Is Losing your Turn The Worst That Can Happen

[FitzTheRuke]

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

Absolutely. I'd rather the ghoul rip my arm off and have to deal with that for the rest of the campaign than have him barely scratch me and sit around watching others play for most of a session.

 

[Mannahnin]

By and large combat in most tabletop roleplaying games is already slow and boring. Making it even more slow and boring is not really a desired state, especially when you can design debuffs that impact in a way that alters the dynamics without taking away the ability to play the game.

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.

Yeah, if you still have options, you're still playing. And maybe the remaining options still allow you to contribute. If e.g., Stunned meant I can't attack and am at disadvantage on other rolls, but can move half speed, I could still move to flank an enemy, or dig out a potion and drink it or save a dying friend. Or activate a magic item. Or pull the lever to lower a portcullis and divide the enemy, etc.

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.

It was 20-80 minutes in TSR D&D and AD&D 1E (Edit: just confirmed it was toned down to 3-8 rounds/minutes in 2E). Which meant if you didn't have a paralysis cure handy (although thankfully Cure Light Wounds works, in B/X, because Tom Moldvay was a smart guy), your party was in the position of dragging your rigid butt into a defensible room or area and barring the door while they waited out some random encounter rolls....

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

An interesting variant Skerples has proposed (and I'm using in my current game) is ghouls causing agony. Each round the player can choose to have his character roll on the ground/self-soothe, or act normally but take another d6 of non-lethal damage. 50% chance to end at the end of each of the victim's turns.

 

[Pedantic]

An interesting variant Skerples has proposed (and I'm using in my current game) is ghouls causing agony. Each round the player can choose to have his character roll on the ground/self-soothe, or act normally but take another d6 of non-lethal damage. 50% chance to end at the end of each of the victim's turns.

Is that particularly interesting? I feel like that's just recreating the healing problem, where it's nearly always correct not to heal, unless you'd lose more total actions thereby. It's never going to be correct to skip your turn, (if that d6 might put you down, another monster hit would also put you down, so it's better to take a shot at having 1 more round to act)and a 50% chance to clear is pretty high.

 

[Scribe]

This comes up in threads now and again, and recently someone said they would rather their character die than be denies their turn multiple rounds in a row.

Is that a general truth, do you think? Do you think most players think losing their turn in combat is the worst/least fun effect? And do you feel that way as a player? What about as a GM?

Its a common enough issue in some games (WoW, various eras of PvP, and being 'unable to play my character' as you die inside of hard CC).

I think, if a hypothetical combat is 3 turns, and you lose 2 or even 3 of those, thats going to feel pretty bad.

TLDR: Its not THE worst, but hard CC is something to be applied with care.

 

[Reynard]

I really don't like the fact that the fall back is always more HP damage. I want to see conditions that are fun and interesting and horrifying.

 

[Deset Gled]

I think the conversation has gone on long enough to merit bringing up the topic of asymmetric combat.

Players love to make enemies lose their turns. With everything from a 1st level Sleep to a 9th level Imprisonment, with all the Monk's Stunning Fists and so many other abilities in between. Denying opponents their turn is a go-to method of battle control.

In most RPGs, these same options are eventually available to enemies. Mooks and monsters won't have them, but enemy NPCs generally do. The only way to never have a situation where the PCs lose a turn is to either remove all of these options from the PCs wheelhouse, or play a game where NPCs follow a completely different set of rules from the PCs. Now, in 3e, battle was extremely symmetrical, and in 5e, less so. But completely removing turn loss from PCs is a level of asymmetry that I personally am not ready for.

I really don't like the fact that the fall back is always more HP damage. I want to see conditions that are fun and interesting and horrifying.

IMNSHO, this is the unfortunate and inevitable result of a shifting to more rules-lite systems. I can think of of ways to address this, but they all move towards crunch.

 

[prabe]

I think the conversation has gone on long enough to merit bringing up the topic of asymmetric combat.

And because things are asymmetrical, it's much less of a "fun in play" problem if a monster loses a turn or three--the GM will still have things to do, and will still be playing. This isn't an argument so much as an expansion on your point/s.

(Yes, some GMs sometimes get frustrated when their monsters don't get to do anything, but that doesn't seem to me like the same thing, it seems to be about something else.)

 

[Reynard]

(Yes, some GMs sometimes get frustrated when their monsters don't get to do anything, but that doesn't seem to me like the same thing, it seems to be about something else.)

Yeah. i get a twinge of "Dammit!" when that happens, but also a rush of excitement that the players are bringing their A game.

 

[prabe]

Yeah. i get a twinge of "Dammit!" when that happens, but also a rush of excitement that the players are bringing their A game.

Yeah, I'm happy the players are playing well--I actually plan and run in the expectation they will--but it's always a little bummer when something has the excitement and tension pulled out of it prematurely.

 

[Mannahnin]

Is that particularly interesting? I feel like that's just recreating the healing problem, where it's nearly always correct not to heal, unless you'd lose more total actions thereby. It's never going to be correct to skip your turn, (if that d6 might put you down, another monster hit would also put you down, so it's better to take a shot at having 1 more round to act)and a 50% chance to clear is pretty high.

Depends on the situation. It worked out to be a good balance of scary in the game I'm running, but it's a 0/1st level game. So it's a pretty high risk of unconsciousness, anyway.