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

[Xamnam]

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):

Picaro and the "Story" of D&D

I mentioned previously that I believe Dungeons & Dragons has a "story," by which I mean a thematic core. I probably never should have used ...

grognardia.blogspot.com

Yeah, I can see that argument, it makes sense. I think my only pushback would be that not all aspects of "game" play are equally exciting to all tables, or even just how we'll define games differently. One of my favorite games of all time has no fail state whatsoever, and I don't think that hurts its identity as game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

Perfect. And that's the way it shall be.

Why do we need to do mechanical negative effects long term? To affect the players? Why? It's not necessary; it's like those hokey scenes in movies where the killer turns to the camera to pretend they're going to kill the audience next.

The best case scenario is that it's another annoyance. At worst, it's actually upsetting and that's a fail state for a DM.

 

[Celebrim]

Why do we need to do mechanical negative effects long term?

I mean because first of all in real life there are mechanical negative effects and in stories there are actual defeats that can happen that have real consequences and cause characters to suffer real hardships.

And if my stories at the gaming table can't do that, then I don't feel like they are very satisfying. I don't want to play in a game where there are never any meaningful long-term consequences to either overcome or represent some sort of failure state. What exactly would I be playing for at that point? Where is my payoff? For that matter, as a GM, one of the most satisfying moments is the "Aha" when your players solve your puzzle, or your mystery, or pull off the clutch tactical move that saves another PC or the party from loss and everyone cheers because something was at stake. That's the vicarious thrill that I love as a GM. I hate going, "Maybe I should knock 30 hit points off this monster just to make sure the game doesn't derail here?" or "Hmm... the players are stuck, how can I have an NPC get them back on track without it feeling like I'm solving my own mystery."

Why would I play a game where I'm basically guaranteed to never suffer a meaningful loss? Why would I role play a character that has such small stakes in the story that they can never lose anything that is meaningful?

What you seem to be saying here is that if your player interest is self-centered and your player interest is entirely on investing your ego in the character, that the game ought to inherently validate that. Like sure, maybe if you and the character you animated really cared what happened to an NPC or what NPCs thought about you, then there might still be something at stake in such a game, but if you don't then you're staking nothing. And if you staking nothing then you are demanding a railroad from the DM that takes you straight to validation land with no detours.

There is more than one way to take away player agency. If the game rules say, "Go straight to victory, do not pass failure", then well how is that any different than pure illusionism where the DM always puts on the padded gloves? Is the only difference who is engaged in the illusion? Is the only difference the player trust in whether he will always get his validation?

Pardon me, but go play a single player game and use cheats. Or go play a multiplayer game with cheats for that matter. That will deliver the experience you want and I won't have to be involved.

It's a lot harder to add consequences to a game that is lacking them than it is to remove them from a game that has them. You don't want challenge as part of your aesthetic of play, then fine. Why deny it to the rest of us?

 

[nevin]

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.

lol flashbacks to a monk hopping faster than the party for 4 sessions till they found a cleric that could regenerate.

 

[nevin]

Perfect. And that's the way it shall be.

Why do we need to do mechanical negative effects long term? To affect the players? Why? It's not necessary; it's like those hokey scenes in movies where the killer turns to the camera to pretend they're going to kill the audience next.

The best case scenario is that it's another annoyance. At worst, it's actually upsetting and that's a fail state for a DM.

i'd argue that consequences should equal the actions. So if the idiot fighter who's been warned runs up and starts beating on the Lich without some sort of magical protection and loses a few levels permanently, suffers a just and proper consequence. Some actions deserve permanent consequences and some don't.

Though nothings really permanant in a DND game unless the DM wants it to be. Level drain... can be fixed, loss of stats can be fixed, limb loss can be fixed, magic items can be replaced. and even death can be undone. But good games need characters to worry about consequences, if there aren't any significant ones on the table there's no fear, thus no reason to prepare to run, to ask for help. Makes for boring games unless you just run Murder Hobo games and that's what your group wants.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I mean because first of all in real life there are mechanical negative effects

Welp, that's enough reason for me to not include it in a Fantasy.

 

[Xamnam]

And if my stories at the gaming table can't do that, then I don't feel like they are very satisfying. I don't want to play in a game where there are never any meaningful long-term consequences to either overcome or represent some sort of failure state.

Why would I play a game where I'm basically guaranteed to never suffer a meaningful loss? Why would I role play a character that has such small stakes in the story that they can never lose anything that is meaningful?

Why do you leap from I personally want hardship driven from mechanics (Great! Go wild!) to There can be no meaningful loss/consequences if it's not mechanically enforced (Lots of people in this thread disagree with that.) and from there to People who play differently than me are ruining the hobby?

And if you staking nothing then you are demanding a railroad from the DM that takes you straight to validation land with no detours.

I strongly disagree that your conclusion inherently follows from that premise.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i think something that isn't fun is investing in abilities that have overly limited use, such as magic initiate(it doesn't even say you can cast your 1st level spell if you have your own spell slots), metamagic adept(you get 2 points, some metamagic already cost 2 mm points, one requires 3 so you can't even pick that one) and martial adept(learn 2 maneuvers, with one superiority die to use between them), if i want to invest an entire feat into having an ability i kinda want to be able to use that with a little bit more frequency than 1/LR, i'm glad that PB/LR is becoming more the standard.

 

[nevin]

i think something that isn't fun is investing in abilities that have overly limited use, such as magic initiate(it doesn't even say you can cast your 1st level spell if you have your own spell slots), metamagic adept(you get 2 points, some metamagic already cost 2 mm points, one requires 3 so you can't even pick that one) and martial adept(2 maneuvers, one superiority die between them), if i want to invest an entire feat into having an ability i kinda want to be able to use that with a little bit more frequency than 1/LR, i'm glad that PB/LR is becoming more the standard.

I agree completely. Abilities should be hard to gain and then very consequential when you get them. leveling in modern DND is kind've like finishing the work day.

 

[billd91]

I mean because first of all in real life there are mechanical negative effects and in stories there are actual defeats that can happen that have real consequences and cause characters to suffer real hardships.

And if my stories at the gaming table can't do that, then I don't feel like they are very satisfying. I don't want to play in a game where there are never any meaningful long-term consequences to either overcome or represent some sort of failure state. What exactly would I be playing for at that point? Where is my payoff? For that matter, as a GM, one of the most satisfying moments is the "Aha" when your players solve your puzzle, or your mystery, or pull off the clutch tactical move that saves another PC or the party from loss and everyone cheers because something was at stake. That's the vicarious thrill that I love as a GM. I hate going, "Maybe I should knock 30 hit points off this monster just to make sure the game doesn't derail here?" or "Hmm... the players are stuck, how can I have an NPC get them back on track without it feeling like I'm solving my own mystery."

Why would I play a game where I'm basically guaranteed to never suffer a meaningful loss? Why would I role play a character that has such small stakes in the story that they can never lose anything that is meaningful?

There's a lot that comes down to genre convention and the subgenre you want to play. Some fantasy stories incorporate chronic mental or physical consequences - like the more gritty Song of Ice and Fire. Others don't like a pulpy John Carter of Mars (considering even when beat up he never gets permanently maimed). A fantasy game could lean in either direction.

Other genres also cover a spectrum. Four-color superhero games generally have minimal physical or mental consequences for the protagonists. More gritty stories that come in via the bronze or iron age of comics sometimes do add or emphasize them. And so most superhero games leave open options to incorporate them either via disadvantages or complications but don't generally require them. By contrast, a game like Cyberpunk incorporates chronic consequences - many of which can be ameliorated by cyberware. And Paranoia, of course, is heavily focused on PC death - often in the most humorous way possible.

D&D is one of those games that has historically covered a spread of options in this regard. The early lack of critical hits limited some chronic consequences, but special magic options could inflict them (sword of sharpness, staff of withering, feeblemind, etc) and repair them (heal, regeneration, etc). Ideally, I'd say D&D should enable that range of options and leave it up to the individual table to determine how much to use or even lean into them.