Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...

[Zeke]

MORE fun.

 What I mean by that is that you should always look to play the best system available and should not settle for a bad system. What level of crappiness is acceptable as long as you're having fun? I like to point out that beer races are a lot of fun but are not necessarily a well designed game.

[PhoenixInferno]

What level of crappiness is acceptable as long as you're having fun?

Kind of a loaded question, don't you think?

Personally, I don't care whether people like Game X with its crappy system over Game Y with its better system - why should I judge them?  As I believe you said, gamers are relatively rare, so why frustrate them more by being judgemental about their choice of game?

[jcm]

Many of my funnest gaming experiences have been with palladium systems...

Some wonderful settings and clever ideas more than made up for the fact that the system is practically the definition of clunky 80s rpg rules. These days I'd simply port tmnt or BtS to a good system, but when you are new to the hobby the idea of doing a rules conversion might seem like too much work or too hard to do right.

[Josh]

Many of my funnest gaming experiences have been with palladium systems...

Some wonderful settings and clever ideas more than made up for the fact that the system is practically the definition of clunky 80s rpg rules. These days I'd simply port tmnt or BtS to a good system, but when you are new to the hobby the idea of doing a rules conversion might seem like too much work or too hard to do right.

I agree with the sentiment.  Except that when I played it was the best system on the market.  So that dates me.

There are two ways to go here,

First, there are so many good games out that a gamer should be able to find one of those to play.

Second, what if you like the concept of the game or the setting.  Should you just not play it?

For newcomers they should look to good games.  For others, why not modify, adapt or make a new system?

[Josh]

What level of crappiness is acceptable as long as you're having fun?

Kind of a loaded question, don't you think?

Personally, I don't care whether people like Game X with its crappy system over Game Y with its better system - why should I judge them?  As I believe you said, gamers are relatively rare, so why frustrate them more by being judgemental about their choice of game?

This is not you judging others, this is you playing games and what games to play.

[jcm]

For newcomers they should look to good games.  For others, why not modify, adapt or make a new system?

Sometimes even when you aren't a newcomer system mods can be daunting.

My first attempt at a conversion was shadowrun, we played the game for years and loved it - but the rules didn't scale well, and outright failed in some areas. When we tried to port the game or systems of the game to GURPS and Cyberpunk and it lost something. Somewhere in the original rules there was something essential to making the game feel like shadowrun to us.

We eventually worked out custom rules to fix what really bugged us and added what would now be called mook rules, but the attempts at a full port never did work out.

[Bauglir]

I'm of the mind that, if the system is fun, it isn't crappy by definition. Its mechanics might be cumbersome, its texts poorly edited, and some of its rules outright contradictory, but if the game is fun, it must necessarily be a good game.

[Josh]

For newcomers they should look to good games.  For others, why not modify, adapt or make a new system?

Sometimes even when you aren't a newcomer system mods can be daunting.

My first attempt at a conversion was shadowrun, we played the game for years and loved it - but the rules didn't scale well, and outright failed in some areas. When we tried to port the game or systems of the game to GURPS and Cyberpunk and it lost something. Somewhere in the original rules there was something essential to making the game feel like shadowrun to us.

We eventually worked out custom rules to fix what really bugged us and added what would now be called mook rules, but the attempts at a full port never did work out.

I feel your pain.  When you change the system you change the game. 

There is no easy answer.  My suggestion is to demand that game makers make good games.

[Josh]

I'm of the mind that, if the system is fun, it isn't crappy by definition. Its mechanics might be cumbersome, its texts poorly edited, and some of its rules outright contradictory, but if the game is fun, it must necessarily be a good game.

You are, by definition, incorrect.

You can have more fun.  That's not to say you can't have fun.

So why not just have more fun?  Is there a reason not to?

[jcm]

There is no easy answer.  My suggestion is to demand that game makers make good games.

Sometimes I feel like an enabler for bad game design, when I see something cool, even if the game is mostly terrible I have to buy it.  :-\

Actually I'm better about that now, but I've still bought more than my share of bad games.

[Josh]

There is no easy answer.  My suggestion is to demand that game makers make good games.

Sometimes I feel like an enabler for bad game design, when I see something cool, even if the game is mostly terrible I have to buy it.  :-\

Actually I'm better about that now, but I've still bought more than my share of bad games.

We should start a petition. 

[woodenbandman]

The fun doesn't come from the system, it comes from the enjoyment you receive from playing the game. Sure, DnD 2nd edition was really pigeonholed and you had zero versatility, but I know loads of people who swear by it over third edition because A they have fun playing it, and B they just like the way that it operates better than the way that 3.0 operates. It's a completely different style of gaming that they just happen to prefer.

I think that they're wrong, of course, but saying that playing a different system will make you have MORE fun just by the virtue of it being a "better" system in your opinion is an outright fallacy. Maybe you would have more fun, but the other person won't necessarily have more fun.

The people I'm talking about admit to not actually having played 3.x, and I have never played 2.x. That's another reason for people having a preference of one system over another: they've never had anything else. So if you think they'd have more fun with 3.5, ask yourself: Do I know these people well enough to know their tastes? Does this system match their tastes? If the answer's yes to both, then encourage them to try it out. If they don't then oh well, they'll still be able to have fun far away from you where you never have to see their crappy ruleset. If they like it after trying it, then congratulations, you have new gaming friends! But don't just outright insult their taste. It's like you liking neoclassical speed polka and telling the people who like punk that their music is inferior because the guitarists don't do diminished 7th sweep runs and harmonize with the vocalist with chords that imply a minor 15th with the vocalist's singing: The technical aspect is only one part of what makes a given genre or game fun.

[Bauglir]

You are, by definition, incorrect.

You can have more fun.  That's not to say you can't have fun.

So why not just have more fun?  Is there a reason not to?

I'm all for having more fun. But you seem to be assuming that a more consistent, balanced, sensible system will lead to more fun. I don't know about you, but I, personally, derive a lot of enjoyment from the ridiculous conclusions some rules can lead to, even if I then (as a DM) houserule something different. Furthermore, it's entirely possible that a given system is the best a given genre has to offer, even if the game design is subpar.

I apologize to the dead horse, but I'm going to use 4th Edition as an example. I agree that 4th edition is more balanced and more internally consistent than 3.5. Part of this is that there are fewer books out, part of it is likely because the system is actually superior in terms of streamlining gameplay and improving balance. I don't believe, though, that I'd have more fun playing it. I dislike their changes to alignments, and I believe that they simplified skills TOO much. And there are also a host of even more nebulous reasons why, such as the Powers system. It works and accomplishes its goal, certainly, but not in a way that I enjoy. Yes, there's a unified mechanic that allows people to play different classes without having to learn a whole new subset of the system. That's good, but I don't actually LIKE that mechanic. Sometimes, I just don't want to track my daily abilities or my per encounter abilities. It's why I'm so fond of Warlocks and Binders in 3.5, because they let me do that. I don't have that option in 4E, and due the the very nature of the system, I never will.

[Josh]

Honestly the truth is, you have no idea what you are missing.  Zeke and I are not even vaguely talking about "consistent, balanced and sensible."  We are talking about games where the mechanics empower you to be awesome, games that have you on the edge of you seat, games where you really get to do cool stuff.  All because of the mechanics, and then you put everything available from other games on as well.

EVERYTHING from these crappy games is available AND these superior mechanics are as well.

They are just plain better(period).  So why not play better?  Why not have more fun?

You are, by definition, incorrect.

You can have more fun.  That's not to say you can't have fun.

So why not just have more fun?  Is there a reason not to?

I'm all for having more fun. But you seem to be assuming that a more consistent, balanced, sensible system will lead to more fun. I don't know about you, but I, personally, derive a lot of enjoyment from the ridiculous conclusions some rules can lead to, even if I then (as a DM) houserule something different. Furthermore, it's entirely possible that a given system is the best a given genre has to offer, even if the game design is subpar.

I apologize to the dead horse, but I'm going to use 4th Edition as an example. I agree that 4th edition is more balanced and more internally consistent than 3.5. Part of this is that there are fewer books out, part of it is likely because the system is actually superior in terms of streamlining gameplay and improving balance. I don't believe, though, that I'd have more fun playing it. I dislike their changes to alignments, and I believe that they simplified skills TOO much. And there are also a host of even more nebulous reasons why, such as the Powers system. It works and accomplishes its goal, certainly, but not in a way that I enjoy. Yes, there's a unified mechanic that allows people to play different classes without having to learn a whole new subset of the system. That's good, but I don't actually LIKE that mechanic. Sometimes, I just don't want to track my daily abilities or my per encounter abilities. It's why I'm so fond of Warlocks and Binders in 3.5, because they let me do that. I don't have that option in 4E, and due the the very nature of the system, I never will.

[Josh]

The fun doesn't come from the system, it comes from the enjoyment you receive from playing the game.

Sure, DnD 2nd edition was really pigeonholed and you had zero versatility, but I know loads of people who swear by it over third edition because A they have fun playing it, and B they just like the way that it operates better than the way that 3.0 operates. It's a completely different style of gaming that they just happen to prefer.

If you think that is a big system change...What we are talking about here makes that difference insignificant.

It's like you liking neoclassical speed polka and telling the people who like punk that their music is inferior because the guitarists don't do diminished 7th sweep runs and harmonize with the vocalist with chords that imply a minor 15th with the vocalist's singing: The technical aspect is only one part of what makes a given genre or game fun.

Analogies prove nothing.  But the analogy we are actually making is comparing the same song on an Victrola vs. a Bose stereo system.  The second one is just better.


The key question to refute is: Why not have more fun?

That is the counterargument.  Why would just plain 100% flat out having less fun playing be better?

[jcm]

I don't know about you, but I, personally, derive a lot of enjoyment from the ridiculous conclusions some rules can lead to, even if I then (as a DM) houserule something different. Furthermore, it's entirely possible that a given system is the best a given genre has to offer, even if the game design is subpar.

That was the way I felt about champions 1st ed. But I'd be silly to play that now that hero 5 and mutants and masterminds are available to cover that niche. Newer doesn't always mean better, but I'd say that with few exceptions games designed in the last 6 years are better games than older games - and you have a ton more options.

[ZeroSum]

Just playing devil's advocate but -- people dislike change.  Sure, given enough time to become familiar with the better system they'll enjoy it but until then it's an inconvenience and less fun.  Not to mention it costs money to change systems.

However, how does a group find a better system without an oracle that just gives them the answer?  Well, they have to playtest a bunch of systems.  That costs time, money and inconvenience.

Thus, barring the existence of an oracle that knows a better system for what the group wants to do, moving to a better system is not free of cost, time or stumbling upon bad systems along the way.  In addition there's no guarantee that you've found or will in the future find the optimal system until you've tried them all.

I understand the original context of the issue was "You're using system A.  System B is better." but unless Zeke is proven as an oracle for optimality for the group (it's likely that there are things system B does that are done better with system A and thus cannot be considered strictly better) it's a risk to try using system B and the cost is the fun they would've had playing system A while learning that system B is not an improvement.

So if it can be proven that for some group G, system A is strictly better than system B and group G has the money necessary to move to system B the only cost is the inconvenience of switching and the gain is the increase in fun over the playtime of system B.  So if the integral of the fun increase is more than the inconvenience of switching it's worth switching.  If not it's not.

What if you have a group that plays D&D 3.0 once a month for four hours a session and really only expects to play six times before moving onto [system that's out in six months] or [group breaking up for logistic reasons such as college] and someone suggests moving to 3.5?  Well, what's the cost?  Probably one of their scarce 4-hour sessions to port over characters and learn the rules that've changed.  What's the gain?  Some spells and some combat rules run more smoothly but not by much.  It's even possible that the group doesn't really notice the difference.  Is that one lost session worth a slightly more smooth game?

But that was just devil's advocating -- in reality, yeah, I agree that in general if you can show that system B beats system A everywhere group G would notice and group G can afford system B then they should switch.

[Sinfire Titan]

The fun doesn't come from the system, it comes from the enjoyment you receive from playing the game. Sure, DnD 2nd edition was really pigeonholed and you had zero versatility, but I know loads of people who swear by it over third edition because A they have fun playing it, and B they just like the way that it operates better than the way that 3.0 operates. It's a completely different style of gaming that they just happen to prefer.

I think that they're wrong, of course, but saying that playing a different system will make you have MORE fun just by the virtue of it being a "better" system in your opinion is an outright fallacy. Maybe you would have more fun, but the other person won't necessarily have more fun.

The people I'm talking about admit to not actually having played 3.x, and I have never played 2.x. That's another reason for people having a preference of one system over another: they've never had anything else. So if you think they'd have more fun with 3.5, ask yourself: Do I know these people well enough to know their tastes? Does this system match their tastes? If the answer's yes to both, then encourage them to try it out. If they don't then oh well, they'll still be able to have fun far away from you where you never have to see their crappy ruleset. If they like it after trying it, then congratulations, you have new gaming friends! But don't just outright insult their taste. It's like you liking neoclassical speed polka and telling the people who like punk that their music is inferior because the guitarists don't do diminished 7th sweep runs and harmonize with the vocalist with chords that imply a minor 15th with the vocalist's singing: The technical aspect is only one part of what makes a given genre or game fun.

I find that my enjoyment of this system comes more from making the character than playing it. That, and that my friends make the game enjoyable. I don't think we can go a session without making a joke or 12, which really does help to keep the air around the game the way we want it.

[Bauglir]

Honestly the truth is, you have no idea what you are missing.  Zeke and I are not even vaguely talking about "consistent, balanced and sensible."  We are talking about games where the mechanics empower you to be awesome, games that have you on the edge of you seat, games where you really get to do cool stuff.  All because of the mechanics, and then you put everything available from other games on as well.

EVERYTHING from these crappy games is available AND these superior mechanics are as well.

They are just plain better(period).  So why not play better?  Why not have more fun?

Then, I think we're probably on the same page. I agree that fun at its optimum is the ultimate goal. On the other hand, I'm not sure if I or anyone else am qualified to tell someone what is or is not fun. It's an entirely subjective thing.

[AfterCrescent]

I think one of the issues involves newcomers to the world of gaming.  Perhaps a group of friends gathers and plays game X. They have fun, and enjoy it. However, out of the 5 hours they game, an hour and a half is spent consulting the rules and trying to figure out what makes sense/works where.  Now if this group could be having MORE fun playing game Y, they should, right? Because in this case, game Y has a cleaner, more logical and user-friendly rule system. So if this group played game Y instead of game X, they'd be able to game for a full 5 hours instead of the 3.5 they normally do. That's MORE fun, right?