Food for Thought, Basic: Fun?

[emissary666]

Hey guys cut this shit out. It's not a discussion about how Josh and Cam argue. it's supposed to be about FUN! Nobody gives 2 shits about your arguing techniques, and you both should stop bringing up each your arguments, no matter how civil, in this discussion. DoW or stfu.

I think the best way to approach the issue of giving people more fun is to ask: What games do you like to play? which we did in that other thread. Then say: "I think for those games, you'd like _____." Then, here's the hard part: they have to decide whether or not to try that game out. If they do try it out, then you've made your recommendation and they're ignoring you. If you drill them again and again and again, they're going to ignore you even more.

If they do choose to try the game, then maybe they'll like it.

We shouldn't do this whole thing of "why the hell are you playing that game, it sucks for what you're doing, and blah blah blah." That starts people off on the defensive with a "now hold on, mister, who are you to tell me how to play?" and then the whole recommendation goes to hell and turns into an argument. We're not really trying to make arguments, are we? We're trying to make recommendations. For this sort of thing, you have to go for the soft sell. You should start it out by saying, "hey, this system might work better for your style, because it has rules concerning how you do X and Y, and they're very clear and easy to learn." But don't immediately open up by attacking their gaming group and the system that they're using (which, if it sucks for what they're playing, is likely the only system they've ever used, so they'll be defensive about it).

You...are...GOD

[Josh]

I think the best way to approach the issue of giving people more fun is to ask: What games do you like to play? which we did in that other thread. Then say: "I think for those games, you'd like _____." Then, here's the hard part: they have to decide whether or not to try that game out. If they do try it out, then you've made your recommendation and they're ignoring you. If you drill them again and again and again, they're going to ignore you even more.

This project is an attempt to go the opposite direction because it is too complicated to do it this way.

This is a method used in many types of critical thinking.  You say "what do I need?" "what accomplishes my goals?" then use those criteria.

We shouldn't do this whole thing of "why the hell are you playing that game, it sucks for what you're doing, and blah blah blah." That starts people off on the defensive with a "now hold on, mister, who are you to tell me how to play?" and then the whole recommendation goes to hell and turns into an argument. We're not really trying to make arguments, are we? We're trying to make recommendations. For this sort of thing, you have to go for the soft sell. You should start it out by saying, "hey, this system might work better for your style, because it has rules concerning how you do X and Y, and they're very clear and easy to learn." But don't immediately open up by attacking their gaming group and the system that they're using (which, if it sucks for what they're playing, is likely the only system they've ever used, so they'll be defensive about it).

We will get here.  

But for right now we are talking about one thing: How is the argument "but we are having fun irrelevant."  

Not because your idea is wrong, but rather it is right, but lacking the tools to get to the heart of the matter.  If we look at any game critically and say "this game is X" we will get all of the responses I am eliminating here(but we had fun, for example).  This "point" is just as irrelevant but if it applies to a game people have pre judged as good they will say it.  

Essentially this part of the project will eliminate the smoke screen of irrelevance so we can talk about the real important qualities of a game.

[emissary666]

I think the problem is, Josh, that you are playing a game to play a game. Most people (in my experience) play a game to have fun. Therefore, the argument "but we have fun" has a lot more relevance to them than it does to you.

[Josh]

I think the problem is, Josh, that you are playing a game to play a game. Most people (in my experience) play a game to have fun. Therefore, the argument "but we have fun" has a lot more relevance to them than it does to you.

I am playing a game to have fun.

See the premise?  "I am playing a game"

the action? "to"

And the result? "have fun."

"Playing a game" -> "Fun"

The argument posed is:

We had fun, that means the game was good.

In other terms

"fun" -> "quality game"

And that is a fallacy.

An analogy
Me:
"I drove my car to the store" therefore "my car drives" = True

Them:
"I was at the store" therefore "my car drives" = fallacy
You could have taken the bus or done any number of other things.

We are entirely unconcerned about having fun in general, we are concerned about having fun, from the game.

Is that clearer?

[emissary666]

No.  Playing a game is the point, fun is a result of playing the game.  Just want fun, go hang out with your buddies.

Stop changing the point of playing a game.

Fun is subjective, good is subjective. Therefore I can say, "I had fun playing the game therefore it is good" or "I did not have fun playing the game therefore it is bad" let's use a real life example for good measure. I have a friend who does not have fun playing D&D, he considers it a bad game. I do have fun, I consider it a good thing. The reason you defend a game is because you have fun with it, same as the reason you play it. You don't play WoD for the mechanics, you play it because you have fun with it. You don't play D&D for the mechanics, you play because you have fun with it. If someone deems a game bad, they then use the details to qualify it as bad. If someone deems a game good, they use the details to qualify it as good. Person A could deem D&D bad and use armor class as an example of it being bad, Person B could use armor class as an example of it being good. But, person B does not play D&D for armor class, they play it because they have fun with it

[Josh]

No.  Playing a game is the point, fun is a result of playing the game.  Just want fun, go hang out with your buddies.

Stop changing the point of playing a game.

I have never changed it.

Fun is subjective, good is subjective. Therefore I can say, "I had fun playing the game therefore it is good" or "I did not have fun playing the game therefore it is bad"

yes you can.  Those are logical statements that succeed or fail based on the argument made. 

let's use a real life example for good measure. I have a friend who does not have fun playing D&D, he considers it a bad game. I do have fun, I consider it a good thing. The reason you defend a game is because you have fun with it, same as the reason you play it.

You like different games. 

You don't play WoD for the mechanics, you play it because you have fun with it. You don't play D&D for the mechanics, you play because you have fun with it.

Incorrect, in general.  You may not like mechanics, but many people do.  For many the mechanics result in fun.

If someone deems a game bad, they then use the details to qualify it as bad. If someone deems a game good, they use the details to qualify it as good. Person A could deem D&D bad and use armor class as an example of it being bad, Person B could use armor class as an example of it being good. But, person B does not play D&D for armor class, they play it because they have fun with it

Well, kinda.  But it is confusing the issue.  They are both giving the qualifications of goodness with the presence of them.

So you say "I like the game of white wolf we played last night."  That is undeniably true.  So to you when I say WW is bad, you say "t can't be, I had fun."  But, if you say what you like about games and we look about what games have those qualities, you are going to notice that if WW is even on the list it will be lower than other choices.

You are having fun, you could be having more fun.  And some of the people not having fun at your table could be.

[emissary666]

I'm not saying that that makes But we had fun a valid argument. I'm saying that if you hve fun with a game you are going to defend it much more than a game you did not have fun with. Also, you don't seem to get my statement about the mechanics, when someone plays a game, they do not play it solely for the mechanics. They play it primarily for fun. I don't care how bad the mechanics are, fun overrides mechanics, and most people agree with me on that (in my experience at least). Also, to diverge slightly into payouts, what your looking for in a game depends primarily on the GM. games can be designed with certain ideas in mind, but that does not mean that all of their games are going to be that way, WoD being the prime example. therefore, what i like about a game cannot be found anywhere but where it can be found, not anywhere a certain game is.

[Josh]

I'm saying that if you hve fun with a game you are going to defend it much more than a game you did not have fun with.

Correct.  That's part of why I am addressing the issue sans game.  It does not matter if you defend a game with more ferocity, it just matters that you do not muddy the waters with nonsense.  Do you see?

Also, you don't seem to get my statement about the mechanics, when someone plays a game, they do not play it solely for the mechanics. They play it primarily for fun.

The agent by which you feel fun, is defined as payouts. 

I don't care how bad the mechanics are, fun overrides mechanics, and most people agree with me on that (in my experience at least).

That argument will be picked up elsewhere.

The point here is the fallacious nature of "but we had fun."

[Josh]

Updated, comments?

[emissary666]

The point here is the fallacious nature of "but we had fun."

We had fun is only fallacious in certain circumstances. When defending a game from someone trying to make you change, it works. In an argument about mechanics, it fails. In an argument about payouts, well, then you have enter an entirely different plane of subjectiveness

[Meg]

I'm saying that if you hve fun with a game you are going to defend it much more than a game you did not have fun with.

I'm an example of this being not true.  I defend Burning Wheel and recommend it even though I've never had fun with it.

good is subjective.

Ah ha.  The real crux of the argument.

Fun is subjective.  Of course.  But Good isn't always.

What I like is subjective.  What I have fun with is personal.  But "Good" is a different concept that too often equated with fun and "like".

Can I start a food for thought just on that subject?  Because it's off topic here.

On topic.... I like dark chocolate.  I'd love to be a connoisseur of dark chocolate.  I enjoy and have fun tasting dark chocolate.

If I find a brand I like, should I stop?  What if it's only ok?  Should I force myself to like it?  Maybe I eat a piece while doing something incredibly fun-- say I try a piece of Hershey's while getting a back rub.  Pure bliss... but was it the chocolate that made me have a fantastic time?  Or that the chocolate was there during the time that would've been fun anyway?  Why not just compare with a couple of other brands to find the one I like the most and that by itself- even without the backrub- I'd enjoy.  Because when I find the defining, amazing piece of chocolate, think of how much fun that backrub + chocolate will be then.  (hint- the fun will be orgasmic)

[Josh]

The next food for thought is on fact opinion and subjective objective.

[InnaBinder]

If I find a brand I like, should I stop?  What if it's only ok?  Should I force myself to like it?  Maybe I eat a piece while doing something incredibly fun-- say I try a piece of Hershey's while getting a back rub.  Pure bliss... but was it the chocolate that made me have a fantastic time?  Or that the chocolate was there during the time that would've been fun anyway?  Why not just compare with a couple of other brands to find the one I like the most and that by itself- even without the backrub- I'd enjoy.  Because when I find the defining, amazing piece of chocolate, think of how much fun that backrub + chocolate will be then.  (hint- the fun will be orgasmic)

Is it reasonable to continue the analogy to the point that there are 'better' dark chocolates for backrubs, while others might be teh aw3som3st dark chocolates for watching TV?

[emissary666]

The next food for thought is on fact opinion and subjective objective.

Please don't, we have enough arguments about that in most of the threads you make/comment in.

As for fun and good

Good is subjective and objective. I can say, "This car is good" and back it up with statistics. I cannot however say, "This game is good" as games are never the same for different people

@Meg- I said "...defend it much more..." If you had fun with Burning Wheel, you would defend it with more vigor than you do now.

[Meg]

Please don't, we have enough arguments about that in most of the threads you make/comment in.

I think this discussion proves we need it.  You know you don't have to post in a thread, right?

I cannot however say, "This game is good" as games are never the same for different people

I call bullshit.  Poems can be good and bad and are incredibly personal as well.  But once again, this isn't the thread for that discussion.

[Meg]

Is it reasonable to continue the analogy to the point that there are 'better' dark chocolates for backrubs, while others might be teh aw3som3st dark chocolates for watching TV?

Absolutely.  Without a doubt. 

[Josh]

The post will go up when I get home, it covers much of what people have just brought up.

The next topic is on the argument of mediocrity, that also may be of interest.
 

[Straw_Man]

Fun?

The most common defense proffered when a game is cited as non optimal is:



Where to start?

1) This is not an adequate defense.
2) Did you have fun?
3) Logically the fun comes from the entirety of the situation, not just the gameplay
4) Even if the game is fun, so what?
5) Fun is not universal.

1) Adequate Defense or Not?2) Was Fun Going On? 3) The Game is Only Part of the Event

The easiest way to explain this is with an analogy.

A) You go to the movies with friends, the movie is cool, and you have fun
B) You go to the movies with friends, the movie sucks, and you have fun

You see, you can go to a crappy movie and have fun.  Having fun does not make the movie(game) awesome automatically.

Having fun at an event does not mean that every part of that event was fun.

4) the game is fun, so what?

As we have discussed elsewhere, you could be playing something more fun.  And logically you should be if that is an option. 

A) A game could be better than another at meeting the same payouts.
B) A game could also be better because it is different and it meets more of your personal payouts.

5) Fun ain't every bodies fun

Fun is not universal.  Everyone has different values.  What is universal is what games have and can do, Payouts.

Payouts are a way of describing what your values might align with in a game.  A way of objectively and universally describing the qualities of a game.

Summary

  Oh my stars and garters, where to start? First of, fun is a product and an experience. There may be, ideally will be, fun in just being with your gaming group - not gaming, just proximity. How do we separate that fun from game-fun?

  I've had bad experiences(not-fun), and good experiences(fun) with the same system, the variable factor being the GM.  And yet, some of my worst experiences coincided with other's best. Same system, different results; yet you want to reduce this into a fun/not-fun binary. In your syntax I believe it would mean the Payouts were based off the GM rather than the system.

  Anticipating your argument I suspect you'll say that a game ought not to be that GM dependant, and I suspect my response would be that any game of sufficient complexity will be that dependant.
 

[woodenbandman]

^That's not really speaking anything about the system in that case, I think. In that case the factor that causes or removes the fun is the DM, not the system at all. I'm guessing that Josh is trying to put up cases where the SYSTEM is the cause of the lack of fun, and in your case it seems that the cause was the GM.

I DO see your point in fun not being I/O like that, though. That seems, again, to be a product of one person preferring a different GMing style. If the system is good, and it sounds like it is in your case, then that variable has been eliminated. The variable in your case is the GM, and if you don't have fun with one GM and do have fun with another, then the system is totally irrelevant in that case because you probably wouldn't have fun with the second GM regardless of system. Then again, if the GM ran a game in another system that you really enjoyed... maybe it is the system after all, that set up the possibility of a bad game.

[Straw_Man]

  I'm just saying a system is a factor, utilizing the system is huge. You don't try to run D&D as a highschool anime romance, just doesn't fricking work, nor in Burning Wheel a combat simulator.