What the heck is "Unfun"?

[Gallo22]

So you avoid all high level play? (Something that would *never* work for me. I, and those I play with, like high level play. Thus, why we stopped keeping track of these things, even though I do like details.) Or do you just stop keeping track when you get to high levels?

Good question and point. I actually do avoid higher levels as a DM. I'd say around the 16th plus levels. I find that by the time you get to these levels it's usually nothing but a numbers game between the players and the challenges.

And, I'm happy to admit that I'm just not that good of a DM at those levels. Something I hope to get better at...

 

[Cadfan]

As a DM of over 20 years (playing D&D over 30) I don't let my games get this silly. I don't need 4E to know how to prevent this.

So silly? What? If I play a ranger and choose archery as my combat style, I'm going to shoot 5 arrows per round at level 16. You can't "not let" me do that without deleting my class features.

Editted to add- Or, right, not letting gameplay go to high levels. Honestly, I DO think you need 4e then. Specifically, you need 4e to come up with a way to make high levels less obnoxious and silly so that you can use them.

 

[psionotic]

No. Monsters that might do terrible damage to the world she lives in if she doesn't defeat them make my character afraid. Being as I'm playing a game, no monsters make me afraid, though some make me bored and/or annoyed.

QFT, sir. There are plenty of challenging, scary monsters (demons, devils, dragons) without having to fall back on poorly designed creatures with strictly METAGAME abilities like level-drain. Creatures like this, along with the Rust Monster, and my least favorite, the Ethereal Filcher, have no other purpose other than to screw PCs.

I can scare my PCs with any number of creatures; I love using weak monsters like kobolds and hobgoblins with tactics that strike terror into their hearts. But those metagame monsters exist solely for the purpose of shortcutting; they are the ultimate "lazy DM's" path to 'challenging' players. Instead, however, all they do is actively encourage an adversarial relationship between DMs and PCs.

 

[Gallo22]

Wrong.

Why is that quote wrong. Back it up big "Grog"!

 

[wedgeski]

I guess it's unfun to fall in a pit and all your group forgets to bring rope. Whoops, maybe we should eliminate pits too. This is all just so silly it's laughable.

Actually we hand-wave basic adventurer's kit under everything except extreme circumstances (DM's call). Imagining that a professional adventurer would set out into the wilderness without his basic rope, lantern, food, water, etc. is just crazy. It's the same kind of thinking that doesn't punish a player who, in the course of a month of real time, has forgotten a detail which his character, for whom virtually no time at all has passed, would not have. It all requires judgment calls, but that's what I'm here for.

We still have pit traps, by the way. So it's not the same thing at all.

 

[Grog]

Ah, 4.0, the "complainers edition". Sorry, all I'm reading is how unfun means adversity that must be overcome by playing smart, prepping, or whatever.

I guess it's unfun to fall in a pit and all your group forgets to bring rope. Whoops, maybe we should eliminate pits too.

Can we eliminate your straw men, too, while we're at it?

 

[psionotic]

Can we eliminate your straw men, too, while we're at it?

No, because then the debate would have to occur on the merits of both side's arguments. Its easier and more fun to make overblown analogies that have no basis in what the argument is even about.

 

[Gallo22]

So silly? What? If I play a ranger and choose archery as my combat style, I'm going to shoot 5 arrows per round at level 16. You can't "not let" me do that without deleting my class features.

Editted to add- Or, right, not letting gameplay go to high levels. Honestly, I DO think you need 4e then. Specifically, you need 4e to come up with a way to make high levels less obnoxious and silly so that you can use them.

No, you are wrong. I don't need anything. We have the same group, playing together, once a week, for the past 8 + years and usually if not all the time have a great game. So why change what's not broke.

Oh and 5 arrows at 16th level is easy to handle. Let's see, the character has 25 arrows, then shoots 5 arrows, he now has 20 arrows. Yup...pretty easy...

 

[KarinsDad]

No. Monsters that might do terrible damage to the world she lives in if she doesn't defeat them make my character afraid. Being as I'm playing a game, no monsters make me afraid, though some make me bored and/or annoyed.

Some of our best sessions in 2E were in barrows when Wights and Wraithes could drain 4 levels off of PCs in a single combat.

The players were actually timid to open doors. That's fun, both for DMs and players. And 3E/3.5 removed a lot of that actual player fear / indecisiveness.

Hold Person. A save every single round.

It went from being a feared spell to being a never even taken spell.

Now that's boring.

Might as well be playing Monopoly.


Btw, I think the solution to this issue is to have some occassional monsters and spells and NPC abilities and such in the game that are "save or die" or whatever. If a given group does not like this type of game, the DM can easily not use them.

The designers have to take into account all types of different play style and so I think having really nasty, hard to resist type effects in the game system is required. It just should not be very common. IMO.

 

[Gallo22]

In your opinion, that's cool.

Ah, 4.0, the "complainers edition". Sorry, all I'm reading is how unfun means adversity that must be overcome by playing smart, prepping, or whatever.

I guess it's unfun to fall in a pit and all your group forgets to bring rope. Whoops, maybe we should eliminate pits too. This is all just so silly it's laughable.

-DM Jeff

Too funny. I love it Jeff!!!!