Re: Fun vs Rules - When is too much fun a bad thing?
 

Ah, yes, I am with you now. No argument here. If everyone has agreed on the rules, then people should not break those rules unilaterally or arbitrarily.

I also agree with RyanW and Ulzgoroth that different play styles can be incompatible and that some players (including the GM), in pursuit of their own sense of fun, can make the game less fun for others. I've certainly suffered through games where some were having fun at the expense of others (this is true beyond RPGs, of course).

Re: Fun vs Rules - When is too much fun a bad thing?
 

Due to the attitudes of my current group, we usually handwave equipment on that level. Generally, we allot a few points for "adventuring gear" and assume that people have what they need.

If I am running something where resupply is going to be a problem, then I'll start tracking in more detail.

I would consider something like:
Each time a first aid kit is used, roll to see if it is being depleted. On an 8 or less, it is somewhat depleted and now operates at a -1. These depletion negatives can accumulate.
New Equipment: First Aid supplies. For $5 and .5 lbs, a First Aid Kit can be restocked enough to recover one point of penalty. It may be a good idea to bring a few of these on extended field trips.

This would add an extra roll, so I'd only use it if there's enough enjoyment from the players to make up for the time and bookkeeping.

Re: Fun vs Rules - When is too much fun a bad thing?
 

This is why I use prospectuses. I define settings, allowed characters, possible missions, play styles, and so on for several possible campaigns and invite players to rate them. Then I run a campaign that all of the players rated average or better. Having done so, I apply my own sense of "fun"—but the players have agreed in advance that they share that sense of fun.

Re: Fun vs Rules - When is too much fun a bad thing?
 

This is a great idea, at the very least have a conversation beforehand. It's much easier for everyone to have fun if we all know the kind of fun we're all trying to have!

I'm lucky enough to have regular group for decades now so a lot of the above is already built in for us, but I would recommend doing this kind of stuff for groups who are new to each other (and even the addition of one new member makes a new group where this would be a worthwhile exercise).

I also agree with an earlier point you made, it's not rules vs. fun, Or at least it shouldn't be, and if it is it might be a sign you are playing with the wrong rules or even the wrong system. For me it's working out which rules are most fun and using them!

Re: Fun vs Rules - When is too much fun a bad thing?
 

For a large part of my gaming career, roughly from 1992 to 2016, I had a mostly established group of players in San Diego, which was familiar with my overall style. But it was larger than I could fit into one campaign. My practice was to run two or three campaigns in parallel. When I was ready for a change, I would hand around a list of possible next campaigns—from half a dozen to fifty, and described in anything from a sentence to half a page, at different times—and ask players to bid points for the ones they wanted, with a budget where 2 points was an "average" bid. I guaranteed not to put a player in a campaign where they bid 0, and I don't recall ever having to put one in a campaign where they bid 1; most players ended up in campaigns where they bid 3 or more.

I could always pick out campaigns that were widely enough favored to make this possible, so one payoff was letting me choose campaigns to run that people liked, at least prospectively. Another was that players had bought into the basic idea; I wasn't trying to push them into something I liked and they didn't much like.

I realize that this situation isn't usual for GMs, and I adopted a somewhat different approach after moving to Riverside. But the basic technique of looking for a campaign idea that players are disposed to like, rather than choosing the idea and then trying to sell the players on it, seems to me a productive one. And it can be a useful exercise to try to come up with several different ideas for campaigns and think about how you might handle each of them.

Re: Fun vs Rules - When is too much fun a bad thing?
 

It definitely isn't for me. Each campaign I've run has been a "passion project". And while I might get sparks for other campaigns while running one, if I start investing time in those ideas, I find myself abandoning the current one. So for me, it's best I invest in one idea and run with it.

Re: Fun vs Rules - When is too much fun a bad thing?
 

It's a clever idea I like it!

My group has been generally speaking between 4-7 in total so I've always managed to keep it to one campaign at a time. And apart from the late 80's ad very early 90's I've pretty much been the GM.

Most discussion on what we've wanted to do next after a campaign has wound up is basically done at the level of the pub conversation.

(but like i say our particular set up kind allows for this)

Re: Fun vs Rules - When is too much fun a bad thing?
 

For kit, boxes, etc. with expandable gear in it (e.g., medical kit, bycicle tyre repair box) I let them roll against the HT of the kit or box. If the roll is a success, you can use the kit to help a victim or mend a tyre and the HT drops by 1.

To replace items separately, a +1 to HT costs 10% of the original price of the kit or box.

Or when a kit has only a few charges (e.g. a bacta pistol with 5 ampoules of bacta), it's easier just to subtract an ampoule after usage.