.
…ok, back to the pit of essays…
Fun is an extremely nebulous concept. What provides fun will be different from person to person. Furthermore, each person will have different kinds of fun depending on the type of activity or even the different aspects of an activity. As such, when we speak about the “fun” we have while playing roleplaying games, we are almost certainly talking about different things. (At this point, I’m going to stop using the word “fun,” as it’s just confusing.)
For example, I’m looking for several things when I sit down to play an rpg, and what I’m looking for will vary from game to game and day to day. I’m always looking to enjoy time spent with fellow gamers I like. This is the one thing I’m almost guaranteed to get out of a session, and is likely what your average “Didn’t you have fun?” person is speaking of. But it’s never the only thing I’m looking for. Other things may, depending on the game, include:
* To play a character with a strong, interesting personality. Frequently absent from games about adventuring or investigation.
* Opportunities to feel like I can accomplish things in-game that I couldn’t in real life.
* A chance to interact with and have an effect on the game world. Rarely found in play-through-the-GM’s-story games.
* Playing to an audience.
* Flexing improv muscles.
* Genre exploration/emulation.
* The tactility of interacting with cards, dice, etc. Story gaming often falls flat here.
* A sense of horror or dread. Extremely rare, in my experience.
* A chance to be pushed in one direction or another by mechanics. Very rarely present in traditional games.
* To be surprised by the mechanics.
* A satisfying story, preferably with an ending. Traditional games often fail here too.
* To wallow in mechanically-encouraged drama/melodrama. Traditional gaming doesn’t know what those words mean.
Any number of these things–and others–can be missing from a game in which I had “fun,” which is why you’ll hear me say I’ve always had fun with Call of Cthulhu, and yet always been disappointed. Fun probably is enough for some people. Robin Laws’ Casual Gamer archetype is fine with showing up, chuckin’ dice, drinking a beer or two, and laughing with friends.
But no, it is not enough for me.
Fun is an extremely nebulous concept. What provides fun will be different from person to person. Furthermore, each person will have different kinds of fun depending on the type of activity or even the different aspects of an activity. As such, when we speak about the “fun” we have while playing roleplaying games, we are almost certainly talking about different things. (At this point, I’m going to stop using the word “fun,” as it’s just confusing.)
For example, I’m looking for several things when I sit down to play an rpg, and what I’m looking for will vary from game to game and day to day. I’m always looking to enjoy time spent with fellow gamers I like. This is the one thing I’m almost guaranteed to get out of a session, and is likely what your average “Didn’t you have fun?” person is speaking of. But it’s never the only thing I’m looking for. Other things may, depending on the game, include:
* To play a character with a strong, interesting personality. Frequently absent from games about adventuring or investigation.
* Opportunities to feel like I can accomplish things in-game that I couldn’t in real life.
* A chance to interact with and have an effect on the game world. Rarely found in play-through-the-GM’s-story games.
* Playing to an audience.
* Flexing improv muscles.
* Genre exploration/emulation.
* The tactility of interacting with cards, dice, etc. Story gaming often falls flat here.
* A sense of horror or dread. Extremely rare, in my experience.
* A chance to be pushed in one direction or another by mechanics. Very rarely present in traditional games.
* To be surprised by the mechanics.
* A satisfying story, preferably with an ending. Traditional games often fail here too.
* To wallow in mechanically-encouraged drama/melodrama. Traditional gaming doesn’t know what those words mean.
Any number of these things–and others–can be missing from a game in which I had “fun,” which is why you’ll hear me say I’ve always had fun with Call of Cthulhu, and yet always been disappointed. Fun probably is enough for some people. Robin Laws’ Casual Gamer archetype is fine with showing up, chuckin’ dice, drinking a beer or two, and laughing with friends.
But no, it is not enough for me.