>a game where people just try to have fun. People crack jokes, try to suplex direwolves, dick around and fuck prostitutes, while the DM/GM rolls with whatever and allows the player characters to be heroic.
>a serious game driven by plot and drama. World is a bit dark and gritty and players are expected to be serious when the time calls for it. Doing silly antics can have consequences.
Which do you prefer?
The one with the best GM and players.
I like the second. For the record, I'm fine with joking around as long as that's not the entire game. I'm also fine with flashy, pulp settings. Just give me something that took some thought and rewards thoughful play.
I dislike the first for anything other than an occasional one-shot. It always ends up as meme characters doing meme things in a derpfest of powerwank. It's just not worth investing the time into. If all I want is to hang out and piss around then I can do that in better ways than sitting around a table with nerds rolling dice.
Pretty much this for me. I’ve played more than my share of “SO RANDUM” games, whether one-shots or campaigns that dragged on longer than they probably should have. Never gotten a chance to do one where I felt like there were some serious stakes in the world and its characters. Not to say it has to be devoid of ANY humor, but it’s not supposed to be some kind of medieval fantasy sitcom, laugh track and all.
The game I'm in constantly shifts between 1 and 2, and there's no predicting when DM will allow you to get away with cartoon shit, and when you'll die.
The one enjoyed by players and GM. Doesn't fucking matter what's going in and around the game, the important thing is if people are enjoying it.
>people just try to have fun
Sounds great
>People crack jokes
Sounds like the 4th layer of hell
If you want to get really depressive, try to imagine a serious, plot-driven campaign that in quick succession of events remain a plot-driven event, but now 4 out of 5 players are doing minmaxing powerwank, because they've passed between each other internet guide for minmaxing in given system.
Shit turned tedious in no fucking time and from genuinely interesting game where hardships were calculated in and people were more focused on roleplaying than optimal builds turned into collection of highly specialised machines that couldn't be stopped by anything or anyone, pulling most game-breaking effects imaginable.
Even after I've talked to the players when getting the gist of the whole deal early on, they didn't back down from it and by the time they've themselves realised how stupid this is, it was already too late, so salvaging the current situation was no longer an option. Even if we started with new characters and new campaign, it was never the same.
tl;dr make sure to explain your players each and every time why optimalisation and min-maxing ruins entirely the experience of roleplaying through things.
>try to suplex direwolves,
I don't think that would have much effect, even if you pulled it off right. The wolf would probably just turn within your grasp and land on its feet.
>Doing silly antics can have consequences.
I'm fine with silly antics, but I think this needs to be the case, or else you can just abandon the rules altogether and just make up a random comedy story about yourself and your mates.
What's the point of the GM thinking up an elaborate world if all you're going to do is cross your fingers and demand that you don't take any damage as you cross the lava lake that you should have done a lengthy quest to gain a safe passage across?
I prefer to avoid false dichotomies
My favorite is somewhere inbetween
Silly things should be allowed to happen, but they should all be in service of plot or worldbuilding, and player actions should have consequences
Play Mother 3 and you'll know what I'm talking about
If I had to choose tho, I'd probably go with the first one
/thread
>fourth layer of hell
people pushing giant weights as weapons?
While screaming at each other about their hoarding and spending.
So basically, Congress.
Fun is a fucking meme that America came up with to explain why they were supposedly better than the USSR. To this day I have never met anyone actually having fun and I can't understand why people are still falling for this unscientific nonsense.
...
Nobody suggested a game is either one or the other, autismo. Sometimes people go out to make and advertise their game as one or the other, like this one time some guys I knew ran a campaign based on, what the fuck's it called, the one that isn't GTA or Yakuza... Saint's Row. Nonsensical lolrandumb and juvenile comedy and nothing else.
I want to dispute this, but somehow I can't.
So OP's post is entirely pointless then? Good to know.
My god, the autism, it's growing thicker! No, what OP asked was which type of game is preferred, without suggesting that the options are the only options possible. It's sort of how you can ask "Cola or Pepsi?" without suggesting that there aren't other kinds of fizzy sugar water out there, see?
So it's a vague, overly ambiguous question without any room for interesting or meaningful answers? Thanks for the clarification.
I think the user you're replying to is too invested in his initial tryhard attempt at being a smartass, they're just going to double down.
My hard and fast rule is that silliness is fine as long as it isn't planned. If suplexing the dire wolf is actually the best option to hand, go for it, but don't start the encounter with the stated or unstated objective of suplexing the dire Wolf.
Yes. You're welcome.
>OP gives two and only two options
>Lel, this is not a false dichotomy, because I say so
Then you are retarded
I prefer the second, but the first with a good group is better than the second with a shit group.
Why not a semi-serious game where fun is encouraged, but players and GM take things seriously?
There is a whole spectrum between LOLRANDUM and grimdark low magic low fantasy no fun allowed here is my list of nerfs.
4th layer of hell is gluttony and the over indulgent unfunny humor of your typical group absolutely belongs there
>OP gives two options, without implying the exclusion of any others
>HURR LE DURR DAT IS LE FALSETTO DIPLODOCUS XDDDDDD
Remove your existence, spastic oaf.
First one
lol
I really like One Piece, so all of the above.
Honestly? I can't see having a campaign devoid of one of the two. A humorous game tends to actually have the most dramatic moments, simply because it's less expected. A serious game often has the greater comedic moments for the same reason. In general, I tend to go with the latter, but you really need both to have a memorable campaign.
Плoть cлaбa, бpaт!
Fucking hell dinosaurs is how I'm going to quote logical fallacies from here on out.
I vastly prefer the former over the latter because fucking around is the whole purpose to D&D for me and my crew. With that said, a serious campaign with a semi-competent crew is a wonderful palate cleanser.