D&D General Un-Fun D&D: A Thought Experiment

[Remathilis]

Not too long ago, I began a idle thought experiment on what D&D would look like if it was played in a way that is polar opposite to what my personal playstyle is. In a way An Anti-Remathilis D&D. What that game would look and play like.

I put two caveats: It had to still be D&D (That is, the rules would still use classes, species, spells, magic, etc). It would be too easy to design a game that doesn't even resemble D&D using this. Second, while it wasn't fun for me, it still had to be fun for someone. In theory, my trash would be another's treasure to avoid absolute torture. I'm sure some people will love this, but to me this is my own personal Hell.

This is what I came up with.

* The DM is Ruthlessly Neutral: The DM is expected to be an absolute neutral arbiter of the game. Dice rolls are expected to be adhered to regardless of outcome. There is no fudging, no reducing the monster's hit points, to targeting stronger allies to avoid kicking weak ones when down. The DM is fair, but plays to win.
* The Game is Procedurally Generated. That is, the game expects much of the DMs work to be done via table generation and after-the-fact justification. Random Encounters, Treasure, adventure design, etc is expected to be done via random generation to limit DM influencing outcomes for either themselves or the players.
* Characters are randomly generated: Every mechanical aspect of a character is randomly generated: Ability scores, race, class, gear, HP, etc. Good luck on these rolls will give you advantages over those who roll badly. There is no re-rolls, no "hopeless character" rules, no offsetting bad rolls.
* Characters are not balanced: Some options (races, classes, etc) are superior to others. If you roll and get lucky enough to have access to the superior option, you are just that much farther ahead. The Paladin is superior to the fighter, balanced stringent requirements to access and play that character. Quadratic Wizards and Linear Fighters are a feature, not bug. Trap options abound.
* The World is Not Fair: Racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and other cruelties exist, and the PCs are not immune to them. An orc going into a human village should expect a mob and not a warm welcome. Clerics of the wrong faith best leave quickly.
* Limits on meta-currency. Options like Heroic Inspiration, Action Points, Luck points, or even getting Advantage on a roll is ALWAYS in the hands of the DM and never automatically granted the player by class or feature.
* Life is Not Fair, Death Even Less So: One-Hit Kills, Save or Die, Energy Drain, and worse fates befall adventurers routinely. TPKs are a very real possibility.
* Crits: Critical Hits can lead to permanent injuries, amputations, or even death. Critical fumbles can lead to broken equipment, destroyed treasure, or errant swings at allies.
* Death is a Fail State: Resurrection magic is rare and difficult. Death means starting over. From level 1.
* The World is Dying: The world is not a fun or enjoyable place. Life is nasty, brutish, and short. People scramble to get what they can in a world overrun by deadly monsters, disease, famine, and disasters. Crime is an unfortunate reality, prejudice a common mindset. Hope is in short supply.
* Play Hard, Play Smart, Play to Survive: All of this leads to a game where the deck is stacked against the players and the DM is bound by neutrality to enforce that. Life is cheap, characters are disposable, and lucky rolls are as valuable as tactical play or creative thinking. No one is owed a happy ending. The only thing the world owes you is death from starvation, unless you can make something better with luck, skill and power.

That is my Anti-Fun D&D. A game so antithetical to my play style I couldn't stand one minute of it.

Would anyone want to play this type of D&D? What your anti-fun D&D be?

 

[Alzrius]

That actually sounds really fun, ironically enough. My Anti-Fun D&D is almost the exact opposite:

* PC Exceptionalism (Run Amok): PCs and NPCs (of the same race) are generated completely differently. NPCs don't use the same methods of determining any of their statistics, have "advancement" entirely dependent on what level the PCs are, and have abilities that PCs are unable to acquire.
* The Plot Uber Alles: The entire game is centered around "telling a story," with no room for deviation from that narrative. Does someone want to do something different? They better be able to justify it within the context of the narrative, or they're being selfish! Dice generate a result which isn't suitably dramatic? Overrule them! Which leads me to:
* Good Guys Never Die: Death mechanics for PCs are both different for everyone else, and make dying almost impossible. The heroes are virtually guaranteed to survive no matter how bad things get. Because narrative. If a run of bad luck happens with the dice, they're ignored or re-rolled. If the PCs do something dumb, the GM is supposed to rescue them. Because games are about fun, and fun means the heroes fulfill their narrative role.
* They Don't Fail, Either: No one likes it when their turn is wasted, so why have failure even be an option? Just assume your attack hits; the only thing you need to roll for is damage. Did you get a natural 1 on that d20 roll? Don't worry, you still succeeded! Just with "complications." Sure, you can technically fail...but you'll only ever fail forward!
* Meta-Mechanics Everywhere: You're not playing a character, you're playing the role they fulfill in the story. To that end, you have all sorts of abilities that don't represent anything your character can do. Instead, they represent your ability to dictate the circumstances of the scenario directly, outside of any in-character considerations. Because if the GM is a player too, why shouldn't the player also be a quasi-GM?
* Dissociated Mechanics Galore: Likewise, your character's own abilities don't have to make sense from an in-character perspective either! If you have a non-magical ability to throw a weapon over a hundred feet once per fight, don't ask why you can only do it once, or what "per fight" means from an in-world perspective! Just accept that the rules of the game don't actually tell you anything about what's happening in the course of the game world! Because why should the rules of the world and the presentation of the world intersect?
* Every Choice is a Good Choice: Your characters all have the same ability to affect a situation, even at the most atomic level, i.e. during any single combat round. Because in a game of imagination, where myriad options are presented, some of those options might be better or worse in a given instance, and no one likes to be on the "worse" end of that spectrum! So it's actually better, you see, for everyone to be capable of the same things, with how that's presented being entirely cosmetic (if that matters at all; see the Dissociated Mechanics Galore listing).
* Randomness Isn't Trustworthy: We've already said how the dice can fail in helping to advance the predetermined narrative, so why would we trust them for anything else? Tables aren't something that help keep the game fresh and exciting by invoking the unexpected; they just introduce chaos! No, everything in this game is entirely bespoken, with collaborative input beforehand.
* Heroes? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Heroes! The entire world is Saturday-morning cartoon-levels of idyllic. Everything is fine everywhere, with virtually every place being welcoming and accepting of absolutely everybody. Yes, your half-celestial kitsune cyborg might be unusual in this rustic valley of human farmers, but they won't so much as blink when you walk by. Really, the only time anything bad happens is when there's a ruthless terrorist organization determined to rule the world evil cult/demon incursion/undead uprising going on. Because the world is already a paradise that only occasionally needs to be protected from some external force.

At that point, it's honestly not D&D to me anymore; just some completely different game wearing the D&D brand like a skinsuit.

 

[500 Toads]

Oh, for me, that's an easy question: one that eschews adventuring to focus entirely on social drama, cozy slice-of-life play, and exploration of lengthy backstories, for which each player must have provided a minimum of at least twenty pages including relationships to at least ten other characters who are still alive. Also, all communication must be voiced first-person, in-character, and everybody is expected to have commissioned artwork for their character.

Some people would love that, but it would be completely uninteresting to me.

 

[gnarlygninja]

The whole game is a shopping episode.

I've also learned I really strongly dislike when the DM doesn't have...authorial vision, I guess. If they're not bringing their own opinion about things, can't say no to players, and let group votes decide everything.

 

[Retreater]

Interestingly enough, I've been running my anti-Retreater D&D for most of my gaming life. (At least from 2000-2022.)
The traits.
1) Strict RAW
2) No fudging
3) Published adventures only
4) All official player options are ok
5) Extensive use of minis and grids
6) Only the current edition of D&D

 

[Minion X]

Except for adventures relying too heavily on procedural generation and the idea of critical success and failure, that sounds about right. The rules should also be more unfair depending on the situation, like larger creatures having an inherent physical advantage over smaller creatures. Oh, and no close combat weapons other than the dagger and the whip may use Dexterity for combat bonuses.

 

[bloodtide]

That is my Anti-Fun D&D. A game so antithetical to my play style I couldn't stand one minute of it.

Would anyone want to play this type of D&D? What your anti-fun D&D be?

This is my type of D&D. This is a lot of the points of my game.

Adding:

The World is not Balanced Anything a PC might encounter might be of any power level. 1st level PCs encounter a dragon god. Though most of the extreme power differences are not intended to be combat encounters.

Building a Mystery nearly everything is a mystery. Things are unknown, and much is unknowable. Magic and the supernatural do not fit into perfect boxes, or worse perfect game terms.

Homebrew Stew very little is by the 'official book pages'. What is really the point of the game it you just encounter Monster # 22 from page 11, again. Encounters should be unique and different, not exactly like 1000 other games.

 

[Reynard]

I mostly GM (and prefer it that way) so I will answer fro the perspective on one asked to RUN a game I hate.

1) Rigidly adhering to an adventure or adventure path.
2) Rule lawyer PCs.
3) A monthly or less often schedule.
4) Players for whom immersion is the most important aspect of an RPG (that is to say, no table talk or metagaming or similar).
5) Players checking up on me by way of the Monster Manual (note: I consider this a separate issue than 2 above because usually rules lawyering is specific to PC stuff).
and 6) Players that will not under any circumstances make a decision and/or self motivate.
I play pretty rarely, and am happy to roll with whatever when I do, but I guess the worst possible scenario would be a GM that does everything the exact opposite of the way I would have done it.

 

[GMMichael]

* The DM is Ruthlessly Neutral: The DM is expected to be an absolute neutral arbiter of the game. Dice rolls are expected to be adhered to regardless of outcome. There is no fudging, no reducing the monster's hit points, to targeting stronger allies to avoid kicking weak ones when down. The DM is fair, but plays to win.
* The Game is Procedurally Generated. That is, the game expects much of the DMs work to be done via table generation and after-the-fact justification. Random Encounters, Treasure, adventure design, etc is expected to be done via random generation to limit DM influencing outcomes for either themselves or the players.
* Characters are randomly generated: Every mechanical aspect of a character is randomly generated: Ability scores, race, class, gear, HP, etc. Good luck on these rolls will give you advantages over those who roll badly. There is no re-rolls, no "hopeless character" rules, no offsetting bad rolls.
* Characters are not balanced: Some options (races, classes, etc) are superior to others. If you roll and get lucky enough to have access to the superior option, you are just that much farther ahead. The Paladin is superior to the fighter, balanced stringent requirements to access and play that character. Quadratic Wizards and Linear Fighters are a feature, not bug. Trap options abound.
* The World is Not Fair: Racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and other cruelties exist, and the PCs are not immune to them. An orc going into a human village should expect a mob and not a warm welcome. Clerics of the wrong faith best leave quickly.
* Limits on meta-currency. Options like Heroic Inspiration, Action Points, Luck points, or even getting Advantage on a roll is ALWAYS in the hands of the DM and never automatically granted the player by class or feature.
* Life is Not Fair, Death Even Less So: One-Hit Kills, Save or Die, Energy Drain, and worse fates befall adventurers routinely. TPKs are a very real possibility.
* Crits: Critical Hits can lead to permanent injuries, amputations, or even death. Critical fumbles can lead to broken equipment, destroyed treasure, or errant swings at allies.
* Death is a Fail State: Resurrection magic is rare and difficult. Death means starting over. From level 1.
* Play Hard, Play Smart, Play to Survive: All of this leads to a game where the deck is stacked against the players and the DM is bound by neutrality to enforce that. Life is cheap, characters are disposable, and lucky rolls are as valuable as tactical play or creative thinking. No one is owed a happy ending. The only thing the world owes you is death from starvation, unless you can make something better with luck, skill and power.

Would anyone want to play this type of D&D?

I think you just described my ideal game.

What your anti-fun D&D be?

I started writing Modos 2 trying to design my ideal game, but more important than it being ideal, it had to be minimalist.* As I progressed, I stuck to the design goals of 'modular' and 'open-source,' instead of 'ideal for me.' When I finished, it wasn't something I wanted to play - but it was something I had to playtest. Surprisingly, after months of playtesting, I ended up liking it anyway (WAH wah).

*Modular translated to minimalist because if you're gonna stack modules on something, you have to start simple.

 

[Whisper-Kitten]

I love this game, and because I love it I am invoking the right and privilege of ultimate conscription® and taking it for myself.