This might be posted in the wrong section, but here goes;

I love computer games, playing games for fun. No matter how late or dark it got playing Elite on my Commodore 64 was fun. But as the game industry now has grown up, games it seems have moved away from being fun. Could the same analogy be used therefore with Role-Playing Games?

The early computer games, and role-playing games were fun, and I played them for fun, but as I grow older, am I looking for something else in my role-playing games and computer games.

In the latest issue of Edge magazine, (a hihgly respected UK published journal for gaming on all gaming formats) in which they said that games don't necessarily have to be fun and enjoyable to be great.

I thought a while on this, and what with the popularity of dark horror survival games, Doom 3, Resident Evil etc..., and especially the First Person Shooters (FPS), all of these games create great atmosphere, but aren't necessarily fun to play. You dont smile, cheer, do a jiggy dance. In fact you find yourself wanting the "ordeal" to be over.

Having recently played through and completed Call of Duty II on my old PC, I realised that I began to agree with Edge's theory. COD is a FPS game set during various theatres of war during World War II. I dont think for one minute I actually enjoyed myself, in fact I felt relieved that the experience is over.

From the first moment I started playing, I was shot at, grenades were thrown at me, corporals and sergeant ordered me to provide covering fire, shoot snipers before they killed me and my squad, dive for cover. It was an intense experience, none of which could compare to the real thing, but it was a gaming experience I was glad to have undertaken virtually, rather than for real. It isnt for the faint of heart (there is little blood) but it will leave you breathless.

But I didnt have "fun".

Maybe thats the experience I am looking for in a role-playing game, not necessarily a new fangled set of rules (because as long as they are both robust and flexible), any set will suffice.

And maybe thats what the Forge-fed RPGers are looking for. Not a new set of rules to control and enforce a style of game or playing, but perhaps move beyond their trite stories and look at running games that aren't considered "fun", but intelligent (not taking player's goals for granted), accurate (especially in a historical setting), consistent (one on my pet peeves) and intense.

Maybe it is too much to ask of my players that they pray for the end of each of my games, not because they want the experience to end, but because they want to come up for air, and a chance to escape the fantasy.

Sorry, tons of ramblings.

See the Fun and Fulfilment thread.

-clash

I'm totally onboard with people playing whatever games they like however they want, but at any table I'm sitting at I want the game to be loud, stupid, and fun.

It's the same sort of enjoyment as you get from a watching horror film or riding a rollercoaster. You are glad when it's over, it's rewarding to overcome the challenge, face your fears and live through them. As the flyingmice said isn't this already covered in a recent thread?

Quote from: jrientsI'm totally onboard with people playing whatever games they like however they want, but at any table I'm sitting at I want the game to be loud, stupid, and fun.

My hero!

Quote from: LawbagBut as the game industry now has grown up, games it seems have moved away from being fun.

What in God's name are you babbling about?

My last console/PC game purchases:
OKAMI, Guitar Hero, Neverwinter Nights, Final Fantasy XII, Call of Duty II (yep), Strange Adventures in Infinite Space, Prince of Persia the Two Thrones, Getting Up, Soul Calibur 3, StepMania (DDR clone).
Fun, great fun, fun, fun, fun, fun, fun, fun at first then started to suck so I stopped playing, fun and HELLA fun.

You (and the article) are clearly implying, "People play these games, but they're not really having any fun". And that's when you're seriously sounding like some retarded Forge charicature. Do you really believe what you're saying there? Cause seriously, you shit yoruself sick when you think/assume that some Forgie is implying that about a million tabletop gamers "aren't having fun", but here you are implying the same thing about ahundred million video gamers.

Quote(re CoD 2) But I didnt have "fun".

OK, that makes sense.  That means that it's time to find a game that you will have fun with (if that's what you want), perhaps another genre altogether; driving, flying, dancing, action, RTS, etc. Rather than, say, making generalizations that people don't find this kind of thing "fun" (the atricle cited sounds like the height of pretentiousness - Maybe it was a slow news week or whatever. I'd have to read it myself to know for sure).

Or try some time on the Multiplayer component of CoD 2: If you find a server without a lot of filthy racists, it's a fucking hoot of a time.

QuoteAnd maybe thats what the Forge-fed RPGers are looking for. Not a new set of rules to control and enforce a style of game or playing, but perhaps move beyond their trite stories and look at running games that aren't considered "fun", but intelligent (not taking player's goals for granted), accurate (especially in a historical setting), consistent (one on my pet peeves) and intense.

Maybe that's what some crowd is after. Some folks. Those Norwegian "full on hardcore immersion roleplayers who don't roll dice and are always in character" types, for example.

I'm playing Sorcerer right now, in a campaign best described as Jew Pirates of the Carribean. Pulpy game with Qlippoth demons and high action. I'm not getting 'intelligent' gaming (save what I looked up on pirating on Wikipedia), accurate gaming (save for window dressing; Because otherwise I'm a Jewish WOMAN Pirate Captain who studies the TORAH, and has TATTOOES, frex)
, or very Intense... well, scratch that, the action and violence is pretty intense, but no more "deep" than watching "The Transporter".

The other day I played Don't Rest Your Head, where I basically had Doctor Foreman from House MD driving a motorcycle through a hospital, killing supermodels with TVs for heads with a sledgehammer, while another player playing Cancer Girl swam through her own cancer-ridden bloodstream on a raft with Gilgamesh The King. The only thing the game lacked was a heavy metal soundtrack and a cameo by Jason Stratham (sp? The "Transporter/Snatch" guy).

So yeah, there may be something in what you say. But not enough to make such a huge generalization. Or to even say that these games (video games? for real?) aren't "fun".

-Andy

I think the problem is with there interpretation of what the word 'fun' means.

Fun can be a vicarious thrill, a shiver up the spine like coming too close to death (bungie jumping), fun can be an exhilierating passionate climax (sex), fun can be  a guffaw that explodes out of you (a funny movie)

Fun isn't just about 'jiggy dance' or smiling--its about getting the neurons firing that thrill you, excite you. Some people like to be scared, that is FUN to them. Others enjoy a cerebral challenge of wits in chess--that is fun to them.


And the thing is all those things may be "fun" to the same person too.

Fun is not simply "amusement". Its deeper and more longterm and sometimes subtler.

Quote from: SilverlionI think the problem is with there interpretation of what the word 'fun' means.

Fun can be a vicarious thrill, a shiver up the spine like coming too close to death (bungie jumping), fun can be an exhilierating passionate climax (sex), fun can be  a guffaw that explodes out of you (a funny movie)

Fun isn't just about 'jiggy dance' or smiling--its about getting the neurons firing that thrill you, excite you. Some people like to be scared, that is FUN to them. Others enjoy a cerebral challenge of wits in chess--that is fun to them.


And the thing is all those things may be "fun" to the same person too.

Fun is not simply "amusement". Its deeper and more longterm and sometimes subtler.

QFT

How about this: RPGs are entertainment. Like other forms of entertainment, they range from the puerile to the profound. Some groups may embrace both within a single session.

Fun!? FUN?1

This is BLASPHEMY!

Everyone knows RPGs are supposed to be painful!

I think that the idea of "fun" should be implicit in any sort of game. I'm not going to play anything that isn't fun. Even "scary" can be fun.

Modern day FPS's aren't "fun" for me, so I don't play them.

HALO 2 is fun, so I play the fuck out of it.
Dead Rising is fun, so I play that.
Fucking my wives is fun, so I do that.

Why do it, if it isn't fun, because work != fun.

Quote from: T-WillardFucking my wives is fun, so I do that.

You have more than one?

See my interview with T-Willard.

I can buy the idea of a million flavors of fun. I object to the idea that "thematic is the definition of fun" or any other similar nonsense. It may be fun for 'some guy', I guess, but there's no fucking way that guy gets to set the definition.

But in general, I want things to be fun in a way that everyone is having a great time playing. In my own campaign, (running weekly, currently in it's 8th month) I strive to have a conversational flow that approximates the Princess Ark series that used to run in Dragon in the early 1990s.