Quote:
Originally Posted by
Morgaln
Can you actually separate roleplaying/physics from fun? Or would you rather say that violating roleplaying/physics destroys your fun? Semantics, I know, but might be relevant for the discussion.
Oh, even more semantics - by "fun", I *probably* mean "maximizing the fun had by the group". No guarantees that I consistently use or used it that way. Or even ever use it accurately that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Morgaln
In general, I'd say that if a game isn't fun, it's not worth playing.
Agreed. To continue the above, an RPG without role-playing is… too suboptimal, and should be replaced with a more optimized experience.
Thus, as I said before, in the all but incomprehensible event that I were in an RPG where I couldn't roleplay / where my role-playing (not just of one particular character, but role-playing in general) was a detriment to the group's fun, I would simply not play RPGs with that group.
Now, as to my own fun, I can play a war game with no role-playing, and have fun. But my RPG fun mandates (me) role-playing, and (the GM) following physics, the rules, etc. Technically, if another *player* cheats, it doesn't completely kill the fun, and I'll just assume that it probably increases their fun more than it is a detriment to mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Morgaln
That's also what I tell my players; don't be afraid to tell me that you don't want to play on a particular day or a particular group. If you don't want to, it's not worth forcing yourself. It's a hobby, not a chore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Morgaln
That doesn't mean you can just throw rules overboard, because playing within the rules is part of what is fun for me. As such, I wouldn't allow anyone to move a chess piece illegally even once.
See above. I agree for GM, but shrug when other players feel the need to make illegal moves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Morgaln
However, chess is a different kind of beast than RPG; it is competitive and it is a game that is intentionally symmetrical. But even in an assymetrical competitive or cooperative board game, there are rules that make sure the game is balanced in a certain way (how well it is balanced depends on the game in question). Staying within those rules, again, is part of the fun. Sure, I can go and make up rules for Arkham Horror that will make it easier for me to win; but then I can just declare myself the winner right from the start and do something else with my time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Morgaln
But RPGs are different. In an RPG there is an expectation that one side will hold back by design. The GM will always hold the power to just delete the PCs off the board with overwhelming forces that they have no hope of competing against. And most RPGs have no rule that says the GM is not allowed to do that. But then, that's no fun for the players; not for me as a GM, either, but there are probably (terrible) GMs out there that would get enjoyment out of doing that. So there are parts of an RPG that go above and beyond the rules. One reason for that is that a RPG doesn't have a win condition; there isn't a defined end point that the people involved work towards by default. As such, winning isn't the goal, or at least not the only possible one; there have to be other goals, and everyone has to decide on their personal goal for themselves. Clashes happen when two or more people involved have incompatible goals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Morgaln
If the GM's goal is to explore political intrigue while the players goal is to measure their optimization skills against whatever the Monster Manual has to offer, neither side will be happy.
Eh, it's no more incompatible than "me having the spotlight" and "you having the spotlight". That is, it's simply a matter of the group's ability to blend these competing needs. IME, it's actually easier to "share" the spotlight when the players are after different things. It's like an orchestra, where different instruments are playing different parts of the song. Done right, I find it much richer than a simple melody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Morgaln
If the players want to explore the psyche of their characters while the GM wants to do a dungeon crawler, no one will get the experience they are looking for.
Absolutely disagree, from experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Morgaln
If one player wants to have intra-party comflict while the others want to be harmonious, there will be OOC conflict.
Well, yes. That's one I cannot combine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Morgaln
That's where fun again comes into it. Fun is not one of the factors that makes up a game; fun is the ultimate goal of the game; it even transcends winning in a competitive game, for I can lose a game and still have fun, or reversely win a game but have no fun doing so.
Yup, totally agree. From experience. Ennui wins MtG, but Cosmic Larva is bloody fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Morgaln
And all those factors, like rules, physics, facts, even controversial topics like illusionism, railroading, fudging and so on should be measured by whether they contribute to or detract from the fun. And if there's one point that we all should agree on it is that the answer to that is not the same for every one of us, and that answering this differently doesn't make anyone a better or worse person at RPG, just a possibly incompatible one.
Mostly agree. There's also some morality questions involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Morgaln
Interestingly, this is similar to the M:tG theory of various player archetypes (Johnny/Timmy/Spike), who all have different reasons for playing and want different things from it. It's just much more pronounced and diverse in RPGs, because those provide a far broader spectrum of possible experiences and ways to play.
Which one wants pretty pictures again?
Building decks for others, I've learned that MtG is also quite vast in its spectrum of likes. I'm… still working on finding vocabulary to describe the "experience" several people were after.