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
Epic
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
Epic
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.
 

Remove ads

Top