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

[500 Toads]

so the message after i actually clarified what i meant - it's not really about how pcs and npcs are built, it's about how the system functions. i don't really care if pcs and npcs are built the same (i actually prefer if they're not - building pcs takes a while, i don't need that level of depth in even a bbeg), but i WOULD like to be able to tell what cr or monster level a pc of any given class and level is without having to spend 10 minutes dissecting the monster values chart.

I'm inclined to think that if you look at D&D 5E's official options -- at least, if you include the 2014 material, and assuming that feats and multiclassing are both allowed (technically optional, at least in 2014) -- there's so much potential variance in power level at higher levels that you can't have an easy CR-vs-level system that is also quite reliable, no matter how you build NPCs. The math isn't tight.

For instance, the gap between a high-level divination or chronurgist wizard or a hexblade-dipped paladin, versus a battlerager barbarian of equal level, is going to be quite significant. There's a lot of options that are just not on par with other options, even if we ignore the more outlandish and impractical multiclassing choices that are possibly legal.

 

[Remathilis]

It occurs to me that several of the OP's points could be perhaps summed up as a lower tolerance for luck and randomness as the determiner of significant outcomes. This is probably where we differ on a root level, as I've always seen D&D as first and foremost a game of luck - almost a Roguelike, if you will - with player skill simply a means of shifting the odds in your favour to whatever extent the situation allows.

My tolerance is probably best described as "dice are for in-game results, not out of game prep". Players pick what they want to play. DMs design the adventure they want to run. When the character meets the adventure is where the dice are used. Any dice rolled outside of the actual play session are advisory; you are not bound to their results. So you can roll to see what additional languages you know or what the weather is going to be during the session, but you aren't bound to that result.

But attacks rolls, saves or skill checks that happen during the course of the adventure?Those rolls count. Unless you have a feature that grants a reroll.

 

[Remathilis]

Wow that sounds like a fun game. Lets compare it to mine.

I'm not going to respond point by point because most of them are absurd caricatures of my positions. But there is one I think is grossly misinterpreting my position.

The World is sunshine and rainbows: Racism, xenophobia aren't reasons to go to war. People judge everyone as individuals based on their deeds, if you want to play and orc don't worry all the NPCs will ignore the fact the neighbouring orc nation has been raiding their lands for years.

Good people (that is, people who would be considered good aligned or live in good aligned society) should not view all orcs as raiders of a warring nation any more as we would view every German or member of German heritage as a member of the Nazi party in WW2. Suspicion is warranted, but that's not an excuse for violence against the orc. Now maybe an evil aligned person or society would use the war to kill any orc on sight as a justification, but that is as evil society as the orcs who are raiding it.

(Any resemblance to current real world conflicts is purely coincidence).

So yeah, I'm sticking with the idea that if alignment is a actual thing in the world, good people would not be racist or xenophobic. If you want to make a world where very few "good" people exist, then go ahead. But the world is already filled with too much hate and I'll take the sliver of unrealistic behavior if it means a world where good people actually behave good and not like massive hypocrites. They call it "Fantasy" after all.

 

[Scott Christian]

There is only so much one can do, even with a sincere and enthusiastic group.

I recently started my first proper relationship (we're very happy, even if it's long-distance for the time being), and my boyfriend is into horror movies. I told him that I generally dislike horror, but because I trust him and respect his judgment, if he felt there was a horror movie I could enjoy, I would give it a try, but I would reserve the right to say it wasn't for me.

But, instead of just launching into movies, he talked with me about it. Told me his philosophy of horror...and I found that it was much more in line with my way of thinking. As he sees it, mere gore/body-horror isn't good horror, but, more importantly, horror that never gives people a chance to become better is also not good horror. Doesn't mean they have to succeed; plenty of good horror gives people a chance and they squander it. In other words, I was sold on it, rather than just having to put up with it--and yes, while I would endure a slasher flick with him because I love him, it would be a sacrifice on my part, not a pleasant thing. He met me halfway, and we made it work--I've actually enjoyed the three horror films we've watched thus far (the first two The Conjuring movies and Deliver Us from Evil), and it's because it's horror with a message, with a lesson, not just jumpscares and gore.

With all that said though...not even love of my boyfriend would get me to sit through multiple slasher flicks, and that's my real point here. Even someone I have way, way more reason to respect, trust, and be excited about being around, wouldn't make body-horror movies or the Saw series or whatever be anything I'm interested in watching.

An enthusiastic group can turn an "eh..." into an "Aw yeah!", and can turn a "eugh!" into "Okay, alright, I'm picking up what you're putting down." But you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, not even with the best group in the whole world.

Can we agree that horror can be much more gut reacting, than say, rolling crits when rolling a D20? If not, don't read any further.

You see, some things, like using rape scenes to cast a villain in a terrible light or using body horror in movies like saw are much more severe than watching Tom roll a critical. Hence, why my two analogies, about romantic comedies and camping were more in line with the list. I mean, as far as I know, no one has ever looked out at a beautiful mountain view or a cozy little beach campsite and felt repulsed. Just like no one has ever played in a game where Tom rolled a critical and been repulsed.

And while my analogy was the boyfriend/girlfriend sway, I distinctly said chemistry. Group chemistry, ie. at the table. You can certainly underestimate it. Heck, I even appreciate your resolve, but reality says that a game can become fun when played with the right people. Even if it doesn't house the things we like. Heck, a lot of board games are quite boring, even tedious. Yet with the right people, they are a lot of fun.

 

[Alzrius]

My tolerance is probably best described as "dice are for in-game results, not out of game prep". Players pick what they want to play. DMs design the adventure they want to run.

There's certainly merit to that; "bespoke characters" is something that I've seen a lot of players have fun with.

That said, I've also seen a lot of players have fun with (semi-)randomized methods of making characters. In this case, it's about being open to the possibility that—as I heard one GM put it—the game doesn't start when the PCs meet at the tavern, but when the players start making their characters.

The idea here is that you're not so much "designing" your character as you are discovering them. While it's usually not completely random, the presence of constraints and modifiers which lead to decision points throughout the process is meant to be something which lets you be surprised by what the end result is. While basic ideas about what sort of character you want to play are likely to still be present, the details are a mystery to you right up until you finish the process.

At that point, you begin your first adventure and start figuring out who this new character actually is. It's where that saying about "your backstory is your first three levels" comes from, as you spend that time getting to know who you're playing. It's a process that's thrilling for how you're uncovering new aspects of your character in real-time, rather than coming to the table with pages of backstory that everyone else has to sit through and the GM has to work into the campaign. I've seen it happen more than once, and it has a great deal of potential for fun.

 

[Bagpuss]

I'm not going to respond point by point because most of them are absurd caricatures of my positions. But there is one I think is grossly misinterpreting my position.

Yeah I was being a bit hyperbolic. I'm sure I could find some aspects of the style you like enjoyable, but I have played with DM's in the past where I have had to hide what my current hit points are because they would alway pull their blows if they thought it would cause a character to drop. Which means you don't have to make tactical decisions about things like, do you focus on dealing with the threat or should they try and recover the fallen party member first, and it really reduces the sense of danger and consequences of your decisions.

Good people (that is, people who would be considered good aligned or live in good aligned society) should not view all orcs as raiders of a warring nation any more as we would view every German or member of German heritage as a member of the Nazi party in WW2. Suspicion is warranted, but that's not an excuse for violence against the orc. Now maybe an evil aligned person or society would use the war to kill any orc on sight as a justification, but that is as evil society as the orcs who are raiding it.

I think generally the world isn't full of Good people (in the D&D sense), in D&D Good is defined as prioritizing the welfare of others over their own. I think the majority of people are neutral. They won't make personal sacrifices to help others. So they will will stand by while evil leaders round up sections of their community because it would take some effort/sacrifice on their part to protest it. They will go along with distrust of the other, because it is easier to fit in with a society where the evil rulers are saying we should kill the orc. I don't think it takes an evil society to do evil, just a neutral one with evil leaders and I think history reflects that.

(Any resemblance to current real world conflicts is purely coincidence).

So yeah, I'm sticking with the idea that if alignment is a actual thing in the world, good people would not be racist or xenophobic. If you want to make a world where very few "good" people exist, then go ahead. But the world is already filled with too much hate and I'll take the sliver of unrealistic behaviour if it means a world where good people actually behave good and not like massive hypocrites. They call it "Fantasy" after all.

I agree Good people aren't racist or xenophobic, but I think genuinely good people in a D&D sense are rare, most people are neutral. I also believe neutral people aren't generally racist or xenophobic, but will act that way if their society via their leaders and peer pressure through the media make that easier than not being. Prejudice towards orcs is a natural reaction if your society is being constantly raided by them, you don't have the luxury to spend the time to find out if the one walking into the tavern isn't going to be a problem, it doesn't take a evil character to make a snap judgement, a neutral one will do.

 

[Whisper-Kitten]

Playing with family.

 

[fuindordm]

I would love to play in or run the anti-Rem game. The only change I advocate is for reasonable parity among the 1st level PCs in terms of chargen and classes. And I would not force à player to run a PC they don't like.

The rest of the criteria generate the core experience of D&D as a cooperative, open-ended, multi-scale boardgame. The challenge is navigating and advancing in an environment that exists independently of the PCs, one that adapts to their actions but has its own raison d'être. In this sense, some procedural generation makes sense. The treasure tables for example define a reward distribution and it is up to the player to balance this against their task.

 

[fuindordm]

Ultimately, I view my anti-D&D is a overly complicated Casino game. Everything from what you are, what you encounter, and what the outcome is is a crapshoot. The only really strategy is knowing when to hold and when to fold before you get blown out. And there is no reason to do better because sucks and will always suck so the only thing you can do is make it suck less for yourself via money and power. I live in that world, I want to play in something different.

I see your point. For a game experience in this category, I prefer single-player roguelikes. If everything is generated randomly then the game is an elaborate Skinner box for you to build a narrative around, and you don't need a DM for that.

For D&D my ideal adventure is site-based and story-based. The site being explored has its own backstreet, continuity, and goals before the PCs arrive. Parts of it, such as treasure hoards, layout, and population might be procedurally generated but not during the session. Once the PCs arrive, what is there doesn't change.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Can we agree that horror can be much more gut reacting, than say, rolling crits when rolling a D20? If not, don't read any further.

Gut-reacting, sure.

That does not mean that a game I find actively un-fun would guaranteed always become fun just because I was playing it with the perfect group. Some things, not even a perfect group can fix. Consider the execrable FATAL, or the openly and aggressively offensive MYFAROG. Even outside that context, particular games are almost guaranteed to just not be fun for me because I don't find the activities involved entertaining. I don't enjoy, for example, the "tension" (I prefer the term "paranoia" myself) that comes from the extensive use of severe save-or-die effects. I don't enjoy "tournament"-style modules where it's specifically intended that most characters will die. It's just not a gaming experience I find enriching, worthwhile, or even pleasant.

Doing an activity I find actively unpleasant with people I love spending time with isn't going to make the actively-unpleasant part suddenly pleasant. It's just going to make me feel like I'd enjoy the company of those people more if we were doing something I actually enjoyed doing.

You see, some things, like using rape scenes to cast a villain in a terrible light or using body horror in movies like saw are much more severe than watching Tom roll a critical. Hence, why my two analogies, about romantic comedies and camping were more in line with the list. I mean, as far as I know, no one has ever looked out at a beautiful mountain view or a cozy little beach campsite and felt repulsed. Just like no one has ever played in a game where Tom rolled a critical and been repulsed.

And while my analogy was the boyfriend/girlfriend sway, I distinctly said chemistry. Group chemistry, ie. at the table. You can certainly underestimate it. Heck, I even appreciate your resolve, but reality says that a game can become fun when played with the right people. Even if it doesn't house the things we like. Heck, a lot of board games are quite boring, even tedious. Yet with the right people, they are a lot of fun.

All I'm saying is that the "can" in "a game can become fun when played with the right people" (emphasis in original) is doing nearly all the heavy lifting. It can. It is not guaranteed to. I used horror movies solely because that was my own personal experience very very recently, so I had a directly-applicable example of a situation that did make SOME instances of a genre I don't like sufficiently palatable that I was actually enthusiastic about it.

A great group can make a game you'd normally dislike genuinely enjoyable. It cannot make every game you'd normally dislike genuinely enjoyable. That's my point. We must not forget the former...but in so doing, we must not lose sight of the latter. Group chemistry is very important, and should be factored into one's decisions. Group chemistry is a useful medicine--extraordinarily so. Group chemistry is not a panacea. Both statements are true.