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

[mamba]

For me it would need 1) agreement of the group and 2) no strong impact on the balance to change the rule.

Legendary resistances would stay because of 2) or each monster with them gets 40 or 50 or so more HP for each LR it has when LRs are being removed to compensate for this.

 

[Reynard]

I wondered if counterspell was not fun. A player of a wizard only has one thing, casting spells, and counterspell fellt to me like the GM saying "nooo fun for you this turn!".

I asked my players and they were fine. Counterspell is part of the game and they were OK with enemies using it on their characters. After all, they got to use it as well. If nothing else, you still force the enemy caster to use a spell slot, so that's not a completely wasted turn.

The ones that all of us agreed was not fun was forcecage and banish.

Counterspell comes with a real cost, so I think it is a decent design even if it can feel "unfun" in the moment. A caster without a reaction can't use Shield, just by way of example.

 

[Deset Gled]

It's not fun when a battle's outcome has been decided, but combat rounds drag out for an inordinate period of time. It's not fun when a battle's outcome is determined within (or before) the first round.

Is not fun when too many real world problems cross into the game. It's not fun when the game has no connection to reality.

It's not fun when a game gets bogged down in tedious details. It's not fun when the game rules become too abstract and reductive.

 

[CleverNickName]

Honestly, the only time I'm not having fun is when someone (usually the same person) is arguing with the DM about the rules. It's usually something really minor, like how many squares they can move or whether or not they get to add +1 to a roll, but they will. not. let. it. go. until everyone at the table is angry.

It doesn't happen as often nowadays as it did back in 3.5E/Pathfinder, but it happens at least once every 2-3 gaming sessions.

 

[iserith]

A player in my game the other night hit one time in 3 hours of play, and not for lack of combat challenges. I don't think he succeeded on any ability checks either. Even though the game itself was fun and produced a memorable story, part of that story was that character wasn't very effective. No doubt it would have been more fun to have contributed more to the group's progress.

I think this is somewhat on par with being stunned or paralyzed - you're just not contributing much compared to other characters in that moment. Damage or condition immunities (a category in which legendary resistance kind of falls) are also not fun to find out about after wasting a spell or other resources on it. You might as well have been stunned or paralyzed that turn for as much as it contributed (outside of establishing the immunity as fact), plus you conserve the resource!

As far as solutions to the above, I think moving combat along quickly to get more turns in the smallest amount of time helps (in hopes things turn around), as does "progress combined with a setback" on a failed ability check so that things move forward. Damage and condition immunities can be telegraphed up front so that the players know something like legendary resistance is a thing they will face, and they can then strategize on how to get around it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

you kind of have to listen very carefully, or you will miss what the players are actually asking for

THIS.

The big issue when people are somewhat resistant (putting it politely) to the idea that "fun" is a genuine issue that matters is that they tend to not what the players are actually saying, or even what other DMs are saying, in their rush to be sure to say that "X element isn't really necessary to fun".

So some things I'd mention, and this will include stuff already mentioned:

1) Spells/abilities simply bouncing off things for no particular reason.

It doesn't matter if it's balanced, or it's reasonable, it's not fun for spells to simply have no effect when the enemy isn't doing anything special to stop them (like emanating a shield or barrier).

Saving throws were a mistake. That's what I'm saying. They're much better suited to the wargames they came from than RPGs.

It's notable that few other games use all-or-nothing type effects like this, except those derived from D&D.

It's also notable that videogame CRPGs and the like rarely use anything resembling saves - I can't think of a single example in fact (outside of licenced or directly D&D-inspired games). Because they're not fun, however balanced!

Counterspell is sort of a subset of this. It's absolutely no fun for anyone except if a player manages to GOTCHA an enemy caster, but even then pfffft. It literally doesn't matter if it's a "good design decision" in your opinion, because we're listing stuff that's unfun, and it goes on the list. If you try and argue every point, there's not much point on the spot, making the list, is there?

2) PCs being incapacitated for extended periods - @Reynard mentions this, and it's just bad. It's no fun for anyone involved. Not even the DM in most cases.

What's the answer? Asymmetrical design, essentially. Don't make monsters who can incapacitate PCs for more than round unless there's counter-play (like cutting off the tentacles that restrain them or the like).

3) Situations that force everyone to sort of stand around for an extended period whilst one PC "does their thing".

This is more of a Shadowrun issue or the like, but in D&D it can come up. There are ways to handle it, particularly with a strong descriptive DM, and letting the rest of the group know what's going on where it's less awful, but it can still be pretty tedious.

It's not fun when a battle's outcome has been decided, but combat rounds drag out for an inordinate period of time. It's not fun when a battle's outcome is determined within (or before) the first round.

Is not fun when too many real world problems cross into the game. It's not fun when the game has no connection to reality.

It's not fun when a game gets bogged down in tedious details. It's not fun when the game rules become too abstract and reductive.

All of this!

The combat one is particularly valid - a lot of otherwise-decent D&D DMs drag combats that are obviously "over" on for extra rounds, because technically that will use a few more resources. But it's often extremely unrealistic (cowardly bandits fighting to the very last man etc.), and extremely boring/unfun.

Real-world problems too, particularly the "everyone is wildly racist towards X PC" can get incredibly old incredibly fast.

4) All the NPCs are hostile wankers.

This is a classic "I saw a DM do it like this so I thought it was a good idea" piece of idiocy that even infects some professionals or semi-professionals, and videogame designers at the lower end of the design skill scale.

The PCs visit a town and just everyone there is nasty to them. Or like everyone in the entire world is. I cannot believe how many DMs I've seen try to operate like this. It's a huge mistake and very damaging to fun levels unless the PCs are total murderhobos and the DM is 100% okay with that.

5) Combats that last more than, like, 30-60 minutes at the outside.

Talking 5E here. If combat is taking that long, unless it's some epic final fight, I guarantee fun levels are dropping extremely rapidly.

 

[Reynard]

It's not fun when a battle's outcome has been decided, but combat rounds drag out for an inordinate period of time. It's not fun when a battle's outcome is determined within (or before) the first round.

I have never seen a battle outcome determined before the first round, but I suppose it is possible.

But more generally, what is a good design solution to the "inevitable outcome" -- especially if it is negative on the players' side? Note that i said design solution, not advice solution. How can the system be built to identify "slogs" and their outcomes and help resolve them while not just ignoring potential costs?

 

[TheHand]

I think a lot of "...not Fun" experiences I've had can be covered by anything that either causes an "Instant Win!" or an arbitrary "You Lose!". I think 5e has already done away with a lot of the 'save or die' and instant-death trap mechanics of the "You Lose" effect, but it still has some of the former.

Spells like "Hold Person" can be unfun for both DM and player, particular since it can 'one-shot' a character, or leave a PC unable to do anything but twiddle their thumbs. I don't think anyone enjoys not being able to play the actual game. I'd rather see these kinds of spells have a more gradual effect, maybe apply a cumulative slow/debuff effect until total paralysis occurs, but also allow for some effect even if your enemy makes it's save (more akin to the save for half damage).

 

[pukunui]

Shutting down a PC for an extended period can definitely feel unfun. From a design perspective I think the Recharge and Concentration mechanics can be leveraged to avoid this (unless a PC is over powered, in which case they deserve it).

Yes, those do help mitigate the issue, as does the "save every turn" mechanic.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A player in my game the other night hit one time in 3 hours of play, and not for lack of combat challenges. I don't think he succeeded on any ability checks either. Even though the game itself was fun and produced a memorable story, part of that story was that character wasn't very effective. No doubt it would have been more fun to have contributed more to the group's progress.

Yup.

And this USUALLY only happens to non-casters too, because casters usually have some "fiat"-type spells that don't require a roll. It can happen to casters if their spells do involve rolls though.

It's almost unheard of outside of d20-based games, note, because virtually every other game has a tighter RNG system and most systems also give more fiat-based or at least not dice-dependent abilities out.