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

[Clint_L]

Which is IMO indicative of a subset of players who don't want to lose in any meaningful manner.

I am a bit familiar with this subset of players, and they are almost exclusively veterans who get really into min-maxing and always want to meta-game. I find it difficult to work with because I see the game so differently - I don't want to judge their fun, but it is really at odds with my fun.

Yeah, that's what not fun for me: arguing about rules and trying to "win" the game.

 

[Lanefan]

How is losing magic items not a thing now?

In 1e, if you failed a save vs area-of-effect damage (fireball, lightning, ice storm, etc.) everything you were wearing or carrying also then had to save vs the same effect; and it was a pretty safe bet that some of it would fail (esp. vs lightning, the hardest to save against).

In 3e this was neutered such that if your initial save was a natural 1 then one item had to save.

In 4e-5e even this is gone completely.

There were also some specific targeted effects (acid being the most common) that forced saves if an item was struck by it.

Rust Monsters might be the only item-killer left...if they're still around.

 

[Cadence]

In 1e, if you failed a save vs area-of-effect damage (fireball, lightning, ice storm, etc.) everything you were wearing or carrying also then had to save vs the same effect; and it was a pretty safe bet that some of it would fail (esp. vs lightning, the hardest to save against).

In 3e this was neutered such that if your initial save was a natural 1 then one item had to save.

In 4e-5e even this is gone completely.

Fire-mage pillagers attack the local library.

Librarians: "Quick, everyone pick up the books again! Need to make sure it's impossible for them to burn!"

 

[Lanefan]

I think there is too much daylight between us on how we're using the word meaningful to have a productive conversation,

For me, "meaningful" = "inflicting a lasting negative mechanical effect on the character, thus making it harder to play and-or less effective at what it does, until and unless that effect can be removed or overcome".

 

[Lanefan]

I have been doing nothing but advocating for varied consequences. My very first post in this thread was about the value of frustration and not getting what you want.

Excellent! We agree on this much, at least.

All I want is for those varied consequences to, at least much of the time, have some mechanical teeth behind them; because IME simple narrative consequences can be - and are - too easily blown off or ignored.

You can ignore the fact the Queen wants your head on a stake but you can't ignore the fact that you're down a level. See the difference?

 

[iserith]

Excellent! We agree on this much, at least.

All I want is for those varied consequences to, at least much of the time, have some mechanical teeth behind them; because IME simple narrative consequences can be - and are - too easily blown off or ignored.

You can ignore the fact the Queen wants your head on a stake but you can't ignore the fact that you're down a level. See the difference?

Somewhat harder to ignore the assassins the Queen sends after you or all the doors to safe long rests shut in your face or her political meddling preventing you from achieving a goal.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, I can obviously only truly speak for myself, but I'm not sure how I'm supposed to take that as someone who is advocating for these alternate failure results when it's not out of any sort of desire to avoid loss.

Sorry, wasn't thinking of you specifically when I wrote that.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Good 5E really empowered the DM so they can make their game as punishing or unpunishing as they want. That way everyone can play the game in the way that works best for them!

 

[overgeeked]

Good 5E really empowered the DM so they can make their game as punishing or unpunishing as they want. That way everyone can play the game in the way that works best for them!

Like a store raising the prices of everything by 30% so they can put everything on sale for 20% off. 5E made death and dying a joke then included optional rules to make it slightly less of a joke.

 

[Lanefan]

Good 5E really empowered the DM so they can make their game as punishing or unpunishing as they want.

Except it didn't, unless a DM knows enough to look at (much) earlier editions for inspiration.

That way everyone can play the game in the way that works best for them!

In theory...