Have you seen Gamers talk themselves out of fun?

[KorvinStarmast]

There's a reasonably well known quip from Robin Laws that goes like this:

"Gamers like to talk themselves out of having fun"

I'll need to do a bit of digging to find out the context of his remark, but I think he was on to something.

Have you seen this manifest at any table where you played?

I have experienced a few tables break up that included friendships being marred or ended by stuff that came up during play.

I am not sure that is what he's referring to, but it may be a part of it.

What are your experiences?

[Rynjin]

I only have two real examples of friendships being marred by gaming related stuff, and in the more recent case it was just a matter of one friend being a giant ******* to another friend at the table and everyone immediately ripping him apart for it (the older example is the story I've told several times about a first time GM torpedoing two games because he didn't like a ruling I made in another game).

IME, people are there to have fun. We never want the vibe to deteriorate. Even when disagreements come up, things are left pretty civil; the most it really gets to is a level of someone kind of unintentionally needling another person over a topic that's a sticking point for them (like alignment), and it requires a sharp "hey, look, I get it; now please stop".

This is, to me, the biggest benefit of actually playing with friends and not randos.

[Jack of Spades]

Robin's point was less about table drama and more about pacing and engagement.

Essentially, his assertion is that, given infinite time to plan and discuss, players will most often settle upon a safe, cautious, hyper-conservative mode of play. This ends up creating situations where the players avoid, obviate, or trivialize the big fight with the necromancer, even though having a big fun fight against the necromancer and her skeleton army is actually the engaging part of the game.

Robin was basically, literally saying: do not give your players the chance to talk themselves out of fun. Interrupt them, cut them off, or give them time pressure to ensure that they are running with that first, sloppy, fun plan instead of eliminating all opportunities for twists or fumbles-- and the improvisation that those engender.

That's not everyone's playstyle, of course, but it's certainly Robin's.

[Rynjin]

IME players going the hyper-cautious route is due to a lack of GM trust. Or more accurately, an expectation of difficulty. If you don't plan well, you die. If you die, you don't get to play anymore (that session). That's a lot less fun than getting to play.

[KorvinStarmast]

Robin's point was less about table drama and more about pacing and engagement.

Essentially, his assertion is that, given infinite time to plan and discuss, players will most often settle upon a safe, cautious, hyper-conservative mode of play. This ends up creating situations where the players avoid, obviate, or trivialize the big fight with the necromancer, even though having a big fun fight against the necromancer and her skeleton army is actually the engaging part of the game.

Robin was basically, literally saying: do not give your players the chance to talk themselves out of fun. Interrupt them, cut them off, or give them time pressure to ensure that they are running with that first, sloppy, fun plan instead of eliminating all opportunities for twists or fumbles-- and the improvisation that those engender.

That's not everyone's playstyle, of course, but it's certainly Robin's.

I have a tendency (once initiative is rolled) to get to a point where I say "make a decision" if someone drags their feet. But the planning process itself can be a lot of fun. 'Wait, how are we going to infiltrate the necromancer's lair and steal his magic bone wand ...."

Some day, I hope to be able to play a game of Feng Shui. Have heard that it's fun.

[Easy e]

Essentially, his assertion is that, given infinite time to plan and discuss, players will most often settle upon a safe, cautious, hyper-conservative mode of play. This ends up creating situations where the players avoid, obviate, or trivialize the big fight with the necromancer, even though having a big fun fight against the necromancer and her skeleton army is actually the engaging part of the game.

Robin was basically, literally saying: do not give your players the chance to talk themselves out of fun. Interrupt them, cut them off, or give them time pressure to ensure that they are running with that first, sloppy, fun plan instead of eliminating all opportunities for twists or fumbles-- and the improvisation that those engender.

There is a mistaken idea in many circles that they will "win D&D".

I often have to remind my fellow players around the table that there is no "Winning D&D" you simply experience playing D&D.


Edit: There and Their silliness.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have a tendency (once initiative is rolled) to get to a point where I say "make a decision" if someone drags their feet. But the planning process itself can be a lot of fun. 'Wait, how are we going to infiltrate the necromancer's lair and steal his magic bone wand ...."

Some day, I hope to be able to play a game of Feng Shui. Have heard that it's fun.

I often see people (especially my in-person group) to spend way more time discussing plans than it's actually worth given what knowledge they have. Especially given my love of throwing twists into things.

There are reasons I couldn't play mirror-shade Shadowrun or heist games generally--I like to have the narrative moving constantly. Get in there with a basic plan and some simple fallbacks, then roll with the punches. See what happens. So the whole "plan things perfectly so the execution is trivial and you rarely, if ever, have to roll dice" mode of play just kills my enjoyment.

So yes, I've seen gamers talk themselves out of my fun.

Also, taking the "no risks" route often means missing out on lots of cool stuff. The bard I play has the flaw "insatiable curiosity that often gets him into trouble".

[NichG]

IME players going the hyper-cautious route is due to a lack of GM trust. Or more accurately, an expectation of difficulty. If you don't plan well, you die. If you die, you don't get to play anymore (that session). That's a lot less fun than getting to play.

I've also seen it happen because of social dynamics, like, someone proposes something that would work (or guesses something that was correct) but other people at the table get into an argumentative or critical mode and say 'no, that can't work, you have to prove it to me'

[KorvinStarmast]

I've also seen it happen because of social dynamics, like, someone proposes something that would work (or guesses something that was correct) but other people at the table get into an argumentative or critical mode and say 'no, that can't work, you have to prove it to me'

That is a fine example of Gamers like to talk themselves out of having fun...and may not realize that they are doing it.

I sometimes have said during such an argument "are we here to argue or play?"

[Tanarii]

Yes.

It's usually one of:
- optimization taken too far
- taking too much time trying to dig out the relevant rule
- taking too much time arguing about the rules
- using electronic devices at the table
- slow pacing, especially for combat

Example of the slow pacing destroying fun: Critical Role. You can see the players not having fun constantly.

[Jakinbandw]

There is a mistaken idea in many circles that they will "win D&D".

You can lose DND though. Losing a character can mean sitting around not able to play for the rest of the session. Something most people dont find fun.

[Satinavian]

That's not everyone's playstyle, of course, but it's certainly Robin's.

I think that is the important part.

Some people like mirrorshade Shadowrun.

[Easy e]

You can lose DND though. Losing a character can mean sitting around not able to play for the rest of the session. Something most people don't find fun.

I am very confused. There is no winning or losing, only experiencing. The game is a social activity and an excuse to get together with other humans to observe and interact with them.

If you do not have an active character, do you have to leave the room? Sit quietly and not interact with anyone? Observe only from behind a glass wall? Go sit at the kid's table? Keep your Zoom on Mute and close the chat window?

Before I got to rotate into a game; I sat out until the ongoing campaign ended. I had to prove I would show up every session. Despite not having a character in the campaign, I was definitely participating with the group. I was able to throw out ideas about what to do next, where the plot was going, talk in the prep stage, and make a metric ton of side of commentary. Despite all this snarky banter, they still let me rotate in and play the next campaign!

[warty goblin]

IME players going the hyper-cautious route is due to a lack of GM trust. Or more accurately, an expectation of difficulty. If you don't plan well, you die. If you die, you don't get to play anymore (that session). That's a lot less fun than getting to play.

To some degree it's also a system design issue. In FPS games for instance you avoid damage by either going really fast (old school) or hiding behind something (everything from Call of Duty to Red Orchestra.) The old school approach is more aggressive, but you still generally want distance from the enemies so you can dodge better.

Then there's Doom 2016, which let's you recover HP by running up to dudes, tearing their arm off and jamming it through their face. You still need to move fast, dodge and position to mitigate damage, but you really have to be exceedingly aggressive.

I rather wonder how much excessive caution in RPGs could be removed by systems that really promoted being aggressive. But that would generally require a tilt away from global resource management as a gameplay model. I'm not sure how you balance the wizard wanting to rest after every fight with Doomguy, who wants to go murder sinething to heal up.

[KorvinStarmast]

You can lose DND though. Losing a character can mean sitting around not able to play for the rest of the session. Something most people dont find fun.

Here is a lesson in DMing.
If a player's character dies, you the DM can invite the player to play the monsters for you for the rest of the session.
It does two things.
(1) It keeps them engaged, and
(2) it removes a little bit of your work load.
Or, if they are the kind who are self-starters, they can begin to create their next PC in parallel with play going on.
Depends on that person. Figure out what kind of person they are.

If, on the other hand, they just sit there and sulk you have learned another thing about that person.

[Rynjin]

Before I got to rotate into a game; I sat out until the ongoing campaign ended. I had to prove I would show up every session.

I don't even tolerate bull**** like this for job interviews, why would I tolerate it for a game lol.

[animorte]

I don't even tolerate bull**** like this for job interviews, why would I tolerate it for a game lol.

I can definitely agree with this energy. However, I've witnessed enough absent players, I would be willing to do this just for the sake of consistency. Within reason. I would at the very least consult with the DM to ensure that the campaign is even remotely approaching closure. "Oh, sure. We're only 10-15 sessions out." Get bent.

(Unless maybe I'm filling in as DM help. I've done some fun co-DMing before.)

[RedWarlock]

I can definitely agree with this energy. However, I've witnessed enough absent players, I would be willing to do this just for the sake of consistency. Within reason. I would at the very least consult with the DM to ensure that the campaign is even remotely approaching closure. "Oh, sure. We're only 10-15 sessions out." Get bent.

(Unless maybe I'm filling in as DM help. I've done some fun co-DMing before.)

I can see both sides, as a long-frustrated GM. I really like the sit-in idea for joining an ongoing narrative-heavy game, have the new player sit in on a couple sessions, the first to get the sense of the world and the style of players, maybe a second for taking the time to create the character with other players' aid (especially for something mechanically complex) and set up their entry, integrate them into the ongoing plot organically.

[Jophiel]

IME players going the hyper-cautious route is due to a lack of GM trust. Or more accurately, an expectation of difficulty. If you don't plan well, you die. If you die, you don't get to play anymore (that session). That's a lot less fun than getting to play.

I'd also add the basic randomness of dice roll mechanics. Your sneaky PC trying to unlock the gate from inside the mansion could still roll a one and find themselves mauled by alerted guards (who also now know that someone is trying to get in) so the players try to over-plan for every contingency to avoid getting screwed. Randomness can feel fun when it leads to chaotic success but a lot less fun when you feel like your plan failed (or character died) purely due to some BS rolls.

[Satinavian]

Before I got to rotate into a game; I sat out until the ongoing campaign ended. I had to prove I would show up every session. Despite not having a character in the campaign, I was definitely participating with the group. I was able to throw out ideas about what to do next, where the plot was going, talk in the prep stage, and make a metric ton of side of commentary. Despite all this snarky banter, they still let me rotate in and play the next campaign!

That wouldn't fly in my group. talk in the prep stage and throwing out ideas is to be done strictly in character with very few exceptions. And we certainly wouldn't want to hear snarky occ comments all the time or someone at the table with whom we only can talk occ.

Of course we also never would expect someone to sit through whole sessions before they can join.


Thinking back, there have been such spectators in the past. But only on the initiative of the player in question because they wanted to get a feel for group and game before they commit and only for single sessions.

[mucat]

I'd also add the basic randomness of dice roll mechanics. Your sneaky PC trying to unlock the gate from inside the mansion could still roll a one and find themselves mauled by alerted guards (who also now know that someone is trying to get in) so the players try to over-plan for every contingency to avoid getting screwed. Randomness can feel fun when it leads to chaotic success but a lot less fun when you feel like your plan failed (or character died) purely due to some BS rolls.

That's still a matter of DM trust. If (a mostly-reasonable plan) + (a really ****ty roll) = (a session which is no longer fun), then someone is doing the math wrong. The GM has a lot of steering power, and should use it not to make the characters' lives consequence-free, but to make those consequences fun from the players' perspective (if terrifying in-world for the characters). Which is more fun for everyone involved? "Sorry, your plan failed", or "the only way you can pull it off now is to outthink a new cascade of disasters"?

One rule I always try to remember when GMing, is "a low roll doesn't mean they've failed. It means I get to escalate." What to escalate, and how? Hey, that's why GMing is an art.

I find that this works best in a system like Fate, where a low roll explicitly means "Consequences", not "Failure". But even in D&D...that skilled sneak-thief infiltrating the mansion rolls a 1...

...so escalate the stakes. "You realize that you're about to put your foot down on a squeaky floorboard, and freeze mid-stride. As you're standing there with no clear path of advance or retreat, you hear a familiar voice from just around the corner. The guard captain has returned to check on his subordinates, and he's not happy to find them napping on the job."

...or escalate the time pressure. "'Damned raccoons are in the crawlspace again. Wait right here while I find a lantern, and we'll put 'em down for good this time. Won't be a minute...'"

...or force new improvisation. "You turn your ankle turn on a rain-slick flagstone, and nearly fall headlong into the cesspit...but you wrench yourself upright with the poise of a true professional who just damned-near ended up coated in sh*t. You even avoid making too much noise, and begin to congratulate yourself...until you hear the metallic clinking of your stolen key against the rocks as it falls, ending with a splash in the cesspit you just avoided."

...or escalate the moral tension. "You look up and find yourself face-to-face with a goggle-eyes guard, who looks -- for the moment -- too flabbergasted to scream. His helmet is comically oversized, and your heart sinks as you realize the kid can't be over thirteen; the Baron is really scraping the bottom of the barrel for his 'fearsome legions' now..."

...or a hundred other options, any of which are way more interesting and memorable than "Roll to see if tonight's session will be any fun. Natural 1? I guess it won't. Hey, don't blame me; dice are dice."

[Satinavian]

One rule I always try to remember when GMing, is "a low roll doesn't mean they've failed. It means I get to escalate." What to escalate, and how? Hey, that's why GMing is an art.

I find that this works best in a system like Fate, where a low roll explicitly means "Consequences", not "Failure".

Personally i don't find that fun, neither as player nor as GM. But i don't like Fate either, so maybe that is not that surprising.

[Amnestic]

Here is a lesson in DMing.
If a player's character dies, you the DM can invite the player to play the monsters for you for the rest of the session.
It does two things.
(1) It keeps them engaged, and
(2) it removes a little bit of your work load.

I'd add 3) It gives them a small taste of DMing, even if it's only the 'monster' side, it might open them up to wanting to do more in the future if they find it enjoyable.

Definitely preferable to have them running monsters if a resurrection or replacement character isn't imminent.

[Rynjin]

Personally i don't find that fun, neither as player nor as GM. But i don't like Fate either, so maybe that is not that surprising.

It's a matter of perspective. I agree, failure should mean failure. But a small failure should not mean an overarching failure.

If someone fails a Disable Device check to disable a trap, that means they failed. And if they fail hard enough, they may even not get to try again.

But it doesn't mean the adventure is over, it's just a setback.

This is especially important to keep in mind for heists and the like. Failing a Stealth check means you get detected, no getting around it. But what does getting detected mean? In most cases, a combat. And that gives another hinge that might be used to salvage the situation. If you can incapacitate the guard before he sounds the alarm, maybe you mitigate the harm. If he does sound the alarm, maybe you can dispatch him and disappear; the guards are now on alert but do not know your position. If they know your position, maybe you can still get the job done fast and escape. If you can't, maybe you can JUST escape, and try again later; even though security will be tighter. If you can't escape, maybe you get captured, and now need to escape from prison. And if you get killed...well, a lot of things had to go wrong to get to that point.

[Satinavian]

Yes, that is significantly more agreeable and closer to my style.


But that brings us back to the topic. What a failed check means relies heavily on what the check was made for. And that relies heavily on the players plan.

If the players plan include one critical action that hinges on a single check and that is not a guaranteed success, well, then they can fail and only have themself to blame. And i like this. I wouldn't want to save them as a GM in such a case. And as a player, i would want to plan/prepare a plan B (even if that is only how to get away without losses). And if such didn't exist, i would want it to feel like a risky gamble with the option of failure to be real.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd add 3) It gives them a small taste of DMing, even if it's only the 'monster' side, it might open them up to wanting to do more in the future if they find it enjoyable.

Bravo for your addition, thank you!

[Easy e]

I don't even tolerate bull**** like this for job interviews, why would I tolerate it for a game lol.

The reason you do something like this is two-fold.

1. You want to make sure the New Guy isn't a drain and distraction on the group.
2. The new guy wants to make sure that the group isn't a bunch of folks that they are incompatible with.

Do you never go on dates, or do you just start living together immediately instead?

Plus, they were in the middle of a campaign, and it made no sense for some rando to just show up.

I appreciated the discretion since this group had been active and consistently playing for several years before I showed up. I have had plenty of experiences playing terrible RPGs that I had to walk away from. I did not want to do that if it was not necessary.

[Rynjin]

The reason you do something like this is two-fold.

1. You want to make sure the New Guy isn't a drain and distraction on the group.
2. The new guy wants to make sure that the group isn't a bunch of folks that they are incompatible with.

The "date" analogy you use is a good one. The fact that they just jumped straight to "audit multiple sessions of our game" and not "let's hang out sometime" is telling.

The best way to figure out if you're compatible with a group is to hang out with them, not go through three rounds of interviews and an aptitude test first. Go to a bar. Play a boardgame. Hell, play a oneshot together. You know, activities that actually involve everyone in the group equally.

When you go on a date, do you first tag along as third wheel to several of the other person's dates with different people?

[Easy e]

Thanks for your input. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Despite my snark earlier, you can get involved with your TTRPG group however you want and in a way that works for you. If it works for you, good for you.

Your previous post didn't seem like you were interested in getting to know people, just TTRPG with them. My apologies for not reading between the lines.

[Rynjin]

Your previous post didn't seem like you were interested in getting to know people, just TTRPG with them. My apologies for not reading between the lines.

Yeah, it's probably worth clarifying that I only game with people I'm already friends with (or who are at most friends of friends), except for play by posts (and even then, I know most people in the scene at least as acquaintances). I've tried gaming with randos before and it always sucks.