D&D General "It's not fun when..."

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
In my eyes, running away from the failure is the exact sort of ripe premise to bear fruit later as characters are faced with another terrible situation and have to question whether they want to earnestly wear the label of coward more than once.
If they care. Most likely - and odds are high that as a player I'd have my character do this too - they'll book it to some distant lands where that reputation will never follow, and carry on as if nothing happened. No diminishment of fun whatsoever, and no lasting loss conditon.

I mean, eventually they might run out of new places to go; but that's a long shot.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Xamnam

Loves Your Favorite Game
If they care. Most likely - and odds are high that as a player I'd have my character do this too - they'll book it to some distant lands where that reputation will never follow, and carry on as if nothing happened. No diminishment of fun whatsoever, and no lasting loss conditon.

I mean, eventually they might run out of new places to go; but that's a long shot.
Interesting! I have to say, being willing to abandon my reputation in the lands I'm familiar with is pretty far down the list of how I'd personally approach it.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Interesting! I have to say, being willing to abandon my reputation in the lands I'm familiar with is pretty far down the list of how I'd personally approach it.
Unless I'm playing a character who intends to do big things in the realm after its adventuring career is over e.g. go into politics, I usually don't give much of a flying fig about my character's reputation among anyone other than who I'm dealing with at the moment. Gate guards and innkeepers? Sure, I'll treat 'em well while I'm there, but it's no skin off my nose if I never see them again because I'm somewhere else.

Put another way, if I don't have a reputation I don't have to worry about keeping it up. :)

That, and given that after a few trips into the field most adventurers are richer than kings, if it really becomes a problem any such issues can easily enough be solved by the liberal application of money.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Interesting! I have to say, being willing to abandon my reputation in the lands I'm familiar with is pretty far down the list of how I'd personally approach it.
what reputation? There's no mechanics for that and nothing left for it to impact unless the gm declares rocks fall or flips the table by simply declaring that there is no adventure for your pc while refusing to let you make some effort at repairing it doing adventurer things.
 

Xamnam

Loves Your Favorite Game
what reputation? There's no mechanics for that and nothing left for it to impact unless the gm declares rocks fall or flips the table by simply declaring that there is no adventure for your pc while refusing to let you make some effort at repairing it doing adventurer things.
Reputation is such a personal and individual thing that I don't know that hard mechanics are the best way to model it, but at my tables that certainly wouldn't be an impediment to including the fallout of positive or negative reputation as an interesting factor of fiction. Failing the request of a royal seems like it would be important enough to fundamentally alter the status quo. It wouldn't be engaging gameplay to make it entirely beyond their abilities to change if they so desired, and admittedly, I struggle to think of any action any of my parties would be likely to take that would be unforgivable to that level, so I would hopefully avoid the worst of what you suggest there.
 

pukunui

Legend
Out of curiosity, why? Was is because the player was new to the game and didn't realize that could happen? Was it because you didn't want to have to deal with introducing a new PC? What made you decide to not just roll with the results of the dice?
I think it was a combination of not wanting to start the campaign off that way and not wanting to have to deal with trying to introduce a brand new PC straight away. That said, I don't normally shy away from PC deaths. That very same campaign continued through The Forge of Fury, which resulted in one PC dying at the hands of the succubus, and then segued into Tomb of Annihilation, during which ~9 PCs died (most of them in Omu, including one that lasted half a game session).

One time we had just started 5E Dungeon of the Mad Mage. We get to like the first or second room and there’s a fight. When the monsters died intellect devourers popped out. First hit was against my PC. My character had INT 8. It went badly. One character down in less than five minutes of total play time. I just started that character. First session, first fight. So I laughed, tore the sheet in half, dug out a high INT back up character, and joined the group. Characters are disposable.
I'm currently running Mad Mage, and the intellect devourers on level 1 killed one of the PCs in my game as well. I don't think they reached that room until the second or third session, though, so it wasn't quite as sudden as it was in that other campaign.

The group then had a TPK against the drow on level 3. The replacement party is now 12th level and have made it as far down as level 12.
 

Oofta

Legend
My question, then, is other than death what fail states are left in the game that actually long-term negatively affect the mechanics of a character?

Permanent stat loss - almost gone (is Feeblemind still a thing?).
Level drain - gone.
Limb loss and-or permanent scarring/wounds - gone.
Destruction of magic items (which affects a characters effective power level) - gone.

That don't leave much of a spectrum. :)
While death is never off the table in my group, I don't have a high rate of death in my campaign. It's something we discuss in our session 0. But there are a lot of penalties that are not mechanical, in many ways perma-death is the least interesting option. Dying just ends a specific story arc for a PC it doesn't stop the player from playing. I think there are other in-game consequences that are just as relevant, even if it means house rules around being touched by death.

If you want to litter the floor with player's character sheets that's fine. But for some people failing to achieve a goal is just as much, or more, of a punishment than bringing in a backup character. Heck, bringing in a new backup character and getting to play someone different can be a bonus to some people.
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
I'm not going to disagree that it is that, but humans find narrative in everything, especially things that have any sort of tension and arc, so, I don't see existence as game and potential for narrative experience as competing ideas.
I agree that they're not (necessarily) competing ideas, but if humans will find a narrative anyway, then there's merit in the idea of giving the "game" aspect primacy and trusting that the people playing it will turn things into a narrative on their own (likely after the fact):

 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Reputation is such a personal and individual thing that I don't know that hard mechanics are the best way to model it, but at my tables that certainly wouldn't be an impediment to including the fallout of positive or negative reputation as an interesting factor of fiction. Failing the request of a royal seems like it would be important enough to fundamentally alter the status quo. It wouldn't be engaging gameplay to make it entirely beyond their abilities to change if they so desired, and admittedly, I struggle to think of any action any of my parties would be likely to take that would be unforgivable to that level, so I would hopefully avoid the worst of what you suggest there.
So which is it? Moving on & choosing to abandon the negative problematic reputation would be a big deal or it would be a total non-issue because there's no good way to model it?
 

Xamnam

Loves Your Favorite Game
So which is it? Moving on & choosing to abandon the negative problematic reputation would be a big deal or it would be a total non-issue because there's no good way to model it?
Well those are two disconnected concerns, that depend on the table. Some tables, running away would say something important about the character's character. Others, a smart and logical response because they can outrun their problems. Still others, something the party would never do because they want to deal with and rectify this problem.

For the second half, though, just because there isn't a model/system I've found than handles this complex reality in a satisfying way doesn't mean I'm going to turn down the myriad opportunities that come from each of those responses. The consequences of their actions inform what happens to them and the world around them, so I'll play out the truth of that. I, personally, don't think mechanics are needed for it to be an engaging and interesting component of our game.
 

Xamnam

Loves Your Favorite Game
I agree that they're not (necessarily) competing ideas, but if humans will find a narrative anyway, then there's merit in the idea of giving the "game" aspect primacy and trusting that the people playing it will turn things into a narrative on their own (likely after the fact):

Yeah, I can see that argument, it makes sense. I think my only pushback would be that not all aspects of "game" play are equally exciting to all tables, or even just how we'll define games differently. One of my favorite games of all time has no fail state whatsoever, and I don't think that hurts its identity as game.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
My question, then, is other than death what fail states are left in the game that actually long-term negatively affect the mechanics of a character?

Permanent stat loss - almost gone (is Feeblemind still a thing?).
Level drain - gone.
Limb loss and-or permanent scarring/wounds - gone.
Destruction of magic items (which affects a characters effective power level) - gone.

That don't leave much of a spectrum. :)
Perfect. And that's the way it shall be.

Why do we need to do mechanical negative effects long term? To affect the players? Why? It's not necessary; it's like those hokey scenes in movies where the killer turns to the camera to pretend they're going to kill the audience next.

The best case scenario is that it's another annoyance. At worst, it's actually upsetting and that's a fail state for a DM.
 

Celebrim

Legend
Why do we need to do mechanical negative effects long term?

I mean because first of all in real life there are mechanical negative effects and in stories there are actual defeats that can happen that have real consequences and cause characters to suffer real hardships.

And if my stories at the gaming table can't do that, then I don't feel like they are very satisfying. I don't want to play in a game where there are never any meaningful long-term consequences to either overcome or represent some sort of failure state. What exactly would I be playing for at that point? Where is my payoff? For that matter, as a GM, one of the most satisfying moments is the "Aha" when your players solve your puzzle, or your mystery, or pull off the clutch tactical move that saves another PC or the party from loss and everyone cheers because something was at stake. That's the vicarious thrill that I love as a GM. I hate going, "Maybe I should knock 30 hit points off this monster just to make sure the game doesn't derail here?" or "Hmm... the players are stuck, how can I have an NPC get them back on track without it feeling like I'm solving my own mystery."

Why would I play a game where I'm basically guaranteed to never suffer a meaningful loss? Why would I role play a character that has such small stakes in the story that they can never lose anything that is meaningful?

What you seem to be saying here is that if your player interest is self-centered and your player interest is entirely on investing your ego in the character, that the game ought to inherently validate that. Like sure, maybe if you and the character you animated really cared what happened to an NPC or what NPCs thought about you, then there might still be something at stake in such a game, but if you don't then you're staking nothing. And if you staking nothing then you are demanding a railroad from the DM that takes you straight to validation land with no detours.

There is more than one way to take away player agency. If the game rules say, "Go straight to victory, do not pass failure", then well how is that any different than pure illusionism where the DM always puts on the padded gloves? Is the only difference who is engaged in the illusion? Is the only difference the player trust in whether he will always get his validation?

Pardon me, but go play a single player game and use cheats. Or go play a multiplayer game with cheats for that matter. That will deliver the experience you want and I won't have to be involved.

It's a lot harder to add consequences to a game that is lacking them than it is to remove them from a game that has them. You don't want challenge as part of your aesthetic of play, then fine. Why deny it to the rest of us?
 

nevin

Hero
My question, then, is other than death what fail states are left in the game that actually long-term negatively affect the mechanics of a character?

Permanent stat loss - almost gone (is Feeblemind still a thing?).
Level drain - gone.
Limb loss and-or permanent scarring/wounds - gone.
Destruction of magic items (which affects a characters effective power level) - gone.

That don't leave much of a spectrum. :)
lol flashbacks to a monk hopping faster than the party for 4 sessions till they found a cleric that could regenerate.
 

nevin

Hero
Perfect. And that's the way it shall be.

Why do we need to do mechanical negative effects long term? To affect the players? Why? It's not necessary; it's like those hokey scenes in movies where the killer turns to the camera to pretend they're going to kill the audience next.

The best case scenario is that it's another annoyance. At worst, it's actually upsetting and that's a fail state for a DM.
i'd argue that consequences should equal the actions. So if the idiot fighter who's been warned runs up and starts beating on the Lich without some sort of magical protection and loses a few levels permanently, suffers a just and proper consequence. Some actions deserve permanent consequences and some don't.

Though nothings really permanant in a DND game unless the DM wants it to be. Level drain... can be fixed, loss of stats can be fixed, limb loss can be fixed, magic items can be replaced. and even death can be undone. But good games need characters to worry about consequences, if there aren't any significant ones on the table there's no fear, thus no reason to prepare to run, to ask for help. Makes for boring games unless you just run Murder Hobo games and that's what your group wants.
 


Xamnam

Loves Your Favorite Game
And if my stories at the gaming table can't do that, then I don't feel like they are very satisfying. I don't want to play in a game where there are never any meaningful long-term consequences to either overcome or represent some sort of failure state.

Why would I play a game where I'm basically guaranteed to never suffer a meaningful loss? Why would I role play a character that has such small stakes in the story that they can never lose anything that is meaningful?
Why do you leap from I personally want hardship driven from mechanics (Great! Go wild!) to There can be no meaningful loss/consequences if it's not mechanically enforced (Lots of people in this thread disagree with that.) and from there to People who play differently than me are ruining the hobby?

And if you staking nothing then you are demanding a railroad from the DM that takes you straight to validation land with no detours.
I strongly disagree that your conclusion inherently follows from that premise.
 

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
i think something that isn't fun is investing in abilities that have overly limited use, such as magic initiate(it doesn't even say you can cast your 1st level spell if you have your own spell slots), metamagic adept(you get 2 points, some metamagic already cost 2 mm points, one requires 3 so you can't even pick that one) and martial adept(learn 2 maneuvers, with one superiority die to use between them), if i want to invest an entire feat into having an ability i kinda want to be able to use that with a little bit more frequency than 1/LR, i'm glad that PB/LR is becoming more the standard.
 
Last edited:

nevin

Hero
i think something that isn't fun is investing in abilities that have overly limited use, such as magic initiate(it doesn't even say you can cast your 1st level spell if you have your own spell slots), metamagic adept(you get 2 points, some metamagic already cost 2 mm points, one requires 3 so you can't even pick that one) and martial adept(2 maneuvers, one superiority die between them), if i want to invest an entire feat into having an ability i kinda want to be able to use that with a little bit more frequency than 1/LR, i'm glad that PB/LR is becoming more the standard.
I agree completely. Abilities should be hard to gain and then very consequential when you get them. leveling in modern DND is kind've like finishing the work day.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
I mean because first of all in real life there are mechanical negative effects and in stories there are actual defeats that can happen that have real consequences and cause characters to suffer real hardships.

And if my stories at the gaming table can't do that, then I don't feel like they are very satisfying. I don't want to play in a game where there are never any meaningful long-term consequences to either overcome or represent some sort of failure state. What exactly would I be playing for at that point? Where is my payoff? For that matter, as a GM, one of the most satisfying moments is the "Aha" when your players solve your puzzle, or your mystery, or pull off the clutch tactical move that saves another PC or the party from loss and everyone cheers because something was at stake. That's the vicarious thrill that I love as a GM. I hate going, "Maybe I should knock 30 hit points off this monster just to make sure the game doesn't derail here?" or "Hmm... the players are stuck, how can I have an NPC get them back on track without it feeling like I'm solving my own mystery."

Why would I play a game where I'm basically guaranteed to never suffer a meaningful loss? Why would I role play a character that has such small stakes in the story that they can never lose anything that is meaningful?

There's a lot that comes down to genre convention and the subgenre you want to play. Some fantasy stories incorporate chronic mental or physical consequences - like the more gritty Song of Ice and Fire. Others don't like a pulpy John Carter of Mars (considering even when beat up he never gets permanently maimed). A fantasy game could lean in either direction.

Other genres also cover a spectrum. Four-color superhero games generally have minimal physical or mental consequences for the protagonists. More gritty stories that come in via the bronze or iron age of comics sometimes do add or emphasize them. And so most superhero games leave open options to incorporate them either via disadvantages or complications but don't generally require them. By contrast, a game like Cyberpunk incorporates chronic consequences - many of which can be ameliorated by cyberware. And Paranoia, of course, is heavily focused on PC death - often in the most humorous way possible.

D&D is one of those games that has historically covered a spread of options in this regard. The early lack of critical hits limited some chronic consequences, but special magic options could inflict them (sword of sharpness, staff of withering, feeblemind, etc) and repair them (heal, regeneration, etc). Ideally, I'd say D&D should enable that range of options and leave it up to the individual table to determine how much to use or even lean into them.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top