D&D General "It's not fun when..."

[overgeeked]

I agree completely. Abilities should be hard to gain and then very consequential when you get them. leveling in modern DND is kind've like finishing the work day.

Not really. Finishing a work day takes effort. Leveling in 5E takes no effort.

 

[RuinousPowers]

My question, then, is other than death what fail states are left in the game that actually long-term negatively affect the mechanics of a character?

Permanent stat loss - almost gone (is Feeblemind still a thing?).
Level drain - gone.
Limb loss and-or permanent scarring/wounds - gone.
Destruction of magic items (which affects a characters effective power level) - gone.

That don't leave much of a spectrum.

Only a handful of items/creatures caused limb loss, and some of them definitely remain in the same "there are no actual rules covering this" glory of editions past.

How is losing magic items not a thing now?

 

[Celebrim]

Welp, that's enough reason for me to not include it in a Fantasy.

You seem to be misusing the English language here. You capitalize the 'f' in fantasy, but then you use it apparently not to mean a genre of literature with fantastic elements, but rather of the product of creating things to one's fancy.

I don't think that fantasy is defined as the product of your fantasizing. Your fantasy can include no negative consequences if you like, but again, I see no reason to inflict that on a group.

 

[Celebrim]

D&D is one of those games that has historically covered a spread of options in this regard. The early lack of critical hits limited some chronic consequences, but special magic options could inflict them (sword of sharpness, staff of withering, feeblemind, etc) and repair them (heal, regeneration, etc). Ideally, I'd say D&D should enable that range of options and leave it up to the individual table to determine how much to use or even lean into them.

I'm basically on board with that. I don't see how someone can say "You all should have your game taken away because it interferes with my fantasies." Or, I guess I can see how they can say that, I'm just not going to accept it.

 

[Celebrim]

Why do you leap from I personally want hardship driven from mechanics (Great! Go wild!)

If there are no mechanics reinforcing it, then there is no hardship. If for example, there are no consequential mechanics for fatigue then a PC can always go on with any length of forced march. Yes, they could give some sop about how he's struggling through the pain and fatigue, but that would be at that point meaningless color, and more importantly it couldn't be enforced. The player could, absent fatigue mechanics, march on claiming his character is a fresh as a daisy after seven days march over 400 miles without sleep, food, or water.

So what do you mean by hardship not driven from mechanics? And how would that be meaningful if the player had no investment in it?

There can be no meaningful loss/consequences if it's not mechanically enforced (Lots of people in this thread disagree with that.)

Lots of people say a lot of things, but the fact that a lot of people say it doesn't mean it's true. There are no meaningful losses or consequences if there are no meaningful losses or consequences. I feel like that is so obvious I shouldn't have to say it, but here we are.

and from there to People who play differently than me are ruining the hobby?

People can and always have played differently than me. But hitherto, they never demanded that games conform to there preferences not only in the house rules but in the core rules. You know how hard it is to build consequences back into a game that removes them? Probably 75% or more of a game engine is defining consequences mechanically. You take that out and you've gutted your game. It's easy to ignore rules. If you want to ignore fatigue rules, you could. If you want to ignore lasting damage, it's easy to do that. You could probably manage that in a single house rule of a single sentense. But building back all the rules systems for exposure damage, or crippling injuries, or disease, or whatever is hard.

I strongly disagree that your conclusion inherently follows from that premise.

Ok.

This is simple. If there is no negative stake, then the story path never branches in a meaningful way. If the goal of the game is winning, but winning is the only outcome, then what's the point of playing? (Note, I'm not saying there wouldn't be a point in playing, I'm asking you to analyze what that goal is.) It's at this point that people invariably bring up story factors of some sort like, "You didn't get to rescue your sister." or "You didn't save the town." or "You didn't win the love of the handsome prince" or whatever. But my experience is that any player unwilling to risk his characters life utterly and completely doesn't care about the rest, because they are the sort of player who says, "If the stakes are my life or an NPC's, well then my life". And if they are that sort of player anyway, how does failing to save the sister bother them when they no longer have their character's life at stake? You can't suffer failure in a stake you have no investment in. When I told my player up front that if they went into the dream and they failed their dreaming skill check, they would be stuck in a permanent coma with no one who could get them out, and they did it anyway, then I knew they cared about the NPC. But if there was no chance of loss, then what is really at stake?

 

[Xamnam]

but that would be at that point meaningless color

And how would that be meaningful if the player had no investment in it?

There are no meaningful losses or consequences if there are no meaningful losses or consequences.

This is simple. If there is no negative stake, then the story path never branches in a meaningful way.

I think there is too much daylight between us on how we're using the word meaningful to have a productive conversation, because I disagree with all of these claims, especially given that you think they are so self-evident, so let's not go any farther down this rabbit hole.

 

[Xamnam]

I don't see how someone can say "You all should have your game taken away because it interferes with my fantasies."

What's the difference you see between that and this?

Pardon me, but go play a single player game and use cheats. Or go play a multiplayer game with cheats for that matter. That will deliver the experience you want and I won't have to be involved.

It's a lot harder to add consequences to a game that is lacking them than it is to remove them from a game that has them. You don't want challenge as part of your aesthetic of play, then fine. Why deny it to the rest of us?

People are asking for options, not demanding one playstyle.

 

[Celebrim]

I strongly disagree that your conclusion inherently follows from that premise.

I realize after thinking about it more there is a straighter path from here to there.

Why are we even rolling the dice? Why don't we just have the GM say "yes" to everything?

 

[Celebrim]

What's the difference you see between that and this?

I have explained it many times. Taking rules out is easier than adding them in.

It's much easier for a DM to ignore rules for exposure damage or fatigue than it is for a DM to invent them on the fly.

People are asking for options, not demanding one playstyle.

Sure. I'm fine with optional rules for encumbrance, dismemberment, trauma, insanity, terror, character death, injury, sickness, poison, fatigue and failure. Just don't demand that the game not have them or think that because you consider them optional it's a complete system if the game is missing them.

 

[Celebrim]

I think there is too much daylight between us on how we're using the word meaningful to have a productive conversation, because I disagree with all of these claims, especially given that you think they are so self-evident, so let's not go any farther down this rabbit hole.

Which is fine, but define "meaningful" in some way I can at least understand what you mean, even if I won't agree.