Author Topic: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...  (Read 36302 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #80 on: September 23, 2008, 11:42:07 AM »

I can recall house ruling Marvel Super Heroes (the TSR game) quite a bit, always wrestling with the rules for falling and charging etc. We switched to the DC Heroes RPG, and while that was a lot of fun, it wasn't as much fun for us as MSH. We were simply more used to the way MSH worked, and DC Heroes introduced its own issues. I could tell TSR knew their game was flawed, because in subsequent editions they would tackle those areas in an attempt to deal with them. What was true for us, though, was that despite those elements that drove us nuts, 90% of the game was intuitive and entertaining.

Marvel superheroes is actually very interesting, but flawed.  It captures the spirit of comics.  It allows for a wide range of characters and powers.  It is mechanically interesting.  But it has huge flaws.

Serenity does NOT capture the spirit of the movie.  Nothing about the characters or game is mechanically interesting.  And, it has huge flaws.  

And this time before you respond take a look back at your posts.  You offer nothing but logical fallacies and negation without any sort of point.  When I try to help you understand the situation, you get all defensive.  

Serenity and BSG are the poster children for lousy games with no redeeming values.  Ones that exemplify "but you could have had more fun."  But we are wandering from the point.  Either offer a reason to play a crappy game like them.  or feel free to start a "why does Serenity and BSG games suck" elsewhere.  
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Cam_Banks

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • Margaret Weis Productions
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #81 on: September 23, 2008, 12:02:38 PM »
Serenity does NOT capture the spirit of the movie.  Nothing about the characters or game is mechanically interesting.  And, it has huge flaws.  

And this time before you respond take a look back at your posts.  You offer nothing but logical fallacies and negation without any sort of point.  When I try to help you understand the situation, you get all defensive.

The discussion is more interesting, neutral, and intelligent when Zeke does the talking. :)

We should schedule an interview or something with Jamie to talk about this kind of thing at length. That might be pretty cool.

Cheers,
Cam
Managing Editor & Community Manager | Margaret Weis Productions

Bauglir

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • TriOptimum
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #82 on: September 23, 2008, 08:19:58 PM »
Quote
Neutral, intelligent press did not exist in the gaming world until now.  And this is what it looks like.
Ok. Josh, I apologize, but I need to be blunt. You are wrong. Your podcasts aren't objective, certainly not your review ones. They deal with good game qualities vs bad game qualities. Those are subjective, no matter how many people agree with them. Even stating "Murder is bad" is subjective. ANY judgment like that is biased. And since when is someone unbiased about their own work? Sir, I know it's your forum, but I am still forced to recommend you tone down the ego. I honestly think I'd be doing you a disservice by not saying so. Apologies for the bluntness once again.

Quote
OK.  But that's not what happens.  What typically happens is that people are frustrated with poor mechanics and the game is not doing what they want anyway.

Also better games are often quite cheap and people typically are spending money on books anyway.

In practice the above case does not tend to occur.

Then what are we talking about? I thought we were talking about situations where people were having fun, but could be having more fun? Does the thread need a title change?

Quote
how much basic research have you guys done?

Since they have the sales data, I'm willing to bet more than you have.
So you end up stuck in an endless loop, unable to act, forever.

In retrospect, much like Keanu Reeves.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #83 on: September 24, 2008, 04:48:31 AM »
I have thought about this situation carefully.  I am not going to repeat myself.

Nothing more need be said. 
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #84 on: October 05, 2008, 11:54:11 AM »
Ok, so objectively speaking, what makes a game good? I'd be very interested to read some details on that.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #85 on: October 07, 2008, 04:29:20 AM »
Ok, so objectively speaking, what makes a game good? I'd be very interested to read some details on that.
Likely that will go into the podcast first.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #86 on: October 07, 2008, 07:42:02 AM »
Ok, so objectively speaking, what makes a game good? I'd be very interested to read some details on that.
Likely that will go into the podcast first.
Ah, so I thought I'd missed something, in that there had already been a podcast on this topic.

Now, just for some very concrete examples of why I ask this question:

In your Ennies Lightning session you discussed a game called Aces and Eights. Litterally most details you ever mentioned about this game (with the exception of the 10 minute quick entry section in the book) would make me shy away from the game. It has so many elements that I would consider to make a bad game. Like lookup charts and tables, a ton of random occurances,  etc., all of which are tedious in operation and basically might add detail, but detract from any sort of fun gameplay, and don't in any instance make a game good in my eyes. And yet, in your podcast you praised these as good Fiddly Bits.

So, while I think that the basic premise of this post is valid: If you can switch to a better game, you should, it's pretty important to be clear on what you think is a good game, and what other people may think makes up a good game.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #87 on: October 07, 2008, 01:04:13 PM »

In your Ennies Lightning session you discussed a game called Aces and Eights. Litterally most details you ever mentioned about this game (with the exception of the 10 minute quick entry section in the book) would make me shy away from the game. It has so many elements that I would consider to make a bad game. Like lookup charts and tables, a ton of random occurances,  etc., all of which are tedious in operation and basically might add detail, but detract from any sort of fun gameplay, and don't in any instance make a game good in my eyes. And yet, in your podcast you praised these as good Fiddly Bits.
There is a full review of Aces and Eights forthcoming.

A8 is a good game if you are interested in it.  It simulates life in the early american west physically, as opposed to simulating spaghetti westerns or Cowboy movies.

It is an example of a different game, not a bad game.

Quote
So, while I think that the basic premise of this post is valid: If you can switch to a better game, you should, it's pretty important to be clear on what you think is a good game, and what other people may think makes up a good game.
We work to figure out what makes a good game for everyone and anyone.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #88 on: October 07, 2008, 01:27:49 PM »
A good game if you're interested in it?

...


Okay, I suppose this is meant as a form of Lincoln's "for those who like that sort of thing, its just the sort of thing that they would like." (paraphrased) observation.

But it comes out sounding...otherwise.

Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

Zeke

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Bi-Curious George
  • *
  • Posts: 540
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #89 on: October 07, 2008, 05:26:10 PM »
A&8s is a good game regardless of wether or not you are interested in it. However unless you like that sort o fthing, you will probably not enjoy it.

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #90 on: October 07, 2008, 05:27:53 PM »
I can accept that. There are games that while very well designed, do not appeal at all for reasons having nothing to do with design, and there are games that while not so well designed, do appeal (though none are coming to mind at the moment).
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

Talen Lee

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
  • Forum Ninja
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #91 on: October 07, 2008, 07:45:41 PM »
I can accept that. There are games that while very well designed, do not appeal at all for reasons having nothing to do with design, and there are games that while not so well designed, do appeal (though none are coming to mind at the moment).
Basically. There are artfully-designed, cleverly constructed and excellently engineered systems that don't actually have anything in them to appeal to you. Niche appeal games are remarkably prone to this - D&D 3.5 is a flawed system, but it's modular and widely-distributed, so it's not so bad. You can play grittier fantasy or more ridiculous fantasy if you really want to with the system, so its flaws as a game are less visible.

Any game that brings a specific flavour to the table has to do it well.

InnaBinder

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1610
  • OnnaTable
    • Okay - - Your Turn: Monte Cook's Message Board
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #92 on: November 02, 2008, 08:45:21 PM »
Quote
There are games that are better.  Why wouldn't you play them instead?
The answer at my gaming table, 'right or wrong', is "because it's taken player X three years to feel comfortable with the basics of the system we currently play - provided that we don't throw too many additional source rules into the mix - and regardless of whether another game is 'better', player X would much rather endure sharp objects to both eyeballs for a period not to exceed one decade than have to spend another X amount of time attempting to absorb enough of the rules to enjoy the new game, because learning the mechanics of the game is not enjoyable in the least to player X."We would not have 'more fun' by engaging in activity that we knew would be excluding player X.
Winning an argument on the internet is like winning in the Special Olympics.  You won, but you're still retarded.

I made a Handbook!?

emissary666

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #93 on: November 04, 2008, 12:14:06 PM »
Fun is subjective. That is a fact. I have fun kicking people when they are pinned on the ground. that doesn't mean others will have fun doing that. If I have fun playing d20 Modern and somebody else says that I could have more fun playing something else, I would either explain the concept of fun being subjective or beat them out of their stupidity.

In an equation

Fun=F
Time=T
So the amount of fun a person can have per an amount of time is F/T
We now introduce opinion
Opinion=O
So, we now have an equation for fun
O(F/T)
So, when arguing about fun remember. Fun is entirely subjective from an objective view point.
I make little kids cry
Steady As A Goat
Warning: You may have already been set on fire

Bread does not need a reason

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #94 on: November 05, 2008, 12:54:06 AM »
Quote
There are games that are better.  Why wouldn't you play them instead?
The answer at my gaming table, 'right or wrong', is "because it's taken player X three years to feel comfortable with the basics of the system we currently play - provided that we don't throw too many additional source rules into the mix - and regardless of whether another game is 'better', player X would much rather endure sharp objects to both eyeballs for a period not to exceed one decade than have to spend another X amount of time attempting to absorb enough of the rules to enjoy the new game, because learning the mechanics of the game is not enjoyable in the least to player X."We would not have 'more fun' by engaging in activity that we knew would be excluding player X.
I have been thinking of a response to this post.

In my experience I have never found this sort of thing to be true, but often claimed. 

Now, it may be that you have the exception, and statistically that would be good news for everyone else. 
Thanks for taking one for the team.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

InnaBinder

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1610
  • OnnaTable
    • Okay - - Your Turn: Monte Cook's Message Board
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #95 on: November 05, 2008, 01:03:26 AM »
The answer at my gaming table, 'right or wrong', is "because it's taken player X three years to feel comfortable with the basics of the system we currently play - provided that we don't throw too many additional source rules into the mix - and regardless of whether another game is 'better', player X would much rather endure sharp objects to both eyeballs for a period not to exceed one decade than have to spend another X amount of time attempting to absorb enough of the rules to enjoy the new game, because learning the mechanics of the game is not enjoyable in the least to player X."We would not have 'more fun' by engaging in activity that we knew would be excluding player X.
I have been thinking of a response to this post.

In my experience I have never found this sort of thing to be true, but often claimed. 

Now, it may be that you have the exception, and statistically that would be good news for everyone else. 
Thanks for taking one for the team.
Glad to be the exception to prove the rule.  :D Sort of.  Seriously, she's declined attempts to learn Paranoia and a couple offerings from Cheap Ass Games, retreating to her computer within 30 minutes.  I've still not read Dread - your recommendation, Josh - but Paranoia is not very hard to learn....
Winning an argument on the internet is like winning in the Special Olympics.  You won, but you're still retarded.

I made a Handbook!?

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #96 on: November 05, 2008, 01:09:02 AM »
Well, speaking as someone who dislikes trying new things (psyschological complications for the lose...) I'm not entirely sure that she doesn't want to try a new system, even if it is "easier/better/whatever".

Getting used to new things can be hard even if the new things themselves aren't.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #97 on: November 05, 2008, 01:21:30 AM »
The answer at my gaming table, 'right or wrong', is "because it's taken player X three years to feel comfortable with the basics of the system we currently play - provided that we don't throw too many additional source rules into the mix - and regardless of whether another game is 'better', player X would much rather endure sharp objects to both eyeballs for a period not to exceed one decade than have to spend another X amount of time attempting to absorb enough of the rules to enjoy the new game, because learning the mechanics of the game is not enjoyable in the least to player X."We would not have 'more fun' by engaging in activity that we knew would be excluding player X.
I have been thinking of a response to this post.

In my experience I have never found this sort of thing to be true, but often claimed. 

Now, it may be that you have the exception, and statistically that would be good news for everyone else. 
Thanks for taking one for the team.
Glad to be the exception to prove the rule.  :D Sort of.  Seriously, she's declined attempts to learn Paranoia and a couple offerings from Cheap Ass Games, retreating to her computer within 30 minutes.  I've still not read Dread - your recommendation, Josh - but Paranoia is not very hard to learn....
You don't learn Paranoia, you just play it.

Seriously, the problem is that she chooses not to try.  The key is possibly to find something she enjoys enough to overcome that choice.

I taught Dread to someone who has never played an RPG in a few minutes. 
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

InnaBinder

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1610
  • OnnaTable
    • Okay - - Your Turn: Monte Cook's Message Board
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #98 on: November 05, 2008, 01:36:07 AM »
Quote
Seriously, the problem is that she chooses not to try.  The key is possibly to find something she enjoys enough to overcome that choice.
:grave I refuse to be a part of a My Little Ponies gaming 'experience'.  Yes, she's an adult, to deflect the obvious next question.  Gainfully employed with responsibilities and a reasonable intellect.
Winning an argument on the internet is like winning in the Special Olympics.  You won, but you're still retarded.

I made a Handbook!?

jcm

  • Domesticated Capuchin Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • I am information man
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #99 on: November 05, 2008, 01:40:18 AM »
Quote
Seriously, the problem is that she chooses not to try.  The key is possibly to find something she enjoys enough to overcome that choice.
:grave I refuse to be a part of a My Little Ponies gaming 'experience'.  Yes, she's an adult, to deflect the obvious next question.  Gainfully employed with responsibilities and a reasonable intellect.

Would she get mad if you played Cthulupony?

:D