D&D 5E Defining fun

[ExploderWizard]

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.

You are the one equating "meaningful" with the output of successful die rolling. "Meaningful" in this case being a minimum amount of damage inflicted regardless of the die rolls. That isn't heroism. That is simply a desire to not suck because you rolled like crap. As I suggested, playing a system in which your ability to have any impact on events is determined by a crap shoot may not be the best choice is you cannot have fun without your numbers coming up.

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.

To clarify, "winning" is not an end game condition. Winning is merely a success and losing a failure. So if we find a large treasure with relatively little effort in one session its a big "win", and if we get a piddling sum after going through the ringer for it due to back luck or planning then its a "loss". Either way the game isn't over until we want it to be. Even a TPK just means generate new PCs and keep playing. So "winning" isn't that big of a deal.

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.

I don't care about the DoaM specifically. I wanted to talk about fun. For me, talking about damage contributions as a measure of meaningful action isn't fun. In an MMO yes, in a tabletop rpg, not so much.

 

[Mistwell]

You are the one equating "meaningful" with the output of successful die rolling.

I'm doing the opposite. I am saying I think he will find it more meaningful if he does damage even if he doesn't have a successful die roll, even if that means a trade-off in other things like defense. I am saying he might find more satisfaction in playing, for example, a wizard that has lots of "half damage on a successful save" type spells, despite the fact there are drawbacks to playing wizards.

"Meaningful" in this case being a minimum amount of damage inflicted regardless of the die rolls.

Right. So you understand that's the opposite of a "successful die roll", right?

That isn't heroism. That is simply a desire to not suck because you rolled like crap. As I suggested, playing a system in which your ability to have any impact on events is determined by a crap shoot may not be the best choice is you cannot have fun without your numbers coming up.

But he does have fun playing types of characters that still do damage even on a miss, like a wizard or a fighter with a damage-on-a-miss ability. And he does feel more heroic that way. It sounds to me like, because YOU don't like those things and YOU don't find it fun, that you're claiming he is what...having the wrong kind of fun?

I don't care about the DoaM specifically. I wanted to talk about fun. For me, talking about damage contributions as a measure of meaningful action isn't fun. In an MMO yes, in a tabletop rpg, not so much.

Right, but this player I am referring to thinks differently than you do, and I think partially due to differing life experiences than you. I'm having trouble seeing your point, other than "I am not the player you're talking about?"

 

[ExploderWizard]

But he does have fun playing types of characters that still do damage even on a miss, like a wizard or a fighter with a damage-on-a-miss ability. And he does feel more heroic that way. It sounds to me like, because YOU don't like those things and YOU don't find it fun, that you're claiming he is what...having the wrong kind of fun?

I can't control other peoples misconceptions about heroism. If he has found something enjoyable then huzzah! game on.

 

[Mistwell]

I can't control other peoples misconceptions about heroism. If he has found something enjoyable then huzzah! game on.

Wait you're now saying "heroism" is an objective term?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

[originally posted by Minigiant in a recently closed thread]



It is a core question of Next's design. Do we keep a traditional aspect of gameplay even if it is unfun?
Doing nothing in a fight because you missed attacks the whole (very short) fight is not fun. Do we keep it?

[/I][ End quote]
​

That entire premise is bad design. Striking out in baseball is never "fun." But it is a core part of the game. Should striking out, or strikes in generally be removed from baseball? There has to be some unfun parts of any game to make the fun parts worthwhile. Otherwise, the entire game is "unfun."​

 

[Mistwell]

That entire premise is bad design. Striking out in baseball is never "fun." But it is a core part of the game. Should striking out, or strikes in generally be removed from baseball? There has to be some unfun parts of any game to make the fun parts worthwhile. Otherwise, the entire game is "unfun."

Talk about a faulty premise. Show me one person here who advocated for removing "missing-no-damage" from the game?

You have ONE option for a few fighter-types. You have some spells for spellcasters. You have I think one or two alchemical items. That's it. The huge bulk of the game remains with the concept of "strikes", people are just asking for a few more of the other types, of which have always been in the game (spells have always had a "half damage on a save" in the game).

 

[Obryn]

Talk about a faulty premise. Show me one person here who advocated for removing "missing-no-damage" from the game?

You have ONE option for a few fighter-types. You have some spells for spellcasters. You have I think one or two alchemical items. That's it. The huge bulk of the game remains with the concept of "strikes", people are just asking for a few more of the other types, of which have always been in the game (spells have always had a "half damage on a save" in the game).

Yeah, I don't understand what drives people to go to, "I guess you never want failure to be an option in the game," when there's just a few options (not even necessarily great ones) which do nothing but make failure slightly less bad in a few cases.

 

[Mistwell]

Yeah, I don't understand what drives people to go to, "I guess you never want failure to be an option in the game," when there's just a few options (not even necessarily great ones) which do nothing but make failure slightly less bad in a few cases.

I don't imagine there would be any outcry at all if WOTC said they are adding one more spell that does damage on a miss. How many of these same arguments would people be making if WOTC said they were adding Fire Seeds (the 3.5e version) to 5e? All of these types of arguments apply equally to that spell, as these arguments people are making are not contingent on the "magic" issue but simply are talking about the damage-on-a-miss concept itself.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

That entire premise is bad design. Striking out in baseball is never "fun." But it is a core part of the game. Should striking out, or strikes in generally be removed from baseball? There has to be some unfun parts of any game to make the fun parts worthwhile. Otherwise, the entire game is "unfun."

This this this this 1000 times.

That's like someone complaining Monopoly isn't fun unless they always get Boardwalk and Park Place.

 

[ThirdWizard]

You are the one equating "meaningful" with the output of successful die rolling. "Meaningful" in this case being a minimum amount of damage inflicted regardless of the die rolls. That isn't heroism. That is simply a desire to not suck because you rolled like crap. As I suggested, playing a system in which your ability to have any impact on events is determined by a crap shoot may not be the best choice is you cannot have fun without your numbers coming up.

In a game where most of the rules center around combat, and where just about every combat is decided by moving the enemy HP to 0, is it any wonder that people base their ability to meaningfully interact in game with their PC's ability to move the enemy HP to 0?