What the heck is "Unfun"?

[gizmo33]

Okay. You say that there's a segment of players out there who want to have adventures with no risk at all.

Prove it.

While he's at it he should prove that more than 2 people in the world have ever played a halfling bard. Otherwise I will continue to assert that they don't exist. Mostly so that I can defend those people because I enjoy paradoxes. And I don't like people who are mean to people that don't exist. I'm also jealous of people with good search engine fu.

 

[Grog]

I need not prove anything or drag out a pile of posts from message boards with thousands of posting in this and various subjects related to 4e to satisfy you.

It's not about satisfying me. You made a claim - that there are significant numbers of players out there who want games with absolutely no risk in them. You need to support that claim with evidence. If the attitude is as pervasive as you suggest it is, that evidence should be simple to find.

Add an argument of your own demonstrating how terrible incorrect I am and we'll discuss that.

That's not how this works. You made the claim - you need to back it up. So, again, let's see the posts from all these players who are saying they don't want to face any risk in their games. I'll await the links that you can surely easily provide.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Ah.

Well, it seemed to me that you had missed

If you think something is trolling, report it and the Mods will look at it (and this certainly isn't a trolling thread)

If it is just a subject you don't care about, ignore the thread and don't post in it.​

If that isn't the case, I apologize. However, I politely disagree with your statement about an unhelpful and somewhat dishonest debate technique.

This seems to me to be really passive-aggressive and not conducive to civil conversation in an already heated thread.


Maybe everybody should take five, make some tea, and come back at this thread with fresh eyes.

 

[Gallo22]

I've always considered waiting for the rogue to check for traps, run a spot check, run a listen check, etc, etc, etc, on Every. Single. Door. to be one of the absolute worst aspects of D&D ever.

But I think this is a perfect place to note the difference between the straw man construction of my play style that kicked this thread off, and its reality. I don't mind there being danger opening the door. I don't mind it at all.

I just 1) want the "should we open the door" decision to take less time, and 2) want the penalties, while real, to not end the game for my character all based on that one door that most likely I have no choice but to open.

This is a place gameplay should be sped up, in my opinion, because it involves only part of the group, involves rolling against dangers that may not even exist, happens repeatedly, usually nothing is wrong, and only occasionally is there a catastrophe.

If you've set up a situation where players have to create a two minute door opening ritual and use it on every single door they find so that they don't get their characters killed on every tenth door where there's an actual trap, you've created a situation in which nine out of ten door openings are wastefully long. This doesn't raise tension in a meaningful way after the first 5 doors, and should be streamlined.

Faster resolution would make my objection less important, because the door opening ritual wouldn't be as long. And making the penalties less extreme than a dead character would let the players ignore the risk at times, and only search for traps on doors likely to be trapped, instead of every single door in the game.

Actually everything you just stated is a player problem, not a DM problem and not a rules problem. If the characters/players are worried about every single door they come to, then there is the problem.

 

[Cadfan]

Gallo22- Do you permit multiple quivers then? Or, if you were to decide to play a game up to a high level, would you permit multiple quivers or these kinds of items?

See, at level 16, an archer with Rapid Shot and Haste is unloading up to 6 arrows per round. Even the fancy magical quiver in the basic rules only holds 60 arrows. That's... one fight, maybe two if you salvage.

If your characters are away from stores for a while, that's simply unworkable. They'll have to carry dozens of these quivers, and a quiver is a pretty big object to haul around extras...

Really, most players playing archers at high levels get smart, and take a bag of holding and stuff it full of arrows.

Anyways... this is kind of off the topic. The problem isn't necessarily how hard it is to count in a vacuum. Its how hard it is to count as compared to how important it is. If I've got a bag of holding of the smallest possible variety, I can get 1660 arrows into it. Chances are I won't run out before I can refill it, so counting arrows isn't going to be necessary to see whether I run out in the middle of combat (an effect that would be important enough to matter). Instead, counting will just matter with regard to how often I have to buy new arrows, or more likely, whether I spend 30 gold or 40 gold on it next time I get back into town. And filling that whole back from zero will cost me 83 gold, so by the point in the game where I've leveled up enough that I need a thousand arrows (which WILL happen at high levels), I can afford either amount with trivial ease.

So instead of counting arrows to see if something cool and interesting happens, like running out of arrows and switching to backup weapons, I'm counting arrows to see whether something boring and lame happens, ie, having to spend a trivially small amount of gold top off my arrows for the next month.

The problem isn't the bookkeeping. Its that what you get for the bookkeeping isn't worth it.

 

[Cadfan]

Actually everything you just stated is a player problem, not a DM problem and not a rules problem. If the characters/players are worried about every single door they come to, then there is the problem.

If the players have ever opened a door and had a character die because they didn't search for traps, then their fear of doors isn't a player problem. Its either a rules problem or a DM problem. And you can solve both in one shot by writing better rules for opening doors.

 

[Gallo22]

It's not about satisfying me. You made a claim - that there are significant numbers of players out there who want games with absolutely no risk in them. You need to support that claim with evidence. If the attitude is as pervasive as you suggest it is, that evidence should be simple to find.


That's not how this works. You made the claim - you need to back it up. So, again, let's see the posts from all these players who are saying they don't want to face any risk in their games. I'll await the links that you can surely easily provide.

I for one have seen a dozen or so comments that would back up what you so demandingly want proven! If it's so important to you, why don't you prove me wrong!!! I'll await the links that you can surely easily provide.

 

[psionotic]

It has nothing to do with DM laziness. That's a total strawman.

The laziness argument is mostly about the Filcher, whose only role seems to be as a device which allows a DM to steal PCs magic items, plot pieces (contracts, deeds, etc). Its also been my experience that DMs frequently use level draining and Rust Monster like creatures as after-the-fact 'balancing' moves to correct mistakes which they feel have unbalanced the game. This may just be my experience, but their rules make them very easily abused in this manner...

I do agree that there have to be other kinds of damage other than HP, and my kobolds and hobbers frequently employ poison, which is effective and scary without negating, say, several months worth of character advancement. In another (high level) game we came across kobolds who used single patches of green slime in jars as a missile weapon. *That* was terrifying.

 

[Cadfan]

I should also add, you can fix the arrow problem with changing not how arrows are replenished, but how they're fired.

A ranger has the arrow problem because he shoots a hail of arrows. A scout doesn't have the arrow problem because he shoots one per round. He can account for his arrows all the way to level 20 and never have to deal with a three digit number even on the longest of expeditions.

 

[Sundragon2012]

The opening post would have been much improved if, instead of paraphrasing, the OP had provided exact quotes. This would have demonstrated that people are genuinely saying it's unfun unless they have 7 foot long, 8 inch wide swords and no risk of failure.

Observe the master at work. Emulate him.

Next time, will do if I have the time to search through all that dross to get to a point I read a week ago. I like this whole internet thing, but I do have other things to do occasionally. There is a large thread on I think its RPG.net but I may be mistaken that tackles the who anime, inuyasha "buster" sword controversy. Someone named Seigfried is used as an example of the wonderfulness of the whole nonsensical thing.

My paraphrases are accurate enough in regards to some of the discussions I have had on this and other boards since 4e was announced. Not all the words are right, but the spirit certainly is.



Sundragon