D&D General "It's not fun when..."

[overgeeked]

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.

Not really. Finishing a work day takes effort. Leveling in 5E takes no effort.

 

[RuinousPowers]

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.

Only a handful of items/creatures caused limb loss, and some of them definitely remain in the same "there are no actual rules covering this" glory of editions past.

How is losing magic items not a thing now?

 

[Celebrim]

Welp, that's enough reason for me to not include it in a Fantasy.

You seem to be misusing the English language here. You capitalize the 'f' in fantasy, but then you use it apparently not to mean a genre of literature with fantastic elements, but rather of the product of creating things to one's fancy.

I don't think that fantasy is defined as the product of your fantasizing. Your fantasy can include no negative consequences if you like, but again, I see no reason to inflict that on a group.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

I'm basically on board with that. I don't see how someone can say "You all should have your game taken away because it interferes with my fantasies." Or, I guess I can see how they can say that, I'm just not going to accept it.

 

[Celebrim]

Why do you leap from I personally want hardship driven from mechanics (Great! Go wild!)

If there are no mechanics reinforcing it, then there is no hardship. If for example, there are no consequential mechanics for fatigue then a PC can always go on with any length of forced march. Yes, they could give some sop about how he's struggling through the pain and fatigue, but that would be at that point meaningless color, and more importantly it couldn't be enforced. The player could, absent fatigue mechanics, march on claiming his character is a fresh as a daisy after seven days march over 400 miles without sleep, food, or water.

So what do you mean by hardship not driven from mechanics? And how would that be meaningful if the player had no investment in it?

There can be no meaningful loss/consequences if it's not mechanically enforced (Lots of people in this thread disagree with that.)

Lots of people say a lot of things, but the fact that a lot of people say it doesn't mean it's true. There are no meaningful losses or consequences if there are no meaningful losses or consequences. I feel like that is so obvious I shouldn't have to say it, but here we are.

and from there to People who play differently than me are ruining the hobby?

People can and always have played differently than me. But hitherto, they never demanded that games conform to there preferences not only in the house rules but in the core rules. You know how hard it is to build consequences back into a game that removes them? Probably 75% or more of a game engine is defining consequences mechanically. You take that out and you've gutted your game. It's easy to ignore rules. If you want to ignore fatigue rules, you could. If you want to ignore lasting damage, it's easy to do that. You could probably manage that in a single house rule of a single sentense. But building back all the rules systems for exposure damage, or crippling injuries, or disease, or whatever is hard.

I strongly disagree that your conclusion inherently follows from that premise.

Ok.

This is simple. If there is no negative stake, then the story path never branches in a meaningful way. If the goal of the game is winning, but winning is the only outcome, then what's the point of playing? (Note, I'm not saying there wouldn't be a point in playing, I'm asking you to analyze what that goal is.) It's at this point that people invariably bring up story factors of some sort like, "You didn't get to rescue your sister." or "You didn't save the town." or "You didn't win the love of the handsome prince" or whatever. But my experience is that any player unwilling to risk his characters life utterly and completely doesn't care about the rest, because they are the sort of player who says, "If the stakes are my life or an NPC's, well then my life". And if they are that sort of player anyway, how does failing to save the sister bother them when they no longer have their character's life at stake? You can't suffer failure in a stake you have no investment in. When I told my player up front that if they went into the dream and they failed their dreaming skill check, they would be stuck in a permanent coma with no one who could get them out, and they did it anyway, then I knew they cared about the NPC. But if there was no chance of loss, then what is really at stake?

 

[Xamnam]

but that would be at that point meaningless color

And how would that be meaningful if the player had no investment in it?

There are no meaningful losses or consequences if there are no meaningful losses or consequences.

This is simple. If there is no negative stake, then the story path never branches in a meaningful way.

I think there is too much daylight between us on how we're using the word meaningful to have a productive conversation, because I disagree with all of these claims, especially given that you think they are so self-evident, so let's not go any farther down this rabbit hole.

 

[Xamnam]

I don't see how someone can say "You all should have your game taken away because it interferes with my fantasies."

What's the difference you see between that and this?

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?

People are asking for options, not demanding one playstyle.

 

[Celebrim]

I strongly disagree that your conclusion inherently follows from that premise.

I realize after thinking about it more there is a straighter path from here to there.

Why are we even rolling the dice? Why don't we just have the GM say "yes" to everything?

 

[Celebrim]

What's the difference you see between that and this?

I have explained it many times. Taking rules out is easier than adding them in.

It's much easier for a DM to ignore rules for exposure damage or fatigue than it is for a DM to invent them on the fly.

People are asking for options, not demanding one playstyle.

Sure. I'm fine with optional rules for encumbrance, dismemberment, trauma, insanity, terror, character death, injury, sickness, poison, fatigue and failure. Just don't demand that the game not have them or think that because you consider them optional it's a complete system if the game is missing them.

 

[Celebrim]

I think there is too much daylight between us on how we're using the word meaningful to have a productive conversation, because I disagree with all of these claims, especially given that you think they are so self-evident, so let's not go any farther down this rabbit hole.

Which is fine, but define "meaningful" in some way I can at least understand what you mean, even if I won't agree.

 

[Clint_L]

It's not fun when the story is subtractive rather than additive.

Here's what I mean: level drain. Gone from the game. GOOD! Classic example of a subtractive event. In terms of story it does little, it just instantly takes away player effort and asks the to redo what they've already done. There's little meaningful in terms of story. It's just super un-fun and feels punitive.

Critical injury, say a limb amputation: Additive! Fun! I add critical to my games using my own system. This is an interesting story and game event, causing the character's arc to take a turn, and the player to have to adjust how they handle the character in game.

I don't like stuff in the game that is basically just punitive and subtractive. I do want optional rules for things that raise the stakes in an additive way, though.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Just don't demand that the game not have them

No one is doing so, despite the wildly unfounded and usually insulting terms detractors use to describe us.

Instead, we are saying that, and I cannot stress this enough,

THE OPTION

of a game where irrevocable, permanent character death is not ENFORCED as a possible consequence for ALL tables, would be pretty nice.

Of course, this molehill (if it even rises to that lofty height) is then magnified into an actively-erupting Olympus Mons somehow crushing out all other possibilities, becoming some monstrous grotesquerie that hegemonically forbids literally anyone ever from dealing with death as a consequence. Even though literally not one person in this entire thread has ever, even once, even to the tiniest degree, remotely suggested such a thing.

It's not the people saying "eh, death doesn't really do it for me, I find other things much superior" that are being hegemonic and exclusionary here. Though, of course, it is the hegemonic and exclusionary who cry foul and rail against being excluded.

 

[Xamnam]

Which is fine, but define "meaningful" in some way I can at least understand what you mean, even if I won't agree.

To put it as simply as possible, a meaningful consequence is something that changes the status quo in a way affects play going forward. To me, that includes change that is entirely character motivated and driven, and does not inherently require a mechanism of enforcement. Getting kicked out of a faction. Having a town's opinion of you go from friendly to neutral, or neutral to reviled. Losing precious time. Your foes escape, or become stronger. Having to live with the fact that you permanently failed in something. Needing to change your personal goal or ideology because your previous one is no longer attainable. I've seen things like these taken to heart by players, and having a visible effect on future actions.

And like I said earlier, I don't exclude death, or other stark consequences. I'm not anti-failure. I'm not advocating for inevitable success. I just think that emotional and narrative consequences are salient enough to matter for certain tables. If people respond to those, it opens up the possibility space of what the game can be.

 

[Celebrim]

No one is doing so, despite the wildly unfounded and usually insulting terms detractors use to describe us.

Instead, we are saying that, and I cannot stress this enough,

THE OPTION

of a game where irrevocable, permanent character death is not ENFORCED as a possible consequence for ALL tables, would be pretty nice.

You've always had that option. I don't how that would be difficult if that is what you really wanted.

 

[tetrasodium]

To put it as simply as possible, a meaningful consequence is something that changes the status quo in a way affects play going forward. To me, that includes change that is entirely character motivated and driven, and does not inherently require a mechanism of enforcement. Getting kicked out of a faction. Having a town's opinion of you go from friendly to neutral, or neutral to reviled. Losing precious time. Your foes escape, or become stronger. Having to live with the fact that you permanently failed in something. Needing to change your personal goal or ideology because your previous one is no longer attainable. I've seen things like these taken to heart by players, and having a visible effect on future actions.

And like I said earlier, I don't exclude death, or other stark consequences. I'm not anti-failure. I'm not advocating for inevitable success. I just think that emotional and narrative consequences are salient enough to matter for certain tables. If people respond to those, it opens up the possibility space of what the game can be.

If the players just decide to move somewhere else though those are entirely nullified without a mechanism of enforcement of either the character & motivated" change or mechanical reasons why deciding to just get on a wagon/boat/etc & travel far is going to be a bitter pill. 5e is lacking both of those things & creates an unfun situation where the GM is forced to just deal with it.

 

[Xamnam]

If the players just decide to move somewhere else though those are entirely nullified without a mechanism of enforcement of either the character & motivated" change or mechanical reasons why deciding to just get on a wagon/boat/etc & travel far is going to be a bitter pill. 5e is lacking both of those things & creates an unfun situation where the GM is forced to just deal with it.

Hey, if that wouldn't matter at your table, you certainly know that better than me. All I can say is that if I were playing, and my party felt like they had to abandon their current stomping grounds, stall or fall backwards on any regional issues, lose relationships they had built, and otherwise give up on what they were currently working on, that would be a pain point. It wouldn't be "just" deciding to leave, with all the casual blitheness that word implies. It would take time to for us to consider which was the better option, giving up on this area or going through whatever it would take to fix the what we had messed up, each choice would come with unique consequences, and there's a good chance not everyone would agree, allowing for some real conversation about it.

 

[Umbran]

Not really. Finishing a work day takes effort. Leveling in 5E takes no effort.

Mod Note:
It is not fun when... there are folks at the table who, by their stated preferences, should really be engaging with some other game...

Look, it is fine to not like something. But, folks are starting to notice your unrelenting negativity and cynicism toward 5e. It is starting to come across more like threadcrapping than legitimate discussion, and that's a problem.

You might want to consider posting more about things you do like than the things you don't.

 

[Celebrim]

To put it as simply as possible, a meaningful consequence is something that changes the status quo in a way affects play going forward.

In other words, a change is meaningful if the player has a reason to be invested in it. Is that fair? For example, if my character's cloak randomly changes from red to green, it only matters if I as the player feel attached to that cloak or think my character is attacked to that cloak, and either I or my character don't like green. I think we would agree that although the change of the cloak from red to green changes the status quo, it doesn't meaningfully impact the way play goes forward if I don't care about the color for some reason.

To me, that includes change that is entirely character motivated and driven, and does not inherently require a mechanism of enforcement.

Agreed. For example, I offered up the sort of ideas you are now going to elaborate on already:

Getting kicked out of a faction. Having a town's opinion of you go from friendly to neutral, or neutral to reviled. Losing precious time. Your foes escape...

I to have seen these sorts of things taken to heart by players and have a visible effect on future actions. And that's great. It's always wonderful when the player is emotionally invested in the imaginary world that we've created together. I love it when players become emotionally attached to an NPC, because that changes there play in a meaningful way - just as you suggest here - and it validates that I've created a pretty cool NPC.

But the thing is, all of that is like the forced march through the wilderness when there are no mechanical consequences to fatigue, heat exposure, starvation, or thirst. Sure, you could have a player so invested in the experience that they roll play out the hardship all on their own, adjusting play to account for how they think their character would feel under the circumstances. You wouldn't even need mechanics for death. They could just say, "You know, after 5 days of this blistering heat without fresh water. I think my character would just lay down and die. They couldn't go on. Time to concede and get a new character." Why would we even need mechanics? Why would we even bother to roll the dice? Or conversely, in the same party you could have a different player say, "My character marches on tirelessly without rest for a whole month, neither drinking nor eating - kept alive by their will to live." Again, why would we even need mechanics? Why would we even bother to roll the dice? All that matters is player investment right?

There is nothing that forces a player to "take heart" in any of these things in a standard game of D&D. Kick out of the faction? Who cares? Town's opinion of you goes to reviled. Who cares? Foes escape? Who cares? When your only consequences are left down to the player's choice to invest in them, changes are a good portion of your table is just going to not care. What do you do when 3 of your 5 players only care about leveling up and improving their character? Salient enough to matter to certain tables is not the same thing as salient enough to matter.

The thing is that if you care deeply about whether you are in the faction whether or not you have some mechanical benefit for being in the faction, you probably don't mind that you do. Getting some small in game benefit for being part of the Knights of the Sacred Chalice doesn't harm your valuation of it's just really cool. If you really care about your reputation in the town because you value the opinion of this NPC, it probably doesn't harm you that having a positive reputation has some meaningful in game benefit.

But the reverse is not true. And because the reverse is not true, it's generally not people that "take heart" in all these story elements that are clamoring for mechanical consequences to be removed. There is a very strong correlation between people who don't want consequences and people who don't want to care. There is a very strong correlation between players who don't want consequences and players who don't want to ever not get there way. And in my experience, this gets dysfunctional in a hurry.

But OK, if this is your answer, that some tables are so invested in story elements like the approval of NPCs that this is meaningful and that's the core of the game, why don't make that game? Why have hit points? Let's just have a reputation system? Why have a combat system? Let's just have social approval as the metric that matters in the game. Why not make your relationships to other NPCs have meaningful mechanical effects on play? Plenty of games do that. If that's really the core of game play and not trudging through steaming jungles and fighting monsters, why don't we play a game that facilitates that instead of having an illusionary combat system that produces no negative outcomes. Let's just have a system where if you want to fight something you win, and dispense with the dice rolling under the principle that you shouldn't roll the dice if nothing is at stake? Or maybe we should have a system where you win combats only if you have the approval of important NPCs, and lose them otherwise? That would be interesting.

And I know you are hedging your position in this by saying, "And like I said earlier, I don't exclude death, or other stark consequences." But I can't help but see some self-contradiction in saying that the game should be primarily about the D&D experience of dungeon crawling, adventuring, fighting and so forth but that there is no need for consequences to that, because there are these tangential abstract experiences that a group could potentially become invested in. Yes, but it would seem like D&D is a strange game to focus on then.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You've always had that option. I don't how that would be difficult if that is what you really wanted.

It is nowhere near as easy as you think it is. Particularly when even the minor suggestion of "well, perhaps you could consider consequences other than death?" instantaneously gets you shouted down by the "everyone should have to face death" brigade. Further, they'll openly mock you for removing all possible merit and value, destroying any semblance of stakes or consequences, and generally just making the game Ruined Forever.

I've seen it time and again. Every single time, without fail. Even the most congenially-worded "hey, maybe there are other final consequences than death...? And maybe those can be...more fun? For some people, in some games?" will get you a response of shock and horror and hyperbolic pearl-clutching.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There is nothing that forces a player to "take heart" in any of these things in a standard game of D&D.

And there shouldn't be. If you were forced to care, it would be an onerous burden, a yoke placed upon you, fostering resentment and rebellion. Forcing people to care is the second most virulent poison for any game. The most virulent, of course, is crushing genuine, non-abusive, non-exploitative player enthusiasm. The former transforms apathy into hate. The latter transforms love into apathy.

And because the reverse is not true, it's generally not people that "take heart" in all these story elements that are clamoring for mechanical consequences to be removed. There is a very strong correlation between people who don't want consequences and people who don't want to care.

....no, there isn't. Not even slightly. I want to care very deeply, and I only want to play with others who want to care at least to some extent. I am absolutely bored to tears in any game where I don't have that care. It's the major reason why I've left more than one game in the past: not that it wasn't fun, not that the players weren't worthy to adventure beside, but because there was nothing I felt personally motivated to care about, and no prospect of such coming along. I have issues with this enforcement of mechanical consequences specifically because I care.

And, again, you are conflating "there are absolutely NO consequences" with "permanent, irrevocable death is not a consequence." Furthermore, despite your clear belief to the contrary, it is not true that that being a consequence guarantees an improved player investment into the game. I have had two players explicitly tell me that they are able to enjoy my game more, and engage more fully with its contents, because they don't feel the need to be constantly paranoid about getting to continue playing the story they're playing through. They recognize that that story will have ups and downs and is practically guaranteed to go in directions they don't expect (that is, in fact, a major draw for them), but they are comfortable enough to actually participate and invest because they know their investment won't be wasted. If they had that specter of death hanging over them, even at arm's length, it would poison their joy, turning every experience from one of excitement and action into one of dread and expected disappointment.

Why have hit points? Let's just have a reputation system? Why have a combat system?

Because combat that does not result in permanent, irrevocable death is still interesting, in the same way that, for example, puzzle games remain interesting even though you don't lose the ability to keep playing puzzles if you fail to complete a particular puzzle.