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

[Xamnam]

Most players.

I have expressed before, and will continue to express how much I disagree with this characterization. I have no issue with saying some, or even the majority of players you specifically have played with.

 

[Xamnam]

I guess that's my issue. It's a game first.

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.

 

[Reynard]

Yes, but that's a story (Batman) not a game.

Yes, you can tell a story, and sure you can live with failure as a character, but if death isn't on the table, some other fail state needs to exist or you just...what? You walk up to the BBEG and try again?

What is gained, by removal of loss of the character, outside of the obvious "I keep my character."

Ostensibly the whole situation has changed. If the campaign has a "no TPKs" rule meaning that the characters somehow survive, however debilitated, then the GM gets some time to adjust the circumstances of play. Maybe it is a week, maybe a month. In either case, the state of the world has changed and the campaign picks up from there.

I'm not a huge fan of "no death" for PCs but it isn't a game ender. The situation changes. Keep playing. Nothing is predetermined. Anything can happen.

 

[overgeeked]

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.

They are when the game's mechanics and the player's agency force unsatisfying story beats into the narrative.

 

[Scribe]

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'm not against both, but if im a player, and by rights I either play poorly, roll poorly, or make poor choices, I'd feel patronized if I didn't die.

 

[Xamnam]

I'm not against both, but if im a player, and by rights I either play poorly, roll poorly, or make poor choices, I'd feel patronized if I didn't die.

Hey, fair enough for you! I certainly don't have death off the table for my games. I'm just very much of a fan of using the whole spectrum of potential failure, even when death may be an "obvious" choice.

 

[M_Natas]

Theres a huge difference between feeling entitled to a one spell/hit win and feeling useless because your abilities are nullified completly.

Simple fix for that. Your best spell huts BBEGI screams in rage, Dm writes down damage which is 0 and combat continues. for most spells thus fixes the feeling useless. how is the wizard going to know the Lightning bolt only tickled and the BBEGI hates being ticked?

Because that would mean sending the players the wrong impression (that Lightning is effectively while it is not). That would lead to the players continuing to use the wrong spells.

 

[Lanefan]

Is anyone advocating for a complete lack of fail states?

For mechanical fail states it sometimes seems so, yes.

The ability to incorporate extreme, dire failure into the narrative in a cohesive, contiguous way, like most narratives we engage with.

Which only works if the players care about the narrative enough (and-or are playing the right type of characters) to take failures to heart...which they don't always. Characters always have the option to, in the fiction, just walk away from a failed narrative: "Crap. Our so-called rescue attempt just got the prince killed dead, and the Queen's gonna be some kind of hacked off with us when she finds out. Can we still make it to that ship going to Spieadeia before it sails, and before Her Majesty's finest start looking for us?"

Yes this might bend the DM's plans out of shape, but so be it.

IME narrative losses don't affect characters/players nearly as much, or to the same degree of consistency, as mechanical losses.

 

[Xamnam]

Which only works if the players care about the narrative enough (and-or are playing the right type of characters) to take failures to heart...which they don't always. Characters always have the option to, in the fiction, just walk away from a failed narrative: "Crap. Our so-called rescue attempt just got the prince killed dead, and the Queen's gonna be some kind of hacked off with us when she finds out. Can we still make it to that ship going to Spieadeia before it sails, and before Her Majesty's finest start looking for us?"

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.

 

[Lanefan]

Hey, fair enough for you! I certainly don't have death off the table for my games. I'm just very much of a fan of using the whole spectrum of potential failure, even when death may be an "obvious" choice.

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.