It's not about fun!

So this is less a thread about any specific issue with DDN and more about language and thoughts brought up in discussions around DDN. Specifically I see the word fun brought up and thrown around a lot, especially related to the role of the dm, and I take issue with much of it's use.

Games are not about fun! Now before you all scramble to the reply button hear me out. The word fun carries some connotations of pleasure, joy and light-heartedness, and what is fun is not always the best experience. We need to use the word fun carfully here as language is important in how we percieve and communicate ideas. Instead I would like to ask people focus more on what I like to call the E-Words, specifically the two most important things for games (and most leisure activities), Entertainment and Engagement. As well the word enjoyment is a great replacement for fun in many places. To be clear let me define these words as they relate to games:

Engage: to occupy the attention or effort of (a person or persons)
Entertain: to hold the attention of pleasantly or agreeably

I think what most people mean when they say fun on these boards is entertainment. Entertainment being a more broad and encompising idea then fun. Entertainment includes a much fuller range of emotions and experiences, for example a sad movie may not be fun, however it is entertaining. Engagement is also sometimes refered to as fun, where people are equating a persons level of attention to a measure of "fun". I find trying to solve expert minesweeper games very engaging, and a bit entertining, however I would not describe them as overly "fun" per se.

I posit that discussing the ideas entertainment and engagement and how they pertain to DDN will have a much more possitive effect then discussions centered around the idea of fun. It will also lead to a more appropriate understanding of problems and reduce miscomunications related to subjects around this family of overlaping concepts. While there are also many other related words in this family such as amusement, leisure, captivate, distract, stimulate, etc. I would say entertainment and engagement are the most important and more importantly relevent ideas to discuss. We should look at the game not through the lens of how fun it is, but how engaging and entertaining it is. This focus on fun over other aspects is a common issue in the games industry as a whole (video games being the biggest culprit). Moving away from fun towards engagement and entertainment is a perceptual leap people and especially designers need to make when thinking about and discussing games.
maybe its not fun to talk about engaging entertainment, I jokes.

I been hit with that before, on the other thread one poster basically said "any bad habit of a DM can be broken down into 1) not realizing the players were not having "fun" and 2) not working to to correct the problem.

The statement is probably correct but not specific enough. Its like people here see the goal of a TTRPG as "having fun" but thats not really it. I like a serious game broken by levity, thats the best time for comedy... when the chips are down, your out numbered, your on the edge of your seat, the tension has been building and building and then that one player makes a snappy quip about the BBEG's evil looking pants or whatever and it becomes the most funny thing ever (or at least until the killing and dieing starts again.) The goal really isnt fun before all, its the group telling of an engaging story, its expirencing fun but also drama, suspense, and everything else that goes into a good fantasy action/adventure movie.

In 2005 on Mike Mearl's Live Journal, Ryan Dancey observed that somebody's girlfriend said dungeons and dragons looks like "twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours" that started a bit of a firestorm of a response.

My big question is what else is going on in that 3hrs and 40 min... well a lot of rules banter of course, as well as building suspense, scene setting, lite roleplay, etc. which sounds about right... If your players joke and laugh for about 20 min a session and are engaged and entertained the rest of the time... your doing it right. "Fun" is never the real goal, engaging entertainment is.  If you just wanted to have fun... you'd own more puppies, buy a hooka, and give up gaming.
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
I think you may be over-limiting the semantic range of "fun" and so producing a bit of a tempest in a teapot. Consider, for a moment, the term sport. Now, "sport" can mean, generically, "play", and "to jest", as well as "a competitive athletic activity". Note that these uses are not equivocal, but analogous. That is, they are interrelated. An engaged sportman in the middle of a competition is not jesting, one imagines, but both are "at play" in important ways.

"Fun" works in much the same way. Natural (i.e. native) speakers of English who say, after an intense game of any sort, that they "had fun" are not suggesting that they were continuously giddy, or joking, or laughing, or being silly, etc. Even so, they are properly using the phrase "to have fun" in a way that no native English-speaker could possibly confuse. This is because "fun" like "sport" aims at something which does not (generally) have a practical end, but for which the play is the thing. (I'm setting aside professional sportsmen or gamers, who are playing to earn a living.) The presumption of either is that it should be enjoyable, fulfilling in one way or another. If someone has played a game or a sport and did not have fun, we can rightly say that he was thwarted in what he was aiming to do.

Since different activities produce different kinds of fun, or, to use your language, engage and entertain in different ways, it is senseless to suggest that if someone wanted to have fun, he would be better off owning more puppies or buying a hooka. Gaming produces its own kind of fun, and, since it has no properly practical end, if it fails to be fun, it has truly been a waste of time. That is why people insist that gaming should be fun, because people do not want to have wasted their time, especially when they had hoped to have fun and might at least have had fun in some other way.

1fun noun \ˈfən\
Definition of FUN

1: what provides amusement or enjoyment; specifically : playful often boisterous action or speech fun>
2: a mood for finding or making amusement fun>
3 a : amusement, enjoyment fun out of life>
b : derisive jest : sport, ridicule fun>
4: violent or excited activity or argument

so I think were looking at 3a- amusement and enjoyment, can you say that the goal of gaming is ONLY amusement and enjoyment? If not then you cant say the only goal of gaming is "fun" 

If you play a game and it is not fun does that mean must also have been complete waste of time? I've played a lot of wargames where I was trounced and had 0 fun, and yet I dont consider those a waste of time, likelwise I've played  number of un-fun sessions of D&D (typically were we failed or only negitives happened etc) but I dont think that alone makes those sessions worthless.  

(ps while I'm writing here I'm kind of wondering exactly what it is I'm arguing for, that games be allowed to be unfun? I guess I am...)


"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
I think you may be over-limiting the semantic range of "fun" and so producing a bit of a tempest in a teapot. Consider, for a moment, the term sport. Now, "sport" can mean, generically, "play", and "to jest", as well as "a competitive athletic activity". Note that these uses are not equivocal, but analogous. That is, they are interrelated. An engaged sportman in the middle of a competition is not jesting, one imagines, but both are "at play" in important ways.


It's not an issue with range (though partially it is), but it is an issue with clarity and accuracy. Undesired connotations can lead to misinterpretations, as well as muddling the concepts people are trying to communicate.

"Fun" works in much the same way. Natural (i.e. native) speakers of English who say, after an intense game of any sort, that they "had fun" are not suggesting that they were continuously giddy, or joking, or laughing, or being silly, etc. Even so, they are properly using the phrase "to have fun" in a way that no native English-speaker could possibly confuse. This is because "fun" like "sport" aims at something which does not (generally) have a practical end, but for which the play is the thing. (I'm setting aside professional sportsmen or gamers, who are playing to earn a living.) The presumption of either is that it should be enjoyable, fulfilling in one way or another. If someone has played a game or a sport and did not have fun, we can rightly say that he was thwarted in what he was aiming to do.


The point is less if the word can fit, but more in how well it fits and defines a concept as well as how clear and consise a representation it affords. Careful, considered language is important in communicating abstract ideas in a clear and consise manner. This is why I think using more appropriate language is important, and most of this stems from pointless circular arguments on these boards that have more to do with multiple interpretations of what "fun" means.

so I think were looking at 3a- amusement and enjoyment, can you say that the goal of gaming is ONLY amusement and enjoyment?


I would consider that the entry requirement of any RPG system I'd want to play. Certainly it can support drama or tragedy or horror or grim desperation or any number of other experiences - but unless it's doing all those things while also providing a base level of amusement and/or enjoyment, it is failing as a game.
It really is just semantics. These words are all interchangeable.
Semantics is important in communication, and developing a clear and consistent terminology is important in design. For example, opportunity attacks versus attacks of opportunity versus adding some new name is semantics, but these terms carry weight and are associated with specific concepts that can lead to confusion if used in a slightly different context.

The point is to develop a consistent, common, and clear usage of language in order to aid communication and focus attention on the correct concepts.
Semantics is important in communication, and developing a clear and consistent terminology is important in design. For example, opportunity attacks versus attacks of opportunity versus adding some new name is semantics, but these terms carry weight and are associated with specific concepts that can lead to confusion if used in a slightly different context.

The point is to develop a consistent, common, and clear usage of language in order to aid communication and focus attention on the correct concepts.



AoO's and OA's actually function quite different and have some significant changes between them. You're talking about words that basically all mean the same thing. You're also seriously over-thinking it. No matter what word people choose to use, it is totally subjective. You can't lock down fun, enjoyment, entertaining, etc. to one system for everyone. It really doesn't matter.
But they are very similar ideas and often confused.

I'll put it this way, saying th goal of dnd is fun is like saying the goal of a movie is fun. It just doesn't quite fit, as for example in primarily sad, tragic movie, one would not describe it's goal as fun. Though some may use the word fun in describing a sad movie, I would say most would be remiss to use it in such a way. Engagement and entertainment are much more relevant and agreeable words for this.

Usage of termonology is important in design as it influences how we think about things. The first things that come to mind when someone thinks of fun are not the same as entertainment, and even moreso different for engagement. This perceptual leap helps focus attention in the correct direction. When we focus too much on "fun" we tend to strive towards the lighter end of the spectrum of emotions and neglect other forms of entertainment, as well as flat out ignore what makes something engaging.

The terms we use have influence, more then most people realise. It's why language often shifts in usage, in order to shift our perception of concepts. It's why political corectness leads to usage of euphanisms, it's why certain scientific terms fall into antiquity and are replaced, it's why people identify as pro-life and pro-choice as opposed to anti-life or anti-choice.

Maybe you're coming at this the wrong way. Maybe it is about fun and engagement and entertainment is part of the whole experience that we're after.


Maybe we're not interested in segmenting our experience in the way you describe out of some resistance to defining these things too closely. Maybe we find it offensive and resist such attempts out of reaction to an overly corporate presentation of what we enjoy. Or maybe we're just after that primal "this feels good and I want more" sort of feeling that we're calling "fun".



Any way you slice it, the terminology we use is part of our honest response and imposing a change in terminology actually obfuscates our response. If the company is interested in how engaging we find the game, they can ask us in specific terms how engaging we find it. If they want to know if we find it entertaining, then they can ask us if we are not entertained.


Point is, the purpose of the playtest is for us to respond. It's not our job to respond in any way but how our guts guide us using examples of our choosing UNLESS the designers actually come out and ask us in some medium or other like a survey.


It would be inappropriate to respond to a survey question about audience engagement on the basis of fun without any specific reference to engagement. It's wholly appropriate (and actually requested) to respond about the experience as a whole on the basis of fun and nothing else with as much or as little detail as we wish to offer.

I'll put it this way, saying th goal of dnd is fun is like saying the goal of a movie is fun. It just doesn't quite fit, as for example in primarily sad, tragic movie, one would not describe it's goal as fun. Though some may use the word fun in describing a sad movie, I would say most would be remiss to use it in such a way. Engagement and entertainment are much more relevant and agreeable words for this.

Usage of termonology is important in design as it influences how we think about things. The first things that come to mind when someone thinks of fun are not the same as entertainment, and even moreso different for engagement. This perceptual leap helps focus attention in the correct direction. When we focus too much on "fun" we tend to strive towards the lighter end of the spectrum of emotions and neglect other forms of entertainment, as well as flat out ignore what makes something engaging.

The terms we use have influence, more then most people realise. It's why language often shifts in usage, in order to shift our perception of concepts. It's why political corectness leads to usage of euphanisms, it's why certain scientific terms fall into antiquity and are replaced, it's why people identify as pro-life and pro-choice as opposed to anti-life or anti-choice.


However, watching a movie and playing a game are not the same thing. Indeed, there are any number of movies we do not watch to be entertained, but rather, e.g. to be informed (like a documentary). So, "watching a movie" is too broad a category to be of use here.

I also think that you are overreaching in saying that the first things that come to mind when someone thinks of fun are not the same as entertainment. In common use, I think that "I was entertained" and "I had fun" are, if not coterminous, heavily related. One can certainly have fun without being entertained, but in common use, it's hard to imagine any native English speaker saying he was highly entertained but did not have any fun, especially if he is one of the people doing the entertaining (which is necessarily the case in gaming, i.e. he is one of the agents involved, not a spectator).

Likewise, "engagement" is ultimately distracting here. Some people find deep engagement necessary for play (whether game or sport), but not all do. Some poker players, e.g. say very little during a game and keep a keen focus, while others attend to all sorts of other things and conversations while playing. The latter is less engaged. However, unless they are playing to win money (i.e. not as entertainment), I can't imagine any of them saying "I had a great night of poker, but I didn't have any fun."

In short, for you, "fun" seems necessarily to connote, in every use, light-hearted distraction. The word just doesn't work that way in modern English. In fact, your overall goal of "clear and consistent terminology" works against the desire to appeal to words as they are generally used by native speakers. Words just don't work that way in normal speech. You can ask for a technical vocabulary here, but why on earth would you want to? We are, after all, talking about a game which, pardon me, most of us play because it is fun.
I suppose what I am getting at is the word fun only covers a partial range of the experience spectrum that D&D should be targetting and focussing attention on that word draws focus away from the rest of the remaining aspects of experience.

The question should not be is a game experience fun but is a game experience desireable and/or agreeable. As well my issue with the word fun is it's mutability in usage. The word can take on a varrying range of cencepts depending on context where as entertainment is a much less context sensitive and mutable word.

I'm not saying there isn't a large crossover in the concepts, in fact it could be argued fun is a subset of entertainment. But that's the point, it's a subset with a varied range of meaning, it misses other points of RPG experience as well as having a range of meaning that varies by person, usage, context, and interpretation.

I don't see your suggestion as helpful. I see your point but I think that's just people being people as they always have been and changing words on us isn't going to change the mutable nature of emotion descriptors.


I would prefer to have everyone respond in the words of their choosing.

Actually, There's a good Extra Credits episode that highlights this. You can find it here.

It basically describes how fun is a term that is loosly thrown around, and shouldn't be core to every experience we look for in games. The video is about video games, but equally apply to RPGs in pretty much every way.

It's a really good series. You guys should check it out! 
My two copper.

I don't see your suggestion as helpful. I see your point but I think that's just people being people as they always have been and changing words on us isn't going to change the mutable nature of emotion descriptors.


I would prefer to have everyone respond in the words of their choosing.



That's where we differ, I would prefer and promote the idea of developing a common usage of terminology to aid in communication and focus our attention in the most effective ways. I'm going to aim to use the words entertainment and engagement, and I hope a few other follow suit.

The assumptions you're making are 1) everyone will agree on what that means and 2) people don't actually mean "fun" when they talk about "fun".


You're, of course, free to do what you like and say it how you wish. There's absolutely nothing wrong in that. Letting us know what you're doing is also perfectly fine, but you'll have to expect a certain level of cynicism.

I already have this discussion here, and YagamiFire has a rather fiery discussion on the matter in his the fallacy of fun thread.  And frankly, it's why I minimize the use of the phrase "it's a fun system!" for DDN because you can make gathering objects a fun system (see: Bring Me), and because with regards to the "fun" factor I would pin the responsibility of designing campaigns to suit the desires of the players to the DM, which means that it's the DM (actually the group as a whole) as responsible for making any game "fun", regardless if the game is an MMORPG or something like rock paper scissors.

I do not look for "the fun", or even "the identity of D&D"[1] in the D&D 5E system.  I look for a variety of aesthetics:


  • Expression. The ability to express my character both mechanically and descriptively (with minimal need for reflavoring).

  • Fantasy. The ability to evoke the imagination.

  • Discovery. The ability for me to explore what is expressed in my imagination.

  • Narrative. The ability to experience the story being built as a result of combining the above aesthetics.

  • Fellowship. The ability to build up and enforce friendships as a result of the game.


All classes utilize ability scores, and all classes have bonus features (spells, maneuvers, tricks, etc.), yet instead of sticking to level-as-character-progression, where gaining features can easily be explained as a partial or full acquisition of a level, at least wizards can gain additional spells via exploration and copying of spells, and all casters are not locked into their acquired features, while non-casters are basically stuck with whatever they chose at the level.  Not to mention how feats are outright optional, which further cripples customization and forces people to "find the fun" in "imagination" or some other avenue.


And until I actually see what they're supposed to change with martial characters, there's way too much complexity yet there's so little meaningful choice in that complexity[2] for said characters.

So all in all, while 5E can be fun with the right DM/group/campaign, when looking at the system I've yet to be convinced to run it myself.

1
Personally I really don't bother with looking for "the identity of D&D" in a D&D product, for three reasons: 1) as long as the product has D&D on its label, it's D&D regardless of edition, 2) people often cite various activities within a TRPG as "playing D&D", partially because of the misnomer that TRPG = D&D and vice versa** (so why bother looking for what's already there), and 3) I've entered the hobby only a few years ago and have no sentimental attachment to game elements that I've found in CRPGs such as "Vancian Magic", and "Alignment", although spells like "Melf's Acid Arrow" and "Magic Missile" are far more evocative of "D&D", so as long as the system has those terms, I really wouldn't even care if Magic Missile in 5E needs an attack roll, because as long as it fits the criteria (it's magical, and it's a missile), fine by me.
**
I actually do hear people ask me when I mention any TRPG, or even MMORPG, "that's D&D, right?" (especially if it's within a high magic medieval setting with wizards and warriors)

2
the only optimal action I see for martial characters is "I attack, minus 1-3 martial damage dice (for a maneuver or three) from time to time", even though they have 20+ combo options at high levels.
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
I just want to step in and say WOW, we are arguing about the usage of the word "fun".  

That is incredbile to me in its own right.  

Go to an MMO forum and look for that level of abject nerdiness.... you will never find it.  This is like reading Heidegger.  I am enthralled. 
We should look at the game not through the lens of how fun it is, but how engaging and entertaining it is. This focus on fun over other aspects is a common issue in the games industry as a whole (video games being the biggest culprit). Moving away from fun towards engagement and entertainment is a perceptual leap people and especially designers need to make when thinking about and discussing games.



I have no idea why you decided to try to drag video games into this. I also have no idea where you got the idea that video game developers don't try to make their games engaging and entertaining, other than the usual "Video games suck!" drivel we get on here all the time.

Your definition of "fun", as far as I can actually figure out, is more "light-hearted" than "entertainment", which apparently "is not always the best experience". You'll find that many video games are not "light-hearted" which again seems to be the only difference I can find between you definition of "fun" and "entertainment". You didn't seem to actually explain how "fun" and the other key element you mentioned, "engagement", are mutually exclusive, other than the implication that light-hearted things can't be engaging.

Your entire point seems to hinge on you making up a definition for fun, and then pretending that every time somebody uses the word "fun" they meant your specific definition of fun even if they were not aware of how you personally define fun. How do you know, for example, that when a video game developer use the word "fun" they didn't MEAN "entertaining and engaging" as you define them? I understand (maybe?) that you're trying to propose some sort of universally-recognized terminology so we can, it is hoped, communicate more clearly to eachother. But I'm just confused as to why you're apparently pretending that people who are unaware of your proposed definitions mean a very very specific thing when they say "fun" even though the English word "fun" is more often than not used to describe the exact same things you say they should focus on instead.

  And I'm just confused why you're accusing the entire medium of video games of all being based on your very narrow definition of "fun" simply because they often use the common English word "fun" when the medium is at this point so diverse that generalizing the entire thing is as silly as saying "Books focus too much on fun and not enough on other aspects".
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
I have no idea why you decided to try to drag video games into this. I also have no idea where you got the idea that video game developers don't try to make their games engaging and entertaining, other than the usual "Video games suck!" drivel we get on here all the time.


I brought it up because I've seen this same issue in discussions about video game design. More importantly because I was reminded of a great Extra Credits episode called "Beyond Fun". It's actually almost the exact same thing I'm talking about and I probably should have included it in the OP.

Your definition of "fun", as far as I can actually figure out, is more "light-hearted" than "entertainment", which apparently "is not always the best experience". You'll find that many video games are not "light-hearted" which again seems to be the only difference I can find between you definition of "fun" and "entertainment".


My definition of fun is mutable and context sensitive. That's the issue. It's also in the most encompasing sense I and many others are willing to use it in is not broad enough to cover the entire spectrum of experience we should be desiring D&D to provde. As for light hearted, that's more of a connotation attached to the word and not necesarily part of my definition, but certain interpretations of the word do include such connotations. The issue is not the dictionary definition of fun, but the egregious amount of mutability in it's use and interpretation.

You didn't seem to actually explain how "fun" and the other key element you mentioned, "engagement", are mutually exclusive, other than the implication that light-hearted things can't be engaging.


That's because they are in no way mutually exclusive, implied to be, or meant to be.

Your entire point seems to hinge on you making up a definition for fun, and then pretending that every time somebody uses the word "fun" they meant your specific definition of fun even if they were not aware of how you personally define fun. How do you know, for example, that when a video game developer use the word "fun" they didn't MEAN "entertaining and engaging" as you define them? I understand (maybe?) that you're trying to propose some sort of universally-recognized terminology so we can, it is hoped, communicate more clearly to eachother. But I'm just confused as to why you're apparently pretending that people who are unaware of your proposed definitions mean a very very specific thing when they say "fun" even though the English word "fun" is more often than not used to describe the exact same things you say they should focus on instead.


The point was never that "fun" was defined one way, my way, and only that way, and in fact the point is quite the opposite, that it's a very mutable and inconsistent word which can be severly misinterpreted from it's intended use do to that fact. You are very much getting the wrong idea here.

And I'm just confused why you're accusing the entire medium of video games of all being based on your very narrow definition of "fun" simply because they often use the common English word "fun" when the medium is at this point so diverse that generalizing the entire thing is as silly as saying "Books focus too much on fun and not enough on other aspects".


Because "fun" is a very common conversation in the industry, one you often see in game journalism, industry panels, etc. Focussing the conversation around the word fun often misses the point because of the way people look at that word. Terminology is important in design.
Declaring that "fun" means all various forms of captivation is a common mistake, because "fun" is joyous -- but when people are gripped by a movie, book or game and don't know how to express why it gripped them, they use the word anyway because they don't know how to explain the satisfaction of observing that story. Let's not waste a good word, tossing it into the generic "it means anything you want it to mean" pool.

As for the main discussion, I contend that tabletop RPGs at large don't deal with fun nearly as much as any other medium. That might be part of why it's less accessed than the rest (though obviously being only 40 years old is a factor). Tabletop RPGs try to stretch a small amount of fun intermittent with tension and believability to create enjoyment. The most powerful thing for most everyone I meet that plays an RPG (or learns to) is "what do you want to do?" Giving that freedom that no other medium offers -- and giving it well, both in failures and successes -- is what endears people to tabletop RPGs. "Giving it well" is brushing past 40 years of inquiry, revision, and discussion.
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
Interesting and Relevant Reading: www.amazon.com/Theory-Fun-Game-Design/dp...


It is by a game designer (Ralph Koster) who actually attempts to address the question.

His Website:  www.raphkoster.com/tag/theory-of-fun/

Carl

fun noun \ˈfən\ Definition of FUN
4: violent or excited activity or argument 

Wait what ? Violent, synonymous definition of fun, really ? I thought my english was getting better (not native) but i still have a lot to learn i guess. 

I wonder how it can be used that way....


PS All the definition of fun i looked in online dictionaries don't have such definition
its webster man... webster...
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
Interesting and Relevant Reading: www.amazon.com/Theory-Fun-Game-Design/dp...


It is by a game designer (Ralph Koster) who actually attempts to address the question.

His Website:  www.raphkoster.com/tag/theory-of-fun/

Carl


Yes it is a very interesting read. I'm not a complete fan of the book, but do think it adresses some interesting questions and a very interesting manner. That said this book is sort of indicative of the problem I have with the word in that the book only works under his idea of what "fun" means, an idea I have seen disagreed with. That said the whole games as learning and puzzles aspect makes it a great read for D&D fans :p
Sometimes people find exception with my use of realism as a component in the creation of fun.  
Sometimes people find exception with my use of realism as a component in the creation of fun.  


That's another word I try to avoid, and more go for beleivability, consistency, and relatability.
Interesting and Relevant Reading: www.amazon.com/Theory-Fun-Game-Design/dp...


It is by a game designer (Ralph Koster) who actually attempts to address the question.

His Website:  www.raphkoster.com/tag/theory-of-fun/

Carl


Yes it is a very interesting read. I'm not a complete fan of the book, but do think it adresses some interesting questions and a very interesting manner. That said this book is sort of indicative of the problem I have with the word in that the book only works under his idea of what "fun" means, an idea I have seen disagreed with. That said the whole games as learning and puzzles aspect makes it a great read for D&D fans :p



Well - his definition is focused on the application of 'fun' to game design. 

And he writes off those who are interested in stuff that he doesn't consider 'fun' (i.e. games that are not designed to be challenging).  As I recall he says that once upon a time "the wolves got them" - and now "the job market gets them."

But if you want to look at the question of what makes for good game design I think he has some good ideas.

Personally - I tend to separate 'fun' from 'entertainment'. I watch TV and movies and I read books for entertainment, I play games for fun.  The two are different and when it comes down to what makes them different I can't say I disagree with him - at least not completely.

Carl
Sign In to post comments