D&D 5E Defining fun

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Fair enough. That opinion is as valid as any other but not particularly helpful in identifying why 4E isn't fun for you.



This is one of the many reasons I enjoy OD&D so much. Stat generation is very random but there isn't this feeling of hopelessness if you don't get certain benchmark scores and if another player happens to get a higher stat than you, it is NOT going to make your character worthless in comparison. The difference between a 12 STR fighter and an 18 STR fighter is that the stronger fighter gets an XP bonus and can carry more stuff. In AD&D a good % roll could mean as much difference as +3 to hit and +6 damage, which does make the 12 STR fighter look very wimpy in comparison.

The fact that a character, no matter what scores get generated, is only as good as player's decisions in actual play is a feature not a bug.





I can to a point, but those are the breaks when you play a game in which the actual contributions of the player are largely marginalized by the system. If nothing of meaningful importance can be accomplished without hitting a benchmark on a die roll then get used to this type of dissappointment and suck it up. It was the game you signed up to play. You knew going in, that game revolved around menu options and target numbers that had to be hit. When playing such systems you can have strings of really good luck AND bad luck. The point is, if you are only satisfied and entertained when experiencing good luck, you are setting yourself up for a letdown playing such games.

When you allow your feeling of self worth to be attached to and the game measures meaningful contribution to be determined by how well the dice roll, this kind of thing will happen very often. I have been playing a bugbear fighter in a friend's 4E game for about a year now and if I had judged satisfaction and fun purely on the luck of my dice then I would have quit months ago. There have been good streaks and bad streaks and a fair amount of meh thrown in for good measure. Through it all, the laughs and good times experienced with friends had very little to do with the outcome of the die rolls.

I found the game extremely boring, it was an intense chore to play. I didn't like the gamist rules and the heavy emphasis on combat and builds. I don't like having powers and I don't like the sameness feeling I get.

Just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Eric Hughes]

Nice idea.
Can you elaborate how much was this bonus in experience points? As in was it an additional 10% of the session (fixed amount) or was it dependent on how low the stat was, which would mean a higher XP yield for lower stats?

In 2d Ed. We gave a 10% bonus if all stats where 14 or less and a 10% penalty if you had at least one 18. Essentially no modifiers got you the xp boost, and min maxing cost you exp. In our third ed game, we used the 28 maximum point buy but gave the 10% bonus to players who chose no stat higher than 13 (+1 bonus).

In terms of DnD this is the best min-max squasher I've seen. But the best all around system for limiting Min-Maxing I've played is the New Arcanis RPG.

 

[Mistwell]

I can to a point, but those are the breaks when you play a game in which the actual contributions of the player are largely marginalized by the system. If nothing of meaningful importance can be accomplished without hitting a benchmark on a die roll then get used to this type of dissappointment and suck it up. It was the game you signed up to play. You knew going in, that game revolved around menu options and target numbers that had to be hit. When playing such systems you can have strings of really good luck AND bad luck. The point is, if you are only satisfied and entertained when experiencing good luck, you are setting yourself up for a letdown playing such games.

This is incredibly ironic. You get it's 5e I am talking about, right? That he signed up to play a game that does have some of those elements of constant level of oK luck without the swings, in things like damage on a miss? That I was speaking to why perhaps those things should remain an option in the final version of this game despite the protests?

Through it all, the laughs and good times experienced with friends had very little to do with the outcome of the die rolls.

I am happy for you, but this has nothing to do with the situation I described. Nothing at all. It's almost like you didn't read a word of my post, thought it was talking about both a different edition AND a different situation. Which is weird because in my experience you usually read the stuff you're replying to pretty carefully.

 

[ExploderWizard]

This is incredibly ironic. You get it's 5e I am talking about, right? That he signed up to play a game that does have some of those elements of constant level of oK luck without the swings, in things like damage on a miss? That I was speaking to why perhaps those things should remain an option in the final version of this game despite the protests?



I am happy for you, but this has nothing to do with the situation I described. Nothing at all. It's almost like you didn't read a word of my post, thought it was talking about both a different edition AND a different situation. Which is weird because in my experience you usually read the stuff you're replying to pretty carefully.

I did read it, and what I got from it is the impression of someone who thinks they are interested in playing a game but does not actually enjoy playing the game if they aren't winning. Therefore said person would probably be happier engaging in ego stoking wish fulfillment exercises instead of playing a game. The whole idea of gameplay is win some lose some. If losing some sucks all the enjoyment out of the exercise then do something else.

There is someone whose real life is a bit hectic and tough right now so they want to "play" a game in which failure/loss is taken off the table or the chances of such greatly reduced. So what am I not getting?

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

I also don't find it fun when "winning" is associated with D&D.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Winning is better reserved for Forum debates. That's where the real money is.

I assume people find that fun.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I also don't find it fun when "winning" is associated with D&D.

I suppose some folks like to lose all the time. Why is that more fun?

 

[Mistwell]

I did read it, and what I got from it is the impression of someone who thinks they are interested in playing a game but does not actually enjoy playing the game if they aren't winning.

Did I use the word 'winning' once in my description? Did I even imply the players are frequently victors in any way? No, no I did not. You inferred it, without good reason.

I said he likes to feel like he's making a meaningful difference in the events, and that his character that he is using for this escapism game is heroic. Heroes fail sometimes, and he's OK if the party fails as well. He just wants to feel like it was a heroic endeavor and one he played a meaningful role in. That's not the same as winning.

Therefore said person would probably be happier engaging in ego stoking wish fulfillment exercises instead of playing a game. The whole idea of gameplay is win some lose some. If losing some sucks all the enjoyment out of the exercise then do something else.

Again, you inferred, in what I consider a bizarre way, some sort of "winning" from my description. That's in your mind, not in what I wrote.

There is someone whose real life is a bit hectic and tough right now so they want to "play" a game in which failure/loss is taken off the table or the chances of such greatly reduced. So what am I not getting?

Where are you getting "sustained amount of smaller damage in exchange for lower defense or lower average damage" equates with "winning"? This is a well-worn concept. Most spellcasters have spells which do half-damage on a successful save, and the calculation there is a trade-off with other disadvantages of playing a spellcaster. Are all spellcasting PCs now played by players who simply want to "win" in your mind? Your argument BEARS NO RELATIONSHIP AT ALL TO ANYTHING I'VE SAID. There are lots of objections to damage on a miss, but the one your making is nonsensical right now for this situation I am referring to.

I keep assuming it's because you have all these ideas tied up with the damage-on-a-miss concept and you're just spewing those without paying attention to a much more specific issue than the general issue. But maybe I am wrong. Tell me how what I am talking about connects in any way with what you're talking about. Right now, your reaction isn't making any sense to me.

 

[Mistwell]

doblepost

 

[Eric Hughes]

When I talk about the Min-Maxer/Ultimate PC builder I do think of the person who is always "Unsatisfied with Winning DnD". When I say this I mean building a Min-Max seams to be their goal. But ultimately, when they achieve that end, they are unsatisfied until everyone see's and joins their narrow unhappy world. Then once people do, are unhappy that they are not alone. It is a very small, but significant minority of gamers. They tend not to affect home games so much as they will only home game with like minded folks. But in large living games, and game store events they are completely disruptive.