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.