D&D 5E Is it fair to cast save-or-suck spells on the players?

schnee · Jun 23, 2017

MarkB said:
Times? Maybe.

Most of an entire session? That's not going to enhance anyone's feeling of accomplishment.

That happens sometimes when the entire game is built around a variable-reinforcement reward system. The game is ultimately governed by dice.

Everyone eventually takes a turn at the table looking up rules for everyone else, taking extra pizza, and spending their actions posing in a hilarious way to show what they look like as a petrified statue.

The thing is, when it happens a few times, you tend to start looking up things that will prevent that state of affairs from happening again, thinking about spell choices and team strategies, reconsidering magic item distribution in the party, or even figuring out what to craft the next down time.

And, almost always, it's much better next time. That monster tactic gets negated a few rounds earlier, stopped cold right as it happens, or - in the best case - prevented before it even begins due to the right prep.

High level play is punishing, and demands better players.

And, solving a particularly tough problem creates a greater sense of accomplishment.

iserith · Jun 23, 2017

schnee said:
That happens sometimes when the entire game is built around a variable-reinforcement reward system. The game is ultimately governed by dice.

Everyone eventually takes a turn at the table looking up rules for everyone else, taking extra pizza, and spending their actions posing in a hilarious way to show what they look like as a petrified statue.

The thing is, when it happens a few times, you tend to start looking up things that will prevent that state of affairs from happening again, thinking about spell choices and team strategies, reconsidering magic item distribution in the party, or even figuring out what to craft the next down time.

And, almost always, it's much better next time. That monster tactic gets negated a few rounds earlier, stopped cold right as it happens, or - in the best case - prevented before it even begins due to the right prep.

High level play is punishing, and demands better players.

And, solving a particularly tough problem creates a greater sense of accomplishment.

True. It has a lot to do with iteration time, too, and D&D can have a very long iteration time. In a video game, you die and you're back in action pretty quickly, in general, perhaps having thought about a new way to deal with the thing that killed you that you can now try out. In D&D, the iteration time can be hours and with the right save-or-suck spell, you're effectively dead in that you can't really do anything to impact the outcome of things.

So if that iteration time is a problem for the group, solutions should be considered beforehand. Me personally, a goal of making the game fun to watch as well as play is a good one and solves the few times this iteration time problem occurs. It's also good for a host of other reasons. That puts a lot on the DM, but I think that's okay because it means it's something the DM can control. For the players, as you say, they have to get better at the game. I think that's a good goal as a player, but I have no control over what others do to improve their skills, so it's less reliable as a solution from the DM's perspective.

lowkey13 · Jun 23, 2017

*Deleted by user*

Caliban · Jun 23, 2017

I think GMforPowergamers and I don't see it so much as "my character faces consequences so I'm leaving" as "I'm facing boredom because I no longer get to participate, so I'm going to go do something else".

If the character was being sidelined for a few rounds or the rest of the current combat (assuming the combat isn't going to take hours), that's one thing. But in this particular case, the DM confirmed that "you are out of the game for the rest of the session, nothing you can do to come back". At that point, the player's presence isn't needed to for the PC to face the "consequences". The consequences have already been faced.

Sorry, but I wouldn't feel any "social compact" to sit around twiddling my thumbs after being reduced to a "cheerleader" role. If I've got nothing better to do, I'd probably stick around and kvetch or make jokes. But if I had a significant other (and I actually wanted to spend time with them) and I suddenly had a block of time freed up? I'm out of there.

Obviously you feel differently.

lowkey13 · Jun 23, 2017

*Deleted by user*

Caliban · Jun 23, 2017

lowkey13 said:
Well, my time is valuable ... literally.

So is mine. If I can't participate in the game for several hours, my time is being wasted. So I'll find a higher value activity to spend my time on.

That said, I don't view it my gaming time as my opportunity to maximize my fun, I view it as an opportunity to get together with friends.

Different strokes. My friends don't need me there in order to have fun. And if I'm in a pissy mood because I just got sidelined for the rest of the night...I'm probably doing them a favor.

So if I have a chunk of time with friends, I'll spend it that way.

You are probably a much more even tempered person than I am. And probably less selfish. But I'd also feel zero guilt about leaving, so being poorly socialized and low empathy has some benefits.

(And if you have a significant other who is a spouse, he/she will probably be enjoying having you not there for a while .... jus' sayin').

"If". But in the specific incident being referred to, GMforPowergamers called his girlfriend and went to the movies instead of sitting around watching other people have fun. So that "probably enjoying having you not there" doesn't seem to be applicable in this instance.

lowkey13 · Jun 23, 2017

*Deleted by user*

GMforPowergamers · Jun 23, 2017

lowkey13 said:
Let's take an example of rule utilitarianism to make sure we are on the same page. Hopefully, this is easy to grok.

There are various types of "privilege" in the law; for example, lawyer-client, priest-penitent, and spousal. Without going into too much detail, there might be individual cases where it would be awesome and beneficial to not have that privilege! In an individual case, the utility of that privilege is negative- it's a bad thing. Maybe a murderer goes free. Maybe a scummy CEO isn't punished. In the individual case, it is easy to question the utility.

yup same page...sometimes things set up to be good things can be turned to a bad outcome...completely agree. Infact going back to this case it is an excellent example of why rules applied 'fairly' can still have a bad outcome...

But there's a reason for the rule. Without the rule, why would people candidly talk with their attorneys? With their priests? With their spouses? It is better overall (rule utilitiarism) that we have this rule, even though it has negative outcomes in individual cases.

yup...yup...yup same page 100% since the rule is better X% of the time then not having it and X is pretty high it's a good rule even if it gets miss used Y% of the time or leads to a bad outcome...

again agreed. My disagreement already is that I don't think anyone is saying (I may be mistaken) that the rule for X should not be X...

Building from that point, I have consistently argued from a rule utilitarian standpoint; that in order for there to be maximum group fun, there must be consequences to actions.

still on same page here.

Now, I understand that not everyone plays that way. Some people prefer a Monty Haul campaign. Some people just want to win, always. And that's fine- different stroke for different folks, and all that. But over time, I have found the maximum amount of overall fun has been gained by knowing that I overcame actual obstacles.

totally speaking my language here infact this would be something I would say...up until here.

Not illusory ones.

I want to put a pin in this one because I really like being on the 100% same page and this is where you and I see some minor differences

And, TBH, some of the most fun I have had (and the best stories) are about failures. I can still remember and recount every ... single ... PC death. Whereas the battles are all, "Eh, killed some orcs, got some loot, maybe a magic sword or something."

dude this is totally something I would say...infact the best saterday night matt game story I have is a TPK that started a whole campaign (game 1 tpk, we drew up new characters and went off to 'rescue' ourselves but only found dead bodies)

Going back to your scenario, it's a violation of the social compact when a player, faced with consequences, decides to pack up and leave.

Damn...we were so on the same page.
The consequence was my character was out of the game for a few weeks...I had to draw a new one, get it OKed by DM, then come up with a way to bring the character in. I felt all of those consequences. I also didn't gain XP for weeks while playing a weaker character until my main one was back...all consequences I took much better at 17 then I would at 38.

(Today I would not bring in a 1st level character to a 7th level game, get up to 4/5 level then pick back up with my 7th level character when other PCs were at 10th and 11th. I would insist today on if I brought a new PC in to a 7th level game at least starting at 5th)

It is, to use the words of your DM, rude.

except again I didn't not have consiquinces, I didn't strom off mad, I just left and came back the next game with an approved temp PC

There's a lot of ways to interact with a social dynamic like this- you can yell, you can scream, or you can protest by quietly taking your ball and going home, in essence showing that if something didn't go your way, you won't stay.

again, I didn't 'take my ball' because I didn't deprive the group of playing...

That type of behavior hangs over a table and a campaign. You may not have meant it to be taken that way, but it is (IMO) rude to the table (the DM and the players) as well as an implicit threat that if your character faces consequences, then you won't play.

Not playing wasn't my choice...there was no choice to play the game NONE 0 ZIP... my options were
1)sit and read,
2)sit and watch
3)interrupt game to talk to people (that is what I think would be rude)
4)leave

You don't have to believe me, or your DM, or others. You can do as you want. There are people (such as [MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION] ) that would agree with you. But if you haven't understood why there are people that don't agree with you, then I would have to assume you're not reading our posts.

I have read over and over again people tell me to do things that were not options...but still consider me rude for not interrupting the game

I'm not trying to call you out, or make you feel bad. I have done so many wrong things in my own gaming life that I would never cast the first stone. Heck, when I was starting as a DM, I ran a Monty Haul campaign and then I was a killer DM. I know from mistakes! And there's certainly wiggle room for different tables to have different social norms (some tables have a "no smartphones at the table" policy, some have "smartphones encouraged," and neither is per se rude).

the problem is you have yet to give me an option of what to do different, the DM felt I should sit silently because my character could not interact. I have wracked my brain for years to come up with something...if today it happened I guess I could pull out my phone and play or talk to you on enworld...but in the summer of 1998 that not only wasn't an option, but my phone was in a bag cost a small fortune and was my mothers she gave me on weekends fearing an emergency... and was bigger then the PHB.

In the end, either you're comfortable with your decision or you're not. *shrug*

I just don't understand what you thought I should do?

look we agree on a lot, but you don't seem to understand that making someone sit silently in your mom's basement for hours watching his buddies play a game he wants to play but can not is infinitely more rude then saying good buys and leaving.

GMforPowergamers · Jun 23, 2017

lowkey13 said:
Well, my time is valuable ... literally. That said, I don't view it my gaming time as my opportunity to maximize my fun, I view it as an opportunity to get together with friends.

So if I have a chunk of time with friends, I'll spend it that way.

(And if you have a significant other who is a spouse, he/she will probably be enjoying having you not there for a while .... jus' sayin').

ok, see you are looking at this as an adult... I was 17 almost 18 half of the friends there I saw every day...we had 3 campaigns going at the time, and saw each other all the time.