D&D 5E Bad Wrong Fun

[Umbran]

What sets off your personal “that’s bad-wrong-fun” alarm? PvP without a Session Zero agreement?

In general, infringing on another player's boundaries without prior consent is badwrongfun.

And if your focus is on the group having fun, when someone is being made distinctly unhappy, then you are at risk of being the wangrod yoruself.

 

[Stalker0]

P v P stuff that hasn’t been agreed to. For example if the lovable rogue likes to take “baubles” from party members and cause pranks, and everyone is fine with it...then game on.

If the rogue is taking real money from party members...not ok

 

[ccs]

Builds which can go through the module alone.

I've never seen such a thing.

 

[iserith]

Whatever other people do in their games is no business of mine.

If I join a new group, I have two main criteria for whether I will keep playing with them. (1) The game must be funny. (2) The game must be productive. If those two things are true, then I'm in and I don't particularly care how we get there (within reason).

 

[jayoungr]

I run for two different groups who have diametrically opposed ideas on things like charm and other forms of mind control.

For one group, it's an absolute "Don't go there." They see it as one of the worst possible sins a game or gamemaster could commit.

The other group is much more open to the idea, even though it still has to be done right.

 

[Burnside]

None of these really happen all that much, but have happened and I didn't like it:

• Characters who don't want to go on adventures. Meet the DM half way.
• Characters who are uninterested in working as part of a group. Meet the DM and your fellow players half way.
• Player not paying attention
• DM wants to use lingering injuries
• DM wants to have players accidentally hit each other with low attack rolls
• DM wants to play 5E but doesn't want to use short rest healing rules

And this one happens frequently and is a completely irrational one on my part, but:

- The word "module". It's a non-fun word to begin with; one that makes me feel like I'm about to complete a classroom exercise rather than go on an adventure. Also, it hasn't been used officially for any product since 1999. Twenty years. If you use it, I know you're an OLD MAN. OLD!

 

[Warpiglet-7]

None of these really happen all that much, but:

• Characters who don't want to go on adventures. Meet the DM half way.
• Characters who are uninterested in working as part of a group. Meet the DM and your fellow players half way.
• Player not paying attention

And this one happens frequently and is a completely irrational one on my part, but:

- The word "module". It's a non-fun word to begin with; one that makes me feel like I'm about to complete a classroom exercise rather than go on an adventure. Also, it hasn't been used officially for any product since 1999. Twenty years. If you use it, I know you're an OLD MAN. OLD!

I have to second your pet peeves. One guy has no interest in anything so the whole time we drag him along (ugh).
Now if you will excuse me I am going to look through all the “modules” In yawning Portal!

 

[Umbran]

I'm currently in a campaign with Avernus, which seems to be an official promotion of said behavior with the way it's written, and I don't like it, storyline and "dark secrets" and "redemption paths" be darned.

I don't know how Avernus is written. Perhaps their either forgot, or did not properly communicate to GMs and players: There is pretty much only one real purpose for secrets in a role-playing game - to be uncovered!

Players whose characters have secrets shouldn't be looking to keep them secret forever Where's the fun in that? Keeping your secret until it is cool and dramatic for it to be revealed - now that's some dramatic fun! And that's where the group has to have an understandign when play begins, especially with a game like that. Everyone's got secrets. The cool part is letting them get out in interesting ways for folks to play with them. If everyone's got secrets, and you're getting upset that yours was discovered, you went in with an attitude doomed for disappointment.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't know how Avernus is written. Perhaps their either forgot, or did not properly communicate to GMs and players: There is pretty much only one real purpose for secrets in a role-playing game - to be uncovered!

Players whose characters have secrets shouldn't be looking to keep them secret forever Where's the fun in that? Keeping your secret until it is cool and dramatic for it to be revealed - now that's some dramatic fun! And that's where the group has to have an understandign when play begins, especially with a game like that. Everyone's got secrets. The cool part is letting them get out in interesting ways for folks to play with them. If everyone's got secrets, and you're getting upset that yours was discovered, you went in with an attitude doomed for disappointment.

It's not that at all. The campaign seems to be designed to foster inter party conflict as a goal, with an end game intention of finding redemption in the end.

SPOILER

For example, a PC being influenced by the pit fiend shield, turning them lawful evil and against their own party. Or how Avernus in general turns players evil.

the end game might want to focus on redemption, but all of those sessions in between then where the party is fighting and arguing based on in-game intentionally designed features of the campaign, that's a problem for me, and I don't like it. I don't care if the end results in redemption if 90% of the actual game play is arguing and plotting against each other.

 

[tommybahama]

That is why I have no intention of playing Avernus.

Our DM cut all that nonsense out after he saw our reaction to Candlekeep. I'm glad he did that.