"What makes a game system fun?" Topic

Obviously, a lot of things go into it, but I think one of the major factors for me, is that it allows tactical (or strategic, depending on scale) play that in turn allows the unexpected upset, and yet is not so chaotic that only the unexpected upset ever comes about.

A game can be really well researched and historically accurate, and yet be no fun if this element does not come into play. A particular ancients game comes to mind (which I will not name, but some of you can probably guess at) which was subject to the common complaint that, while it was in fact tactical, all of the tactics went into out-guessing how the opponent was going to set up. Once each side's set up was revealed, it really was unnecessary to play the game, because you knew what would happen from that point forward (no guessing as to this example please, I would like a discussion, not a flame war).

The people that you play it with. I've laughed my ass off playing some pretty dumb rules sets and had a great time.

definitely the people you play with.

Doesn't work for solo though :sigh:

you don't like yourself?

Rules with too many rules are no fun. But assuming the rules make relative sense, it's the players that make the game fun.

The people you play with, along with unexpected results. My old game group in the 80s used to have bushels of fun playing Champions, although it's not the easiest system to use.

Free beer?

I like random events that tweak what's going on, but don't throw the game so badly that random can make or break the outcome.

My opponent fell in love with Great Rail Wars when my Demolitionist blew himself up. Completely surprised him, happened to someone else, and it all happened at the start of the game. The rest unfolded more naturally.

richarDMB wins!

Death and destruction in my book.

Then anally historical.

The people :-]
plus the "feel" of the game

People make games fun.

Rules just provide a framework for that fun.

Rules that are too simple get boring if you are there for the game and not the company.

Rules that are too challenging for some tend to become exclusive and indirectly limit participation which may impact the fun of the game.

All that said, any rules system that leaves players sitting around doing nothing for hours at a time is a dead bang loser.

mjc

you don't like yourself?

I get bored of myself sometimes….

Thats why folk get married!

"What makes a game system fun?"

The enjoyment each individual gamer derives from playing their favorite, of course!

Wonder how much the elusive 'perfect' ruleset is really just a reflection of the search for the 'perfect' opponents/gaming group?

Fun-ness.

Other than that, playing it. Just reading the game system is rarely fun.
-Kle.

Any ruleset where my opponent gets bored waiting for me to finish is out (I play fast). A reasonable game should be done in 3 hours and the players should not need more than the quick reference after about 3 turns.

I'd say that the following things seem to be true of rules I've found to be fun:

* Players have to make decisions quite often -- they are choosing between options, not merely executing pre-determined processes.

* These decisions matter -- what you decide actually makes a difference, rather than vanishing into a swamp of incomprehensible randomness.

* The results of the decisions are not absolutely determined -- this isn't chess, surprises can still happen, often.

* The game is not so "crackable" that it is easy to determine which is the best decision without considerable thought; it's worth playing the game again and again.

* There is a good deal of player interaction. Even if a player decision does not instantly require a decision from the other player, there are no protracted periods where one player is figuring out the ideal move for each of his 1,200 pieces, while his opponent has nothing to do and might as well read a book.

* It is possible to suspend one's disbelief, as no aspect of the rules is so obviously contrary to history, fact or logic that it makes me howl with outrage.

If you can just fix a set of rules that do all these things, capture the tactical essence of an historical period, don't require me to read 16 volumes of heavyweight history to appreciate the game, let me and my mates finish a game in two or three hours so that we can get on with our beer, and are written with such exemplary clarity that no arguments over the rules can possibly arise, then we have what I would call a decent set of rules, and would be happy to pay a fiver for.

Of course, some people might say that I'm just easy to please…

All the best,

John.

Thanks for the posts, all except the ones about "it's the people that make it fun." That was not the question. Also, it is a disingenuous answer.

Obviously, without fun players, no game is any fun, but there is also a reason why we get together with all of our most enjoyable comrades and play FOW, D&D, Ogre, 40K or whatever gaming system rather than checkers or tiddly winks.

I mostly agree with John D Salt. I like control to be passing back and forth between players often enough that no one is waiting too long or feeling cut out of the action. I love opposed roll systems so both players feel like they are "doing something" instead of watching the other guy roll and determine everything.

I like systems where the random elements allow for surprises but still strongly favor the troops with the better stats--so combats should be somewhat predictable with some room for the occasional spectacular reversal of fortune.

I used to be more interested in realism, but I prefer fun to real. I think realism should be kept in the game as long as it doesn't become too much of an obstacle for the rules. I'm fine with certain simple mechanics abstracting a number of complex details away for me.