"What Makes a Game Fun?" Topic

In a recent poll – TMP link – readers said that one of the main reasons they regretted getting into Field of Glory is that it "wasn't fun."

What factors in a game make it fun to play?

Reasonable results that mimic actual combat. It is hard to recreate actual combat situations exactly, so to me the next best thing is to get a result that will give a realistic outcome.

My preference is historical gaming and I like a realistic TO&E rather than a points based force.

Players who are having a good time and we reach a result.

I'd add as one aspect: ability to impact the course of the game.

Either through a lucky die roll at an opportune time, or by seeing a strategy come to fruition. That, to me, is fun!

Rules which are well written, logical, easy to understand, and without holes.

The game is balanced so either side has an equal chance of winning.

Luck does not trump good strategy and tactics.

Players have meaningful decisions to make

I generally agree with USAFpilot, but would note that the feeling of fairness is more important that actual balance.

"Players have meaningful decisions to make."

+1 to this.

And decisions are not painful; too many modifiers, complex CRTs,or subjective interpretations.

And I lose to my opponent and not the game.

I think a game is good if we are happy at the end, and especially if I don't remember just 'playing' the game, but rather picture the figures as in a film, rather than just as toy soldiers.

>>"Players have meaningful decisions to make."
>+1 to this.

+2 here.

Relatively fast moving game, lots of chances for both sides, easy to follow rules, and (at least for me) lots and lots of minis

+3 for meaningful decisions

Good gamers to play with. No cheaters or rules lawyers.
Good rules to play with. Clear, concise, not too many charts and modifiers.
Good rules modeling an era or war. It isn't so generic that it doesn't matter what war, era or weapons are used.
Simplicity of play.
Good game flow using the rules. The rules are logical, and allow the play to continue without huge rules debates.
Good balance of forces. If one side can't win no matter what they do, it becomes frustrating.
Good decision points. Decisions have consequences and effect game outcome.
A good scenerio is a must.
Also well painted forces on a beautifully designed table are an added bonus.

For me it is a feeling of some control even though luck takes you away from plan. Also, that the game flows well from turn to turn so that you don't find a need to question things a lot.

A cup of hot coffee and a sense of humor.

Lots of decisions. Few or no records. Enough die rolling that the game will not be decided by three or four good rolls in a row.
Actually, I agree with most of the suggestions above, but I'll have to take issue with USAFpilot's "equal chance." Both sides should have SOME chance, but in an interesting game, it can be hard to measure the odds. The pursuit of absolute, instead of approximate, equality can lead to very dull scenarios.

Beats the snot outta me. You try your level best to create a FUN game and it bombs. You throw something together on the spot and it winds up a favorite game of all time……….

From my observations at conventions first and foremost it is the eye candy. If you have a game with 15mm to 28mm tanks and infantry that are painted beyond average and detailed terrain to match you almost have to try to make the game bomb.

Recreating that visual effect and letting players move around models they know they'll never own is a real treat.

Next up are rules that are simple enough to keep them moving along and fire without too much interruption with game details. Simple is better. Blowing up stuff is the best.

Also important are players decisions to try something stupid but with the small chance of success. Let the players play. On at least two occasions I advised players not to bother shooting because the odds were < 5% to hit. Both times they hit.

Random events where the best-laid plans can fail is very entertaining too. In the tank game we play there is always a small chance for a ricochet, SNAFU or equipment failure. When a hit and penetration are almost automatic and the round pings off the armor or the result of the shot is a misfire the entire room will hear the groans from one side and the cheers from the other

I've been working on visual results rather than a hit or miss result. Players like visuals.

Wolfhag

That it's a Commands and Colors game, or failing that, has a reasonable referee. Nice miniatures can add to that basic package, but not substitute for it.

Players have meaningful decisions to make.

+1

I'll add to this: a decision cycle that evokes the decision cycle of a real-life commander on the spot. Some games do this so well they actually pull me into a gaming genre I dislike (e.g. Chain of Command), and some games do this so badly they drive me out of a period I care about deeply (most Age of Sail games).

And I lose to my opponent and not the game.

+10

- Ix

I hate to say this but it seems that throwing dice is the most important part of games.

I agree with all of Wolfhag's observations, with one caveat: they apply to casual game participants who prefer light fun to serious thinking. Most convention players fall into this category, except maybe tournament players and hex-and-counter boardgamers.

However, I find it even more fun to get into a group all playing the same period and rules together, who are serious enough to collect miniatures, study the rulebook, read the histories, play on a regular basis, etc. Once such a group has momentum, more complicated rules are no longer an obstacle to fun, because practice makes the learning curve a thing of the past and players can concentrate on tactics, or even participate in a campaign.

- Ix

Yellow Admiral,
A group like you describe is ideal. Unfortunately the guys I had all moved way. However, playtesting with new people has really helped streamline things. I'm always amazed at how different people view the same thing

In San Jose, there is the South Bay Gaming group that is always going Napoleon and War for Independence era miniatures. That's not my thing and too far away.

Wolfhag

It is the physiological response of laughing coupled with interest to events in the game. What game it is, is immaterial.

Easy, clear rules that allow play without reference to an encyclopaedia each turn.

Meaningful decisions by the player--at the appropriate command level (brigade commanders shouldn't be screwing around with squad movement).

A good port and a better cigar.

Fun (for me).

1. I must feel engaged… so I must make decisions that matter –
2. I must have a plausible narrative, so I can recount the battle later on as a story, not a map exercise -
3. The issue must be in doubt till the wire, not decided with the mechanics to complete -
4. Tension needs to be present, the DBx style opposed dice rolling is a great example. Both players on the edge of their seats stuff –
5. No super troops –
6. Chance & Friction play a part, it's one of the challenges to overcome adverse events or luck – there are surprises in war –
7. Must be plausible –
8. Non historical tactics are not rewarded (not penalised) -
9. Both players have a good time,, and opportunity for banter and engagement
10. Combat fits description in an historical manner.. so for example, in Dark Ages, it's about the boast, the Skald and the Shield wall. In ancient the generals speech inspires but the elephants keep coming, in moderns, it's a sitrep.

In San Jose, there is the South Bay Gaming group that is always going Napoleon and War for Independence era miniatures.

You forgot the planes on sticks, the Indian Mutiny, and ships too small to see with the naked eye. :-)

The SBGC actually has pretty wide and varied interests. Intersecting with that that core group there are sub groups and splinter groups playing WWII dogfight games, ACW games, ancients games, WWII naval games, various insanely niche projects (Great Northern War, my stupid US vs. France 1866 project, Thomas Foss' 1/300 laser-cut Lepanto game, etc.), and on and on. Some of those are dedicated to a particular theme and/or rules set like I described. I've been trekking 30-50 miles each way to participate in that club for over 20 years because it's a great way to keep in contact with local miniatures gamers.

- Ix

One sure sign of a good rule set (or game) is if you are feeling nervous before making an important dice throw.

B

* Lot's of decision points that impact the results.

The game I have always found fun involve decision points on every, or nearly every, game turn. Games that have few decision points are not fun for me. Games where the turns take a long time to play out also reduces the number of decision points per amount of time played. For my tastes, FoG has too much drag time between decisions.

Ian Bogost, the game designer, addresses this in a rather unique way in a 10 minute video. He points out what a number of posts have: Fun in game play is complicated and demanding.

YouTube link

Daniel Cook talks about "Game Design Theory I Wish I had Known When I Started." He says the first thing he wants to determine are the action verbs in the rules: that is, what are the players going to DO in the game. He also identifies Raph Koster's book A Theory of Fun for Game Design as one of the fun really useful books on game design. Ian Bogost mentions it too.

YouTube link

Mihaly Csikszentmihaly at University of Chicago devised a theory known as "Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience". It is used widely in e-commerce and computer game design. A lot of the points raised here are covered.

Other subjects like human-computer interaction and serious game design teach the practical aspects of designing systems that conform to these principles.

link

Mihaly Csikszentmihaly at University of Chicago devised a theory known as "Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience".

thehawk:

The theory has been around for some time and scientifically confirmed as a real human experience. It is also used in education and entertainment of any kind. It also has to do with the conditions for long attention. But as you say, it is referenced in game design. Among game designers, Flow is also called "The Magic Circle", "Deep Involvement" and a number of other terms.

The fun game is,

1. A good scenario, with an agreed outcome you expect, but may not get depending how good the players plan and command. the scenarion is complex enough that the players can get enjoyable stressed and make tactical mistakes (real fog of war). Who gets the artillery and when etc. A bad senario is an irredeemabl failure.

2. Rules that do not have stupid reversals of fortune negating good play. Dice kept to a minimum.

3. A game big enough that you actually need to concentrate tolatly on the game. Planning and moving the figures to conform to yor plan.
4. Rules that let you use any tactics you want but you deviate from the text book tactics at your peril. Real generals don't always follow the book but they know when they can ignore the book.
5. Like minded keen players who understand the period and hence understrand real world tactics.

Conventions are fun game but they have little to do with wargaming proper, as the participants have insuffient time, and rearely have the knowledge or experience to fight with an understanding of the period. They need humor rather than brain power.

The reasons a family or friends gather to play Farkle is different than ranked chess players sit down to play a match. All these participants play to have 'fun', but the expectations for the kind of entertainment they want can be very different.

I play Command and Colors Napoleonic for fun, and I play Chain of Command for fun, but not for the same reasons, for the same amount of time and not with the same expectations for that fun. The games offer different kinds of enjoyment…

There certainly are some generic elements to fun, to immerson/flow etc. but there are some elements that are different for different kinds of games.

The five conditions that greatly increase the possibility that someone will spend a long time giving their undivided attention to something are: [and this applies to games and fun too]

1. Variety [lots of different things happening-surprises--something just about everyone likes in some amount]
not innovative

2. Control
[Being in control--having choices and decisions vs having things just happen-- this includes the ability to learn new things in playing, Mastery of the game--something that UshCha values]
number and cost of all the army books

3. Physically involving [not just siting and thinking--throwing dice, engaged in talking with friends, moving units etc. etc.
took too long to play

4. Meaningful [The activity has some significant meaning for the players--whether it is about history, winning, companionship--it means something to the players beyond the everyday. Everyone has posted what is meaningful to them--in playing games]
did not live up to the hype of being the ultimate rules
game style encouraged rules lawyers
too much emphasis on competitive play

5. Challenge level [The task is challenging, but not so challenging as to turn off the players or so easy it is boring. A good chance of success vs little chance of success Think Monopoly vs Tic-Tac-Toe]
difficult to learn
overly complex rules
learning curve was too steep

Some of the reasons that players found Field of Glory "wasn't fun" are above in bold, though some reasons could fit into more than one condition.