Is Losing your Turn The Worst That Can Happen

[payn]

What's the difference between being stunned for a round and having penalties so bad as to effectively neuter your options?

Well, I think neuter all options is one take, and limit your optimal option and thus make less optimal options seem more sensible is another. Especially, if the game resolves around tactical team work in which the change of optional choice has downstream effect. Though, if the game is simpler in its mechanical combat, then the stunned for a round is likely a fine result.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Look, I try to avoid judging another table or GMs. But that is poor form.

Yeah, they paid to sit there not playing Shadowrun. I was aghast. In hindsight, we should've all just stopped and shown some solidarity at the table. But it was one of those things so far beyond the pale that I think we were all a little flummoxed by it.

One of the reasons I stopped playing in Shadowrun Missions was that the quality of the GMs was really inconsistent.

 

[Professor Murder]

What's the difference between being stunned for a round and having penalties so bad as to effectively neuter your options?

Scale I would think. If it takes say 3 debuffs to create just as frustrating a state as a single stun, stuns are mathematically 3 times worse.

 

[Professor Murder]

Yeah, they paid to sit there not playing Shadowrun. I was aghast. In hindsight, we should've all just stopped and shown some solidarity at the table. But it was one of those things so far beyond the pale that I think we were all a little flummoxed by it.

One of the reasons I stopped playing in Shadowrun Missions was that the quality of the GMs was really inconsistent.

Yeah. That is an understandably awkward position to be put in as a player. Judging when to speak up is a skill most people need to develop.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I was the one who made the original "I'd rather die" statement, and I have a few notes on that:

1) I did mean it somewhat hyperbolically.
2) I also meant, at least mostly, "I'd rather lose my turn because I dropped to zero" rather than from a "save or suck" feature as opposed to "die".
3) But For the part of me that would also rather just have my character actually die: it's because at least it has a dramatic story to tell, rather than a boring one.
4) It's not just missing a turn (you'll note that I'd get no turn if I died); it's that most methods in D&D of taking your turn away are really, really boring. "The ghoul touched you! Now you just... stand there." The stun condition is usually, for some reason, terribly unsatisfying - it doesn't really seem to do anything to you (other than to stop you from acting). It "feels" both non-threatening and terrible at the same time.

I don't have any problem with getting smashed so hard that it takes me a round to get up - but I find, "The lich looked at you. You can stop playing for the next hour and a half" to be... not good.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Is it the same as, oh my God, missing with an attack roll and then sitting until my next turn.

No. No it absolutely is not anything like that at all.

 

[Reynard]

I was the one who made the original "I'd rather die" statement, and I have a few notes on that:

Thanks. i had forgotten who otherwise I would have called yo mentioned you.

1) I did mean it somewhat hyperbolically.

I guessed.

2) I also meant, at least mostly, "I'd rather lose my turn because I dropped to zero" rather than from a "save or suck" feature as opposed to "die".
3) But For the part of me that would also rather just have my character actually die: it's because at least it has a dramatic story to tell, rather than a boring one.

I don't think dying or dropping to 0 is inherently more interesting than a failed save. Getting bonked by an orc is boring, too.

4) It's not just missing a turn (you'll note that I'd get no turn if I died); it's that most methods in D&D of taking your turn away are really, really boring. "The ghoul touched you! Now you just... stand there." The stun condition is usually, for some reason, terribly unsatisfying - it doesn't really seem to do anything to you (other than to stop you from acting). It "feels" both non-threatening and terrible at the same time.

Interesting. So do you like the 4E (I think) method of worsening save-or-suck conditions (ie it takes 3 failed saves to turn to stone, or whatever)?

I don't have any problem with getting smashed so hard that it takes me a round to get up - but I find, "The lich looked at you. You can stop playing for the next hour and a half" to be... not good.

I don't know. A lich with an evil eye so powerful it freezes you in place is tons more interersting than a guy with a big club.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Really, what is character death but missing a whole bunch of turns?

Missing a whole bunch of turns in a dramatic and narratively satisfying way. (At least, in theory).

And, I like making characters. I'd much rather start making a new character than wait to roll yet-another-impossible stun-save (assuming I even get them. Remember when ghoul-stun knocked you out for 1d6 or so in-game MINUTES?) ZzzzzzzzZzzz.

What's the difference between being stunned for a round and having penalties so bad as to effectively neuter your options?

The difference is, if you happen to succeed (or chose to do one of the few options left to you), then you did awesome "under the circumstances" rather than "did nothing".

Part of my original point was that I don't mind things feeling "difficult" (unlike a lot of people here, I actually like the idea of playing with penalties from being wounded). What I don't like is "feeling" like I'm fine, but "stuck".

Actually, that's psychologically revealing - I don't like feeling stuck. Ever.

I'd rather be crawling along on my "last legs" desperately trying to bite a wizard's ankle, than being "frozen" but otherwise unharmed from Hold Person.

 

[Reynard]

Missing a whole bunch of turns in a dramatic and narratively satisfying way. (At least, in theory).

And, I like making characters. I'd much rather start making a new character than wait to roll yet-another-impossible stun-save (assuming I even get them. Remember when ghoul-stun knocked you out for 1d6 or so in-game MINUTES?) ZzzzzzzzZzzz.


The difference is, if you happen to succeed (or chose to do one of the few options left to you), then you did awesome "under the circumstances" rather than "did nothing".

Part of my original point was that I don't mind things feeling "difficult" (unlike a lot of people here, I actually like the idea of playing with penalties from being wounded). What I don't like is "feeling" like I'm fine, but "stuck".

Actually, that's psychologically revealing - I don't like feeling stuck. Ever.

I'd rather be crawling along on my "last legs" desperately trying to bite a wizard's ankle, than being "frozen" but otherwise unharmed from Hold Person.

So just by way of example, would you prefer a ghoul's strike to make you Poisoned and Slowed rather than Paralyzed?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't think dying or dropping to 0 is inherently more interesting than a failed save. Getting bonked by an orc is boring, too.

I guess I've just never had a character die in a boring way. Whereas I've sat out 90% of a 20-round fight because I couldn't make a damn stun-save.

Interesting. So do you like the 4E (I think) method of worsening save-or-suck conditions (ie it takes 3 failed saves to turn to stone, or whatever)?

Yeah, I do.

I don't know. A lich with an evil eye so powerful it freezes you in place is tons more interersting than a guy with a big club.

Not necessarily. I mean, on the surface, sure! But my aforementioned 20-round sit-out was against a lich, and that 20-round fight never felt threatening. No one came even close to dying. We just couldn't do anything for hours and hours. Talk about a combat slog.

Again, I'd rather get flattened and have the fight over with.