TEXT: Gaming for Fun (Part 1): The Eight Kinds of Fun
  Copyright (c) 2014 by The Angry DM. All Rights Reserved.
  Get more D&D Advice with Attitude at http://angrydm.com or follow @TheAngryDM on Twitter
  Gaming for Fun (Part 1): The Eight Kinds of Fun
  If you ask the average GM “what is the point of an RPG” or “how do you win” or “what’s your job 
  as a GM,” I’m pretty certain you’re going here the word “fun” in the answer. “The point is to have 
  fun.” “You win when everyone has fun.” “Your job is to make sure everyone but you has fun.” 
  Right? And if you ARE the average GM (and chances are good you are an average GM if you 
  are reading this), you probably think those are pretty good answers. Admit it. I won’t hurt you. 
  Just f$&%ing say it. SAY IT!!!
  Believe it or not, I’m not going to tell you that you’re wrong and swear at you. Well, I’m not going 
  to tell you you’re wrong. Not completely. This time. It is a fair thing to say. After all, the G in RPG 
  stands for Game and a Game is a thing done for fun. So, the average GMs have it right. 
  Statistically, it was bound to happen eventually. Good for you. Score one for Team Mediocrity. 
  But, here is where you screw up. You don’t understand fun. Not really. You don’t sit down to 
  write a game and “add fun” or “make fun.” You make things. You design encounters. You plan 
  plot points. You build NPCs. And you also put together and run campaigns. You hope that 
  somehow, out of the campaigns and the decisions and encounters and plot points and NPCs, 
  fun is a thing that will happen. But you don’t actually try to quantify fun. You don’t think about 
  why fun things are fun. 
  Until today.
  Video Game Designers: Quantifying Fun Since 2001
  Between 2001 and 2004, game designers Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc, Robert Zubek gave a 
  series of lectures discussing a formalized approach to video game design. As part of the 
  lectures, they outlined a list of what they called “aesthetics of play.” Basically, eight broad 
  categories that describe the reasons why people engage with games. Put simply, they outlined 
  eight basic types of fun. In 2004, they published MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and 
  Game Research (http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf). 
  Since then, their framework has been republished, analyzed, expanded, explored, revised, 
  tinkered with, futzed with, studied, and taught. But the thing is, the list of Eight Kinds of Fun (as 
  I’m calling them) hasn’t really been expanded or changed all that much, as near as I can tell. 
  You can find the list all over the Internet with careful searching and Extra Credits did an episode 
  about it some time ago. 
  It turned out that they were on to something. The framework was useful and fairly complete. In 
  fact, looking at the list, it is hard to see what might be missing. I’ve read a few proposed ideas 
  and I found one expansion of the list up to 21 items, but it seemed excessively nitpicky and 
  seemed like it was mostly subdividing what was already there. There is just something about 
  this particular lists that resonates with me, and seems to resonate with others as well.
  
  Gaming for Fun (Part 1): The Eight Kinds of Fun
  Copyright (c) 2014 by The Angry DM. All Rights Reserved.
  Get more D&D Advice with Attitude at http://angrydm.com or follow @TheAngryDM on Twitter
  And I’m going to share it with you because of the dirty little secret I’m about to reveal.
  The Dirty Little Secret
  The dirty little secret I am about to reveal comes in two parts.
  First, you know all those RPGs you own? Dungeons and Dragons? Pathfinder? Savage 
  Worlds? Dungeon World? Numanuma? FATE Accelerated Armored Core Advanced? Star 
  Wars: West Edge of the Saga? OSR and Castles and Sorcery? Guess what. Those aren’t 
  games. And they weren’t designed by game designers. Why? Because YOU (if you are a GM) 
  are the game designer. Every GM is a game designer.
  D&D is not a thing you can just pick up and play. At best, D&D is a set of rules and instructions 
  and elements that can be assembled into a game. D&D is game engine. A game system. A 
  development kit. A physics engine. A game console. D&D is a Playstation or an XBox. Legacy 
  of the Crystal Shard? Rise of the Runelords? Keep on the Borderlands? Beyond the Rim? 
  Those are closer to games. Just like the disc that has Last of Us or HALO on it, adventure 
  modules have all the encounters and monsters and stories and things in them. Those are 
  games. Sort of.
  See, you’re probably expecting me to point out now that if you write your own adventure, you 
  are a game designer. Duh. That much is obvious. But I’m about to tell you that, even if you don’t 
  write your own adventure or campaign, you’re still a f$&%ing game designer. Check that out. 
  How does that work? Well, unlike a game console, you can’t just shove Rise of the Runelords 
  into a Pathfinder book and have a game happen. To “run the game,” a human being has to 
  follow the Pathfinder instructions and the Rise of the Runelord instructions, just like the 
  processor in the PS4 follows the instructions in the PS4 and on the Last of Us disc. Right? 
  Except that the processor is not a computer. It is YOUR HUMAN F$&%ING BRAIN. And it 
  makes a lot of decisions about how that game is going to be executed. It can ignore any of the 
  instructions. Sometimes, the instructions don’t tell it what to do and it has to make things up. 
  Sometimes the players wander outside the playable area and the human brain running the 
  game has to scramble to generate new content on the fly or to get the players on track. Some 
  human brains adhere strictly to the instructions. Others use them as loose guidelines. Others 
  throw them out altogether and start making s$&% up.
  Beyond that, that human brain running the game also decides how to present that game? Does 
  everyone make their own characters or will we use pregens? What classes, races, and 
  resources are allowed? How will we start the story off? Will we use miniatures and dungeon 
  terrain or just our imaginations? How will we handle PC’s dying? What about when everyone 
  dies? Will I fudge dice? How often will I even use the dice? When you look at it that way, the 
  game that you have dropped hundreds of dollars on is woefully incomplete, huh? 
  
  Gaming for Fun (Part 1): The Eight Kinds of Fun
  Copyright (c) 2014 by The Angry DM. All Rights Reserved.
  Get more D&D Advice with Attitude at http://angrydm.com or follow @TheAngryDM on Twitter
  Just the mere act of organizing and running the game experience has a great deal of influence 
  over how the game feels. And that is assuming you are running someone else’s module. If you 
  also decide to run your own adventures, run your own campaign, and/or design your own 
  setting, you define a lot more of the game than Jason Bulhman or Fred Hicks or Mike Mearls or 
  Sage Latorra ever did. You have a lot more say over how your players feel about the game. And 
  yet, you don’t get a paycheck for running the game. Welcome to game mastering.
  My point is, the question of fun is pretty damned central to the whole experience. We agree on 
  that, right? And you, the GM, have a lot to say about whether the game is fun or not. More to 
  say than any other so-called game designer who has dumped a lot of responsibility on you. So, 
  you need to think like a designer. And when a group of game designers (admittedly in another 
  field) say “hey, we discovered these sort of rules for how people have fun,” don’t you want to 
  know what they are and how you can use them too? Does it make sense to let those damned 
  game designers keep all the useful stuff from you? 
  The Eight Kinds of Fun
  The MDA paper I linked to earlier (http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf) is a 
  fascinating paper and there is a lot juicy meat in its scant five pages, but one of the places 
  where it sadly doesn’t go into much detail is where it talks about the “aesthetics of play,” the 
  Eight Kinds of Fun I’ve been banging on with. So, while you should eventually get around to 
  reading the paper, I’m going to break down and expand on the important part right here. Let’s 
  look at the Eight Kinds of Fun. And I’m going to start with one that I have some strong personal 
  anecdotes about just to show how this thing can have a drastic impact on the games you enjoy.
  An Object Lesson: Sensory Pleasure
  Sensory Pleasure is the pleasure that you get from having your various senses engaged, 
  especially sight, hearing, and touch (because you shouldn’t be licking things in an RPG). In 
  video games, the pleasure we derive from seeing the graphics, hearing the music, and touching 
  the controller are sensory pleasures. In RPGs, sensory pleasure comes from things you can see 
  and touch: artwork, the layout of the book, miniatures, terrain, maps, handouts, diagrams, 
  props, and even dice. If you like those things and can’t imagine an RPG without them, you’re a 
  sensory pleasure seeker. 
  Now for that personal anecdote I promised you. I realized recently that I am a sensory pleasure 
  seeker. I should have known it, honestly. I spend hours and hours with maps and handouts. I 
  love miniatures and battlemats and terrain. I can’t read a PDF or learn a game from a computer 
  screen, I need a physical book. And I love rolling dice.
  The thing you have to understand about these aesthetics, the 8 Kinds of Fun, is that everyone 
  prioritizes them differently, but nobody is about just one of them. We all want different mixes. 
  Some of them are very important to us, we can’t live without them. Other ones do almost 
  nothing for us and we don’t care if they are present. Sometimes, our desired aesthetics vary 
  
  Gaming for Fun (Part 1): The Eight Kinds of Fun
  Copyright (c) 2014 by The Angry DM. All Rights Reserved.
  Get more D&D Advice with Attitude at http://angrydm.com or follow @TheAngryDM on Twitter
  with our mood or with the medium. When I say I am a sensory pleasure seeker, that means that 
  sensory pleasure is high on my list of preferences, not that it is the only thing I want. It also 
  doesn’t mean I can’t have fun without sensory pleasure (though for some people and some 
  aesthetics, that might be true). 
  You also have to understand that most people are unaware of the aesthetics of play and have a 
  hard time explaining the reasons for their preferences. You might not realize that you want a 
  thing called “abnegation” out of most of your video games. All you know is that Mass Effect was 
  “too complicated” for you to enjoy.  
  So, I am a sense pleasure seeker. I like physical things I can touch and maps and diagrams I 
  can look at. I like dice and miniatures and props and feelie bits. Well, recently, I ran a few 
  sessions of Dungeon World. I didn’t bother with a map and miniatures. I could have, but they 
  weren’t necessary and didn’t add anything. DW doesn’t care about exact positions and narrative 
  descriptions provide all you need. But DW is also written such that the GM doesn’t roll dice. 
  Basically, I was running my entire game with a book with some simple art and two pieces of 
  paper.
  Needless to say, I didn’t have as much fun as I do with other RPGs. It wasn’t a bad game. It 
  was fun. And it did some neat mechanical things. But I still walked away feeling vaguely 
  unsatisfied with the whole affair. It wasn’t until I started doing the research for this article that it 
  suddenly occurred to me why. But the reason is, it wasn’t satisfying my strong desire for sense 
  pleasure. 
  Now, do not misunderstand me. I’m not saying that DW is a bad game. It is a fine game. It 
  works well. But it isn’t fun for me. And the reason it isn’t fun for me is because I don’t have any 
  dice and it doesn’t put minis and maps to any really good use. Now, that sounds crazypants to 
  the average GM, right? Of all the stupid reasons to hate a game, that is about the worst, right? 
  But it is just the way I am wired. I need to engage my senses. DW doesn’t do that.
  Now, let’s look at the other side. Some people out there are absolutely bats$&% insane and 
  don’t care at all about sensory pleasure. RPGs are games of imagination and they don’t need 
  diagrams and maps and miniatures and tokens to have fun, right? They don’t hate those things, 
  they don’t hurt the game, but they don’t need them. They are vestigial. Like an appendix.
  But the thing is, all of those things that increase sensory pleasure require a lot of effort or money 
  to add to the game. Maps have to be drawn or sought out, handouts need to be designed, 
  miniatures are expensive, tokens need to be made or bought, grids need to be acquired, tactical 
  maps need to be designed, and so on. These things make game prep more expensive and 
  more complicated. 
  Now, if you care about sensory pleasure (like me), the expense and the complication has a 
  payoff. It makes the game more fun. If you don’t care about sensory pleasure (and you’re 
  wrong), it is just a needless waste of time, money, and effort. Right? You can see that, right?
  
  Gaming for Fun (Part 1): The Eight Kinds of Fun
  Copyright (c) 2014 by The Angry DM. All Rights Reserved.
  Get more D&D Advice with Attitude at http://angrydm.com or follow @TheAngryDM on Twitter
  Now, imagine a game you have loved for many years that used to treat the sensory components 
  as optional suddenly makes a push toward requiring them as D&D 3E started to do and 4E, for 
  all practical purposes, cemented. And before you fly down into the comment section in an 
  irrational rage to start an edition war, just consider what I am saying rationally. With 3E and 4E, 
  it became more difficult to ignore the tokens and grids. They were always useful, always an 
  option, but by 4E, they were baked pretty heavily into the game. The game experience suffered 
  if you removed them. Exact positions were a vital part of the game.
  So, if you were one of those people who always opted out of sensory components, or even if 
  you only used them occasionally, in really complicated encounters, suddenly, you had to deal 
  with this extra complication all the time for no pay off. And that is why some people went batshit 
  insane when 3E and 4E were rolled out about how “now you had to use miniatures all the time.” 
  If you are not a sensory pleasure seeker, you cannot understand how miniatures and terrain 
  make the game feel more fun. It just doesn’t register for you. It is like a sound that is beyond the 
  range of your hearing. If you are a sensory pleasure seeker, you can’t figure out why no one 
  else can hear that strange whistling noise. And if you try to debate the merits of something that 
  only serves to add or reduce the sensory pleasure in the game, you will only talk past each 
  other because you are going in with different core assumptions.
  Edition wars and style arguments are two places where the lack of understanding of gameplay 
  aesthetics - of the Eight Kinds of Fun - becomes most obvious. At least, it does once YOU 
  understand them. You begin to understand why these arguments happen, why they can’t be 
  resolved, and why the people on either side aren’t irrational, they just lack the language to 
  express their feelings and the introspection to understand them. 
  That is part of why I’m wasting so many words on this article. I’m hoping it will help you respect 
  the preferences of others and recognize that some game elements are wrapped up in values 
  and preferences that are beyond the range of your hearing. 
  So, let’s discuss and define the Eight Kinds of Fun in detail and then see if we can put them to 
  good use. Here we go.
  The Eight Kinds of Fun (For Reals This Time)
  Now, just a quick word of warning. I normally don’t do this sort of warning, but here it is kind of 
  important. A bunch of different people have written about, expanded on, interpreted, and 
  rehashed these eight kinds of fun in terms of video games. I’ve read a bunch of different 
  analyses. But the thing is, I’m now taking all of that together with my own personal experiences 
  with gaming and smashing it into what I personally think will be a useful framework for us GMs. 
  And I’m not going to try to draw the lines where various other writings end and where I begin. 
  
  Gaming for Fun (Part 1): The Eight Kinds of Fun
  Copyright (c) 2014 by The Angry DM. All Rights Reserved.
  Get more D&D Advice with Attitude at http://angrydm.com or follow @TheAngryDM on Twitter
  Long story short? Like every other f$&%ing thing on this site, this stuff is MY opinion and MY 
  interpretation and MY conjecture. It is informed opinion/interpretation/conjecture, but it is still 
  MINE and I am not claiming there is any authority on it. The definitive first work on this stuff is 
  that MDA paper I already linked. So go check that out. Otherwise, this is me talking and I’m flat-
  out admitting I’m trying to expand this framework into something specifically useful for RPGs 
  and I might just be talking out of my incredibly brilliant, handsome, and well-sculpted ass.  
  Now, I’m right, because it is me. But this is still just me talking. Okay? Clear? Good. 
  1. Sensory Pleasure
  We already talked about this one at length. It provides a good framework for understanding 
  what the aesthetics are really about. This is the pleasure you get from things you can see, hear, 
  and touch. Physical books, art, dice, music, maps, diagrams, miniatures, terrain, and props all 
  bring a tingle of joy to the sensory pleasure seeker.
  2. Fantasy
  Fantasy is the pleasure you get from losing yourself in an imaginary world and pretending you 
  are someone you are not. It is escapism. It is immersion. The fantasy seeker wants to feel as if 
  their character could be a real character in a world that could be real. They want to be allowed 
  to BE their character. 
  Fantasy can be very delicate. A lot of things can break someone out of the fantasy. Asking a 
  player to make a decision outside of the scope of their own character can sometimes break the 
  illusion. High levels of abstraction can also break the fantasy. Broken suspension of disbelief is 
  a killer. Inconsistency and contradictions also break immersion.
  Now, it is easy to look at fantasy and say “here is the definition of role-playing games” because 
  this is, essentially what roleplaying is about, right? But you have to be careful with that attitude. 
  Fantasy is still just one of the eight potential reasons why anyone might sit down at your table. 
  Some people don’t care about it at all. For others, it is everything.
  3. Narrative
  Narrative seekers take pleasure from experiencing a well-told story as it unfolds. But this one 
  has a lot of complicated baggage in table-top role-playing games. The thing is, it is existence of 
  the story that satisfies the narrative seeker. The better put-together the story is, the happier the 
  narrative seeker is. We have been trained for ages to expect stories to have a certain shape: 
  beginning, middle, ending, incitement, conflict, climax, resolution, the whole shebang. There is a 
  lot of structure to a good story and a narrative-seeker is most satisfied when the game matches 
  that structure.
  
  Gaming for Fun (Part 1): The Eight Kinds of Fun
  Copyright (c) 2014 by The Angry DM. All Rights Reserved.
  Get more D&D Advice with Attitude at http://angrydm.com or follow @TheAngryDM on Twitter
  It is easy to imagine that a narrative seeker wants to TELL a story, but that is where we cross 
  the line into expression, which we will get to below. And misunderstanding that can cause 
  trouble. A strong narrative seeker might actually be happy playing the quest of a pregenerated 
  character or playing through a fairly linear adventure because it helps provide the structures 
  they crave. A satisfying game presents a solid goal and builds toward a satisfying ending and 
  everything fits tightly together. 
  I have a player in my game that strongly seeks narrative. And I have discovered the perfect way 
  to torture her: don’t finish the campaign. If a campaign peters out or we start playing a new 
  game, she feels unsatisfied and unhappy. If the campaign ends with a TPK, though, she is 
  better able to cope, especially if I tell her what happens after. The reason is she craves the 
  sense of closure and resolution. The beginning of the game makes a promise to the narrative 
  seeker that there will be a proper ending.
  4. Challenge
  Challenge seekers see the game as a series of obstacles to overcome and foes to be defeated. 
  They want to test themselves and win. If they fail, they want to know the failure was fair and 
  next time they will do better. Just keep in mind that challenge seekers aren’t solely about 
  winning combat. They like overcoming obstacles, they like accomplishing goals, and they like to 
  win. Investigations, puzzles, negotiations, chases, hunts, and obstacles are all valid challenges.
  It is popular to scoff at challenge seekers. These are the people trying to win. Power gamers. 
  Munchkins. Optimizers. They don’t want to role-play, they want to roll-play. And that is a stupid, 
  s$&%y, harmful view. Remember, most people combine multiple aesthetics and this is just one 
  possible reason to play. It is no less valid than any other. If you snort with derision at the 
  challenge seeker, you might be cutting out a lot more gamers than you realize.
  Give a challenge seeker a fair obstacle and the tools to overcome it, and the challenge seeker 
  will be happy. Those sessions where it is all just personal interaction and exploration? The ones 
  where “it was all role-playing and nobody touched dice?” Challenge seekers might end up bored 
  to tears. Fudging dice? Applying the rules unfairly? An “everybody wins” mentality? Anathema 
  to challenge seekers.
  5. Fellowship
  Those in search of fellowship view the game as a framework for social interaction and 
  cooperation. They enjoy camaraderie and social interaction and working together with a team. 
  At the extreme, fellowship seekers don’t really care about the game except insofar as it gives 
  them something to do with other people and a way to contribute to a group.
  Fellowship seekers can have their games absolutely ruined by group drama, antisocial 
  behavior, and lack of teamwork. When a group includes “that one evil character,” the fellowship 
  seeker’s sense of fun is probably going to be the first casualty.
  
  Gaming for Fun (Part 1): The Eight Kinds of Fun
  Copyright (c) 2014 by The Angry DM. All Rights Reserved.
  Get more D&D Advice with Attitude at http://angrydm.com or follow @TheAngryDM on Twitter
  6. Discovery
  Discovery seekers like to explore and learn new things. They like to uncover things. They view 
  the game as uncharted territory and get a thrill every time they fill in another blank on the map. 
  Of course, the map is a metaphoric map in this sense. They are just as happy discovering the 
  history of the world, the nature of the gods, the answers to mysteries and puzzles, and the 
  reasons why things work. They simply want to learn and understand everything.
  Oddly, discovery seekers also seem to be drawn to self-discovery. The same players who get 
  excited just discovering the secret history of Orcus that no one knows also get a thrill from 
  confronting a difficult moral issue and learning about what they, themselves, believe. Moral 
  dilemmas and social quandaries can fill in for exposition and backstory. I am actually watching 
  this overlap happen in one of my own games right now. The group is very heavily stilted toward 
  discovery seeking and they seem to be drawn in to ethical dilemmas with the same fervor. 
  I recently had a conversation with a few other GMs about discovery and exploration and the 
  difference between expression and discovery. The two seem to get conflated sometimes. The 
  theory runs that if the players find a new location, it is just as satisfying to ask them to describe 
  what they find as to tell them what they find. But it isn’t. This conflates two different types of fun. 
  Discovery seekers need the feeling that there was a secret waiting for them to stumble across 
  and they found it. There is an element of conquest to it. If you ask them to make up their 
  answer, you’re trading creative expression for discovery. And discovery-seekers will ultimately 
  be unsatisfied. 
  7. Expression
  This is a big one. The 600-pound gorilla in the room. I’ve mentioned it a couple of times already. 
  This is what I would call the “trending aesthetic.” It is the thing everyone is talking about in the 
  RPG community (at least, online, where I can hear it) and people are starting to view it as the 
  be-all and end-all of role-playing games. 
  Expression is the pleasure you get from expressing yourself creatively. This is the desire to 
  create something that is unique to you, to say something about who you are and what you 
  believe, or simply to impose your creative will on the world around you. And to some people, 
  this is the primary reason to play role-playing games.
  Honestly, that’s not terribly unfair. After all, role-playing games are unique in that they are being 
  run by a human brain in real time that can respond to anything the players think of. The players 
  are free to try anything. They can create any character. Describe their character’s actions any 
  way. In some games, they are free to create parts of the world or even shape the entire story. 
  RPGs are unique in their ability to provide that level of creative freedom to all participants.
  But expression can get us into trouble. Just like every other aesthetic, it is not something 
  everyone is after in equal measure. It is not even something that satisfies everyone. The act of 
  
  Gaming for Fun (Part 1): The Eight Kinds of Fun
  Copyright (c) 2014 by The Angry DM. All Rights Reserved.
  Get more D&D Advice with Attitude at http://angrydm.com or follow @TheAngryDM on Twitter
  creation is not easy and it also involves a component of bravery. Creating something that 
  expresses an idea unique to you opens you to judgment and criticism. It is scary. It is risky. And 
  not everyone wants it.
  In certain areas of the game, expression can also squash other aesthetics. I’ve already noted 
  that, in some ways, creative expression can hinder discovery. Player authorship of certain world 
  details can also disrupt some players’ sense of fantasy. For the same reason, it can also wreak 
  havoc on a good narrative structure. 
  I am not down on expression. Far from it. Part of the reason I became a DM is out of strong 
  expression seeking behavior. I think a lot of people who become DMs do so because they are 
  driven by expression-seeking behavior. But I am worried about the loud voices in the community 
  touting it as a panacea through ignorant assumptions. Like any other aesthetic, it is important to 
  the people it is important to and not important to anyone it isn’t. It is just one factor. 
  Most specifically, I have heard a few DMs say “asking players to create the world always makes 
  them more engaged.” The fact is, asking the players to create the world will excite the 
  expression seekers, but the submission seekers and discovery seekers want nothing to do with 
  that. A fantasy seeker might or might not, but someone else’s careless creation might wreck the 
  fantasy seeker’s immersion.
  Expression does have many forms though. In some ways, 3rd Edition D&D and Pathfinder 
  allowed for an unprecedented degree of expression through character creation. FATE’s 
  Dresden Files has an extensive set of instructions for inviting the players to help create the 
  setting for the campaign, allowing for players to get in on the world design expression. Other 
  games invite players to express themselves in a variety of other ways as well. 
  As a final, interesting side note regarding expression, let’s look at another 4E edition wars 
  incident. When 4E came out, one of the touted features was a reduced and simplified skill list. 
  Many skills were dropped from the game altogether, including crafting and professional skills. 
  Some members of the gaming community went berserk. Do you know why? Right. An apparent 
  reduction of expression. 
  The thing is, you can say that your character is a blacksmith or a tailor or whatever in any 
  edition. You don’t need rules or skills to back you up, right? So who cares. It is not as if anyone 
  actually used those skills. So what was the harm. Well, the thing that expression seekers 
  understand is that anyone can say anything, but when you choose to expend resources on 
  something, that makes a much stronger statement. That says “this is important, this is central.” 
  When you give up a useful skill like Diplomacy or Athletics in favor of a skill you might never use
  like Tailoring, that sacrifice says something about what you think is important about your 
  character. It is a strong expression. And people who value the the ability to make those strong 
  statements were upset that that ability had been reduced. 
  
  Gaming for Fun (Part 1): The Eight Kinds of Fun
  Copyright (c) 2014 by The Angry DM. All Rights Reserved.
  Get more D&D Advice with Attitude at http://angrydm.com or follow @TheAngryDM on Twitter
  Again, people are bad at introspection and articulation. No one could quite explain it that way. 
  And even if they could explain, the listeners would have to understand how important 
  expression was to the speakers. And so we have another skirmish of an edition war with people 
  uselessly talking past each other about utterly rational, reasonable things.
  8. Submission
  The final aesthetic is called submission, though I prefer the term that the Extra Credits’ team 
  use: abnegation. It just sounds cooler and more complicated. Submission is the pleasure you 
  get from turning off your brain and losing yourself in a task you don’t have to think too hard 
  about. Grinding levels in World of Warcraft. Mining minerals in Minecraft. Farming item drops in 
  Diablo III.
  Now, submission is an odd one to discuss in tabletop RPGs because it is one that tabletop 
  RPGs doesn’t handle so well. The thing is, even the simplest tasks in an RPG require a high 
  cognitive load. You have to think things through. But still, the concept of “beer and pretzels” play 
  exists for a reason. Go down into a dungeon, kick down doors, kill orcs, take their loot, go back 
  to town. Lather, rinse, repeat. That is submission or abnegation.
  And there are people who want exactly that. They look like challenge seekers sometimes, but 
  they don’t want to work too hard or think too hard. They just want to goof around and enjoy a 
  simple game with clear, straightforward goals.
  I actually lost a player not too long ago because, if there is one aesthetic my game does not 
  offer, it is submission. I’m bad at it. My game is serious business. The player was pretty savvy. 
  He said, flat-out that he was looking to relax, unwind, and goof around and I agreed with him 
  that my game table wasn’t going to give him that chance. It happens.
  And Now You Know All You Need to Know…
  And there you have it. Eight aesthetics of play. Eight kinds of fun. And every gamer brings with 
  them a mix of preferences for some, many, or most of those. Even you, the GM. And once 
  you’re aware of them, you’re in a better position to run less worse games for the players who 
  show up at your table. 
  So thanks for reading and…
  What? What do you mean, “what do I do with them?” Figure out what you want, figure out what 
  your players want, and then do the things that make you all happy. This isn’t f$&%ing rocket 
  science.
  Okay, okay. I hear you, dammit. This is a hefty topic. And I don’t want to overwhelm anyone 
  here. So, I will be back one week from today with the second part of this article, where we will 
  
  Gaming for Fun (Part 1): The Eight Kinds of Fun
  Copyright (c) 2014 by The Angry DM. All Rights Reserved.
  Get more D&D Advice with Attitude at http://angrydm.com or follow @TheAngryDM on Twitter
  discuss how you - the Game Designer GM - can use this information to help you make 
  decisions about how to build and run better games for your particular peanut gallery. 
  But, between now and then, start thinking about these eight aesthetics of play and think about 
  how you, personally, experience role-playing games. Or any games really. Board games. Stupid 
  card games. Video games. Anything .Do any of the aesthetics resonate particularly strongly with 
  you? Do any of your preferences and habits reveal anything about which aesthetics you value 
  most? About which ones you could live without?
  And what about the players who share your table? Can you start to make any guesses about 
  where they are coming from? Think about it. I’m not kidding. If you don’t do your f$&%ing 
  homework, I’m going to know about it next week. 
  
SOURCE: textdata/thevault/_GM Books/World Building & Game Design/Game Mastering and Design/The Angry DM - Gaming for Fun Part 1 - The Eight Kinds of Fun.pdf