What the heck is "Unfun"?

[wgreen]

I actually like this idea for many things. Ex: Instead of petrification being all-or-nothing, you take Dexterity damage until it is reversed or you turn to stone......

That seems more fun, more tense, and more interesting to me.

RC

YES PLEASE!!!!!

-Will

 

[Raven Crowking]

You know, just because I disagree with you on some things, it doesn't mean that I disagree on everything. I've got to save up some of my disagreement for others, too, you know.

 

[hong]

I actually changed spells like destruction, FoD et al to deal Con damage (4d6). It wasn't really worth it. Blasphemy and harm were much better if you just wanted to deal lots of damage, so they got used all the time and the instakills became peripheral.

The other issue I have is with dramatic pacing (or lack thereof). I'd like some way to encourage people to save their biggest guns for late in the fight, instead of opening with them. Just switching instakills to deal damage doesn't address this issue, whereas having a hit point threshold does.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I actually like this idea for many things. Ex: Instead of petrification being all-or-nothing, you take Dexterity damage until it is reversed or you turn to stone......

That seems more fun, more tense, and more interesting to me.

I'm all for this.

 

[The_Gneech]

(1) Legolas would automatically always specifically mention keeping his quiver full.

(2) What if that 1 was the first roll when he starts out for the day?

1) That's what you want, isn't it? That's not a bug, it's a feature.

2) Then you just don't apply it then. GM's are supposed to use their judgement, that's why they ain't computers!

The problem occurs because Legolas' quiver stays full when there is no "downtime" to go hunting through the luggage.

...

You mention him using about 20 arrows in every fight (although you stopped mentioning the number of arrows when you got to the big fights) although he has six arrows at the start of each of those fights. Hmmm......

The battle of Helm's Deep lasted all night and until morning -- I think it's a safe assumption that he scavenged his fallen allies' quivers there.

The battle of Pelennor Fields, there's no clear indication of how many arrows he used, because it's all over the map.

The battle at the Black Gate, he seemed to go mostly melee.

I frankly can't think of any instances in the films where he was that removed from spare arrows.

-The Gneech

 

[Brother MacLaren]

if 80% of their gaming market doesnt like something in the game, they're going to change it, no matter how much the remaining 20% of the market likes it. House rule it, dont switch, or find a different game, but expecting them to cater to the minority is a bit silly and egotistical, IMO.

And this is why I might have been happier had I grown to love any game OTHER than the market giant.

If I liked Rolemaster, I could reasonably expect a chart-happy game for years to come, and if I liked Amber, I could reasonably expect a diceless game for years to come. If I liked White Wolf, I could reasonably expect a very storyteller-driven game for years to come. Yes, I'd be a minority of the overall gaming market, but that company developed its niche and had a comfort zone there. They'd know they could only lose their loyalists and likely not gain many new fans if they tried to be more like D&D. With D&D, I don't know where it goes next, or what design principles will be next to be thrown out. Because they are the market giant, because they really can increase their market share by changing the feel of the game and bringing in new gamers, I have to get used to that. Or look for players of 3.5 or Basic/Expert.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I like Andy Collins's variant for save-or-die effects. Just convert it into a crapload of damage. Still pretty deadly, but not as randomly so. And for fear effects and the like, just allow a Will save every round, like hold person does. Heck, make it a really friggin' hard Will save, if you like. But give the player something to do, for heaven's sake, so he doesn't have to go read a magazine while everyone else has fun.

Sounds kind of like 3.5 disintegrate.

It's certainly more fun to die because you failed a save and took a boatload of damage rather than because you failed a save on a instakill effect. If nothing else, you can talk up the overkill required to put you down. And bigger numbers give an inherent bonus to fun.

The condition track/Power Word stuff also works well for this.

Brad

 

[Grog]

That should actually be considered a logical fallacy.

"Extraordinary claims" means nothing more than "claims which go against other things that I have accepted as true, and therefore which would require me to alter my belief system should I accept them"

No. Extraordinary claims means just that. Extraordinary claims. And the claim that there are large numbers of players out there who want risk-free D&D is pretty extraordinary, considering that risk is built into the system from the get-go.

It justifies a "no amount of evidence will change my mind" attitude all too often, though perhaps not in this case.

Look, all I'm saying is that if you start a thread arguing against players who want absolutely no risk in their games whatsoever, you should be prepared to provide evidence that these players actually exist in any kind of significant numbers, and thus that your post actually deals with a real issue and isn't just a random rant with no connection to reality.

Like I said, I think they're the EN World equivalent of the bogeyman.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No. Extraordinary claims means just that. Extraordinary claims.

What does "extraordinary" mean in this context, then?

 

[Grog]

What does "extraordinary" mean in this context, then?

I answered that already. You snipped it.

And the claim that there are large numbers of players out there who want risk-free D&D is pretty extraordinary, considering that risk is built into the system from the get-go.

Risk is built into the D&D system from the beginning. It's a part of nearly everything the players do. Claiming that a large number of people want to play D&D with no risk (to their characters, of course) is like claiming that a large number of people want to play Monopoly without money. I'm sure you could find a few people who prefer to play that way, but a significant number? Highly unlikely.