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

[overgeeked]

Maybe not in your game. Some people want the game to have real stakes.

Life or death for the characters, not life or death for the players.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Found the answer to the thread.

Not the dialogue, the attitude that fostered writing it.

People keep asking me why I don't "trust" DMs, why I have such a dim view of "mother may I" mechanics and stuff that depends on an unquenchable wellspring of DM goodwill and benevolence.

@jasper 's post, right there. That's why. As you say: the attitude that inspired that kind of writing is the attitude I dislike so much. And it is accepted completely uncritically--even lauded--by actual posters here and now.

So, @overgeeked, why do you distrust players so much? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If players are supposed to recognize and avoid crappy behavior from DMs, why aren't DMs supposed to recognize and avoid crappy behavior from players? As so many here are so fond of emphasizing, the DM is the one with all the cards. The DM is the one with the "absolute power."

 

[iserith]

Probably not because the chase mechanics in the DMG are rubbish. Not that anyone knows that since no one reads the DMG (except for me).

I think they are okay. They work. They're not great. But they are better than the alternative of "PCs can never escape because speed." So that's good enough in my view.

In most of my games, I write a variation on them, making them more interesting and complex if chases are more in the theme I'm going for or simple with fast resolution if it's not.

 

[pukunui]

The issue was really the DM expecting the game to proceed in a specific direction then giving the players freedom to decide on something in the opposite direction.

I've made that mistake a few times myself as a DM. I remember once planning a special Halloween-themed, zombie-filled space station for my Star Wars Saga Edition game. I set it up so the PCs' stolen ship suffered a hyperdrive problem, requiring them to scavenge for parts at the nearby abandoned station. My intention was that the PCs would have to fight their way across the station from the landing bay to the storage area, but my players had other ideas. They decided to don space suits and go around the outside. I had to hastily adapt the scenario and ended up contriving some reason why they had to go back through the interior of the space station instead of back along the outside. I've deeply regretted handling the scenario that way ever since. (If I could go back and do it again, I would put the zombies on the city streets between the PCs' starting point and the shipyard where they stole the ship instead of locking the whole thing away in a space station.)

I think they are okay. They work. They're not great. But they are better than the alternative of "PCs can never escape because speed." So that's good enough in my view.

In most of my games, I write a variation on them, making them more interesting and complex if chases are more in the theme I'm going for or simple with fast resolution if it's not.

Every time I've tried to use them, they haven't worked well. I've yet to find a chase mechanic that does work well.

The closest I've come is the alternative chase mechanics found in DDEX2-10 Cloaks and Shadows. I adapted that mechanic to good effect in a previous campaign where the PCs gave chase to a ram with a golden fleece.

 

[Oofta]

Life or death for the characters, not life or death for the players.

Maybe not in your game.

 

[Charlaquin]

Some of my best D&D memories involve critical hits against my characters and having them die. In Rise of the Runelords, my rogue got a hook to the face from a hillbilly ogre and died in the first round. It's been about 15 years since that happened and my group still gets a good laugh out of it.

I mean, fun is subjective. But to a lot of people, that would definitely not have been what they would call fun. I know, I’ve spent a lot of time arguing with people who were very strongly of the opinion that character death due to critical hit is not fun for them.

 

[pukunui]

I mean, fun is subjective. But to a lot of people, that would definitely not have been what they would call fun. I know, I’ve spent a lot of time arguing with people who were very strongly of the opinion that character death due to critical hit is not fun for them.

When I ran the 5e version of The Sunless Citadel from Tales from the Yawning Portal, the 1st level cleric went down into the cleft first. I rolled Stealth for the giant rats hiding at the bottom. They beat the cleric's passive Perception, so they got advantage on their attack rolls. One of them got a natural 20. Boom. Insta-kill with the very first dice rolls of the campaign.

The player just looked at me, stunned, and said, "Now what?"

As I recall, I just ruled that the PC was down but not instantly dead, giving the other PCs a chance to kill the rats and save the cleric.

 

[Scribe]

Maybe not in your game. Some people want the game to have real stakes.

I mean its a shame some people act that way. I've seen it in person, and plenty in online games via chat or whatever, but seriously my fellow nerds, we do not need to be unhinged.

 

[overgeeked]

I mean its a shame some people act that way. I've seen it in person, and plenty in online games via chat or whatever, but seriously my fellow nerds, we do not need to be unhinged.

Right? If only. It's a fictional construct you've poured way too much emotion into. Calm down and roll another character. I mean, if you're that emotionally attached to a fictional character, maybe try not writing fan fiction (backstory) about them before the game even starts. You'll be less inclined to be attached and things will go smoother when the character inevitably dies.

 

[Lanefan]

People keep asking me why I don't "trust" DMs, why I have such a dim view of "mother may I" mechanics and stuff that depends on an unquenchable wellspring of DM goodwill and benevolence.

@jasper 's post, right there. That's why. As you say: the attitude that inspired that kind of writing is the attitude I dislike so much. And it is accepted completely uncritically--even lauded--by actual posters here and now.

Yet @jasper is absolutely right. All that post is pointing out is that players generally like to win and generally don't like to lose.

So, @overgeeked, why do you distrust players so much? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If players are supposed to recognize and avoid crappy behavior from DMs, why aren't DMs supposed to recognize and avoid crappy behavior from players? As so many here are so fond of emphasizing, the DM is the one with all the cards. The DM is the one with the "absolute power."

It's not a question of distrusting players. Quite the opposite, in fact: I have complete trust that players will generally look out for their own interests first, and further I think they are right to do so. Making the game easier to "win" is, obviously, in their own interests, so of course they're in general going to advocate for that.

It's the job of the game designers to push back against this advocacy and to maintain some challenge in the game. Over the WotC years they've shown a consistent reluctance to do this, instead making it all steadily less challenging with each passing edition/revision; meaning it's now up to the individual DM to either push back or - better - find a different system or edition that retains some real challenge.

 

[Lanefan]

When I ran the 5e version of The Sunless Citadel from Tales from the Yawning Portal, the 1st level cleric went down into the cleft first. I rolled Stealth for the giant rats hiding at the bottom. They beat the cleric's passive Perception, so they got advantage on their attack rolls. One of them got a natural 20. Boom. Insta-kill with the very first dice rolls of the campaign.

The player just looked at me, stunned, and said, "Now what?"

To which the answer is "If you roll up a replacement quickly enough it can catch up to the party at the top of the shaft."

 

[Oofta]

I mean, fun is subjective. But to a lot of people, that would definitely not have been what they would call fun. I know, I’ve spent a lot of time arguing with people who were very strongly of the opinion that character death due to critical hit is not fun for them.

The first 5E game I played (I had DMed but not played) my PC died because of a critical hit. But critical hits are nothing compared to what they used to be. I had an almost-TPK in one of the first 3.0 campaigns I ran because orcs multiplied their damage by 4 if they crit and my dice were hot. Of course one of the PCs was a suicidal kleptomaniac who didn't run when they had a chance as well and the other PCs tried to save them.

To cut to the chase - the players just accepted that they died and we moved on. If death is on the table (which it always will be for me) then sometimes the dice are just not your friend. I've never had people complain about it as long as they knew it wasn't a death-free game.

 

[Scribe]

Right? If only. It's a fictional construct you've poured way too much emotion into. Calm down and roll another character. I mean, if you're that emotionally attached to a fictional character, maybe try not writing fan fiction (backstory) about them before the game even starts. You'll be less inclined to be attached and things will go smoother when the character inevitably dies.

Yeah, I have 'archetypes' I'm attached to. I play them all the time, or create NPC's for them, or play them in CRPGs, or whatever. I know what I like, I know why, blah blah blah.

Individuals within those archetype, are going to likely die in how I like games to be run. I'm of the "if its worth doing it doesnt have to be easy" camp.

The whole expectation that players will win, automatically trivializes and renders the game, less than it could be.

People need to fail a whole lot more in life, before they get out into the real world and start failing for real, and games are part of that learning process.

 

[jasper]

People keep asking me why I don't "trust" DMs, why I have such a dim view of "mother may I" mechanics and stuff that depends on an unquenchable wellspring of DM goodwill and benevolence.

@jasper 's post, right there. That's why. As you say: the attitude that inspired that kind of writing is the attitude I dislike so much. And it is accepted completely uncritically--even lauded--by actual posters here and now.

.....er."

Did you not like what I said or how I said it?

 

[Charlaquin]

When I ran the 5e version of The Sunless Citadel from Tales from the Yawning Portal, the 1st level cleric went down into the cleft first. I rolled Stealth for the giant rats hiding at the bottom. They beat the cleric's passive Perception, so they got advantage on their attack rolls. One of them got a natural 20. Boom. Insta-kill with the very first dice rolls of the campaign.

The player just looked at me, stunned, and said, "Now what?"

As I recall, I just ruled that the PC was down but not instantly dead, giving the other PCs a chance to kill the rats and save the cleric.

I had something similar happen with the specter in Death House running Curse of Strahd.

Personally, I think this is more of a problem with the fragility of 1st level characters than with critical hits. But my broader point still stands: sometimes things that are not fun in the moment they happen, actually make the game more fun overall.

 

[billd91]

I mean, fun is subjective. But to a lot of people, that would definitely not have been what they would call fun. I know, I’ve spent a lot of time arguing with people who were very strongly of the opinion that character death due to critical hit is not fun for them.

Do they have fun if they cause the death of their opponents by critical hits? Or loss of turns through a hold person spell or banishment? If so, this is part of one of the issues being discussed here. How much lack of reciprocity of risk between PCs and their opposition is necessary to keep unfun things from happening?

And if you ameliorate one source of unfunness, does what's unfun just become whatever replaces it? That's probably one of the big stories of D&D's development over the years. No matter how much editions soften the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, complaints of unfunness for negative consequences persist.

This is whole debate is one of the reasons that Critical Role is an example of not just good game mastering, good drama, good characterization of PCs, whatever else usually comes up. It's also an example of being good sports. When Bells Hells were getting the total schnitzel kicked out of them (leading to 3 deaths), players made sure to compliment Matt for such a good, intense game. Matt Mercer has fantastic players, not just because they get into character, but because they understand that the game sometimes hits them with negative consequences and they're willing to lean into them to see where they go.

 

[Charlaquin]

The first 5E game I played (I had DMed but not played) my PC died because of a critical hit. But critical hits are nothing compared to what they used to be. I had an almost-TPK in one of the first 3.0 campaigns I ran because orcs multiplied their damage by 4 if they crit and my dice were hot. Of course one of the PCs was a suicidal kleptomaniac who didn't run when they had a chance as well and the other PCs tried to save them.

To cut to the chase - the players just accepted that they died and we moved on. If death is on the table (which it always will be for me) then sometimes the dice are just not your friend. I've never had people complain about it as long as they knew it wasn't a death-free game.

I’m also of the opinion that character death is one of those things that may not be fun when it happens, but makes the game more fun for being a possibility. But that’s a contentious topic; a lot of people definitely think character death makes the game less fun overall. And they’re not wrong, like I said, fun is subjective. But I do think most of us can think of some mechanic that we don’t find fun per se but do find the game more fun on the whole for its inclusion.

 

[Scribe]

But that’s a contentious topic; a lot of people definitely think character death makes the game less fun overall. And they’re not wrong, like I said, fun is subjective. But I do think most of us can think of some mechanic that we don’t find fun per se but do find the game more fun on the whole for its inclusion.

People thinking death makes the game less fun overall, are absolutely wrong.

 

[Charlaquin]

Do they have fun if they cause the death of their opponents by critical hits? Or loss of turns through a hold person spell or banishment? If so, this is part of one of the issues being discussed here. How much lack of reciprocity of risk between PCs and their opposition is necessary to keep unfun things from happening?

I think you’ve misunderstood my point. I’m saying that “keep unfun things from happening” is not de facto a desirable goal. Sometimes the possibility of unfun things happening makes the game more fun.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Right? If only. It's a fictional construct you've poured way too much emotion into. Calm down and roll another character. I mean, if you're that emotionally attached to a fictional character, maybe try not writing fan fiction (backstory) about them before the game even starts. You'll be less inclined to be attached and things will go smoother when the character inevitably dies.

It's not fun when... people tell you to stop roleplaying in this roleplaying game.