When status effects annoy the players

[Celebrim]

I'm findind an issue whereby status effects appear to be fun-removing effects for the players.

Stunned
Slowed
Restrained
Prone
Petrified
Marked
Immobilized
Blinded
Dazed
Deafened
Dominated
Helpless
Restrained
Slowed
Stunned
Weakened
Unconscious

So that's the list of 4E status effects...

When I read the thread title and the iniital sentence and list, I figured this was going to be a 3e bashing session, since it was my understanding that one of the design goals of 4e was to get read of any status effects that annoyed the player and kept them out of 'the fun'. I confess being a little mystified at this turning into a 'what's wrong with 4e and how can we fix it' thread.

Most bad guys inflict status effects along with damage. But the majority of them really piss off the players - to the point where they're not having fun any more.

Do you mean your players or player generally?

Do you have this problem? If so, what do you do about it? Do you simply not use the statuses?

I don't generally have this problem except when the status knocks the character out of large percentage of the session, which is usually the case when the status 'dead' occurs unexpectedly early in the session. I suppose you could solve that by officially banning the 'dead' status. My players are generally pretty understanding though. I had a character spend about half of a session unconscious recently, and it bothered me alot, but the player has said afterward that he still had alot of fun. I'm terribly afraid of him spending half of the next session with the frightened status, which is nearly as crippling, but we'll see how it goes.

As a player, I've never really thought about it I guess. I've had dead characters and unconscious characters and characters who were insane and suicidal and had to be physically prevented from disemboweling themselves. It never occurred to me to be annoyed or pissed off at the game master or the game system. In fact, I think I might get pissed off at a game where I was mechanically incorporeal and whatever happened in the game had absolutely no effect on the status of my character, but fortunately I've never played a game like that.

I really wonder where this trend is heading. What's the goal here? What would be a system that wouldn't 'piss off the players'? We seem to be defining down what is an annoyance. We've come a very long way as gamers from when we thought that giving the player a saving throw to evade the effect of looking at a Medusa was giving them more than an even break.

 

[MrMyth]

Do you have this problem? If so, what do you do about it? Do you simply not use the statuses?

I've been pretty sparing with the use of status effects, but recently have started using them more, largely taking my guidance from the progression of the PCs themselves. I avoided stuns entirely until they started regularly using powers that stun. I avoided weakness until their damage skyrocketed, and a weakened character can still dish out plenty of damage each round. I like using 'slowly building' effects that start off weak, but can be devestating after a few failed saves - the party typically can shrug off the effects before they get genuinely nasty, but it keeps them on their toes.

I do use daze pretty regularly, since it limits the PCs while still giving them a turn. Prone crops up often. Occasionally slow and immobilize - most PCs have ways around it, and getting the chance to use their teleports and other tricks can feel rewarding in its own right.

 

[Obryn]

When I read the thread title and the iniital sentence and list, I figured this was going to be a 3e bashing session, since it was my understanding that one of the design goals of 4e was to get read of any status effects that annoyed the player and kept them out of 'the fun'. I confess being a little mystified at this turning into a 'what's wrong with 4e and how can we fix it' thread.

I don't think that removing status effects entirely was ever one of the goals. That might be a common misunderstanding among people who don't pay attention to 4e's mechanics, but it simply ain't the case. It has, OTOH, consolidated the status list into a much smaller size, has made it so that most conditions last only a portion of an encounter, and that conditions which remove all actions or decisions from the PCs are rare. Heck; even when you're unconscious and dying, you're still rolling dice every round.

Do you mean your players or player generally?

I'm assuming he's not speaking for my group, only for his.

I really wonder where this trend is heading. What's the goal here? What would be a system that wouldn't 'piss off the players'? We seem to be defining down what is an annoyance. We've come a very long way as gamers from when we thought that giving the player a saving throw to evade the effect of looking at a Medusa was giving them more than an even break.

Well, clearly, the designers' actual goal is to have a game full of godlike characters where nothing bad ever happens to them. I'm shocked and disappointed they didn't move D&D all the way to that final state, rather than going with this unsatisfactory halfway solution.

*sniff sniff* Is that the lure of an incipient edition argument I'm scenting? Either that, or my wet dog - but I'm betting it's the former. Let's not follow up this line of discussion, please. ~ PCat

-O

 

[Mark]

Taking a couple of posts in reverse order . . .

That's part of why this is a problem, though. We have a game which doesn't quite effectively communicate its design to its customers at this point. Contrast the card-dominated boardgame Dominion, which lets you know from the get go that the players compete against each other in terms of 3 resources - gold, victory points, and actions. A lot of cards give you an extra action on your turn, you know, just like an action point in 4E. It's clear from the get go that to win this game (Dominion) you ought not blindly focus on obtaining cards which will increase your gold - so as to buy victory points - but also on cards which let you have more actions on your turn. The more actions you have, the better chances of winning. The more you can deprive your opponents of having (as many) actions (as possible) the better.

Basically, 4E is a game which runs on exactly the same "economy of actions" (except that players compete against the DM's monsters, not each other), but utterly fails to communicate that in its rule book.

Sure, 4E system masters understand how making a power an interrupt or making its action cost a minor action (as opposed to a "stanard action") is a huge factor. But outside that, it's a hazy area of the game played by people who feel entitled to have their stock actions each round - move, standard, minor - and then feel tricked when the game denies them this stock.

The fact that they (the players) compete against monsters not just in terms of hp attrition but also in terms of "can I ensure I have my stock actions this turn? can I ensure the monster doesn't get his?" is lost to them. But in 4E PCs and monsters ALSO compete against each other in terms of how many attacks you can even launch. Look at the game that way, and accept conditions which steal actions as part of that game.

The fact that I need to write this reminded me of another root problem of 4E. Softening up a lot of the classical condition spells ("save or ...") pushed the game hard to a grind of PCs vs. monsters locked in a contest of pure hp attrition and nothing else. So, naturally people will look at 4E as nothing BUT hp attrition, and then the economy of actions and the contest at that level will pass them by. I have literally no other way to understand the OP. Yes, it's not nice to say that some players haven't understood a root element of the game's design, but as I go out of my way of saying, I think that's as much (if not more) the game's fault as it is the players'.

In closing, Andy Collins is on record for saying that 4E's design was heavily inspired by Eurogames. So I strongly recommend you to play one of those if you've never done so - Dominion may easily provide such a benchmark experience - and then return to 4E with a greater comprehension of its intended design.

This is as clear an understanding of the game as I have seen articulated. Actions and Attrition are definitely two of the primary key stones to mastering this game.

I think there's design space for cumulative or "escalating" groups of conditions, rather than the cross-referenced list we have (that can be "entered" at any point) -- a smaller number of condition "tracks," sort of like fatigue and exhaustion did in 3.X. The design goal would be to reduce the number of tracks to significantly fewer than the current number of conditions, simplify the way conditions are assigned, and make having a condition suck less.

So keeping in mind the fact I'm nowhere near an expert in 4E design, here's how I'd start (and by "start" I do *not* mean "finish") going about putting together something like this:

MOVEMENT TRACK
Slowed - Immobilized - Restrained - Prone

MENTAL TRACK
Surprised - Dazed - Stunned - Unconscious

PHYSICAL TRACK
Fatigued - Exhausted - Weakened - Unconscious

There are a number of conditions that don't neatly fit on tracks like these, but I think you can see where I'm going. The verbiage would need some cleaning up, and (IMPORTANT!) the conditions would need to be redefined, but the basic idea is that an effect that presently causes a "physical" condition would move the target along the "Physical Track" (and wouldn't directly cause the weakened condition or unconsciousness unless the target was already afflicted). Especially powerful attacks might move the target two notches along the track.

Just an idea I had.

I've been exploring a similar system and find it satisfying. It avoids too many status effects from stacking up when you run things on several tracks and have worse effects replace previously lesser effects. If you tie the strength of a potential effect to creature level or strength, tougher creatures can skip the lesser effect on the track to avoid having a strong creature waste a turn when dealing with stronger PCs.

 

[Prism]

I'm wondering whether this is more a factor of the adventures/encounters rather than the system.

A number of people have said that they are careful to avoid stacking or overusing status effects when they design their own creatures and encounters

Some might put togther an encounter without considering these things - coverted adventures from earlier editions could fall into this category

I feel that the 4e Wizards modules/dungeon often go a step further and create encounters with difficult stacking conditions. For example I would have no real problem creating an encounter with a monster with an at will close blase daze - there are many ways to either avoid all be caught or to negate the penalty via charging etc. I would also have no problem with a monster that has an at will area burst slide or pull. However from the encounters I have seen in modules, these two monsters would typically be used in conjunction to ensure that most of the party is dazed most of the time - and that would be promoted by the tactics section too.

Whether or not you enjoy that level of tactical play ie solving the combat problem of how to break this type of combo is entirely down to the group. In the game I DM our controller is very tactically minded and seems to enjoy the challenge of preventing the monsters using their status effects fully - some groups won't be that interested in that level of tactical play and will probably get hit with far more status effects

So I would either design/redesign each encounter or if I didn't have time and just wanted to play a module as written I would turn at will dazes, stuns etc into recharges and recharges into encounter powers - maybe up the damage a little too

 

[Barastrondo]

That's one way to look at it.

Another is that the players made the choice when they decided to play a game which includes mechanics which result in a lost turn.

I believe the mental process of deciding to play a game is a matter of balancing mental scales. If the pros outweigh the cons, then the game seems like it'll be worth it. I can't fault a group for deciding that a particular con weighs particularly heavy in the scales, however, and wondering how to lighten its load. It's kind of like buying a house, really; you accepted that house as a whole when you closed the deal, but that doesn't mean you can't put in some new window treatments if you get tired of the old ones.

I should clarify that I don't think that including "miss a turn" mechanics are as inherently bad as Justin decrees. (He also admits it's a contentious issue.) But I'm not convinced that they are sufficiently good game design that they deserve a spot as a sacred cow, and that most RPGs should feature them. So I think they're easily omitted without doing the hobby a grievous wrong.

I'm sorry, but I don't find the argument that ten minutes of social interaction by another player is acceptable but ten minutes of an in-game effect isn't convincing.

I can only go on personal experience here. I've watched friends and co-workers agree to play on a weekday after work, get knocked out by a hold person or similar thing, and count that as one of the day's many frustrations rather than a refreshing escape. It's not enjoyable for anyone at the table to watch a friend have no fun. I'm all for individual groups deciding not to do that if it suits them better.

(It also sucks when fluky die rolls eat up a player's fun, but that's an even harder thing to fix. If there are dice in any form, they will be fluky. Little bastards.)

This strikes me as exactly what Melan calls the "tyranny of fun," which he goes on to examine with respect to 4e specifically in another post.

Slight ramble here, please pardon.

One of the first times I realized I was really developing games for a living was when it started hitting me hard every time I heard about someone giving up on RPGs. When I'd hear a story about how someone tried an RPG once, but the people they played with were jerks, or they didn't have any fun, and that was it. When the first impression was so bad we'd lost a potential gamer.

And then I realized I had previously been enjoying this luxury when I was just running games, not actually trying to grow the hobby. I didn't have to appeal to anyone except people who already played games the way that I like to play games. I could just do what I liked, and worry about my own table. As a designer, I actually had to ask if my style would make things better for the customer base as a whole. (And there's a whole trenchcoats & katanas digression waiting to happen there...)

The "tyranny of fun" argument seems, to me, to be rooted in a GM's concern for his own table. It doesn't find the omission of rust monsters a bad thing because it would be bad for the hobby as an overall whole (and he admits that WotC's approach is the reasonable one for them). It's about what's good for a group that, should it want to recruit new players, can get them pre-acclimatized to the house style, or the old ways, or whatever. Even if more players are turned away from RPGs as a whole, the ones that are left are the ones you'd want to game with.

As a GM, your own group is your first priority. The "tyranny of fun" becomes an issue if it might impact your group, whether or not brings more people into the hobby and gets to healthier numbers. But I think "lose a turn" mechanics are the same way. If they impact the group, they're worth addressing. You no more owe it to other gaming groups who like them to keep using them than those other gaming groups owe it to you to stop using them.

 

[Nifft]

To explain my thinking (or madness, if you prefer ), I don't much like the idea of making it a flat amount for the simple reason that it then becomes a better option for some classes than others. A (high hp) 18 Con Warden has 35 hp, therefore 20 hp is slightly more than half his hp. Conversely, a (low hp) 10 Con Wizard has a mere 20 hp; 20 hp would knock him straight to dying. I don't want the mechanic to favor high hp (primal) classes over low hp (assassin/wizard) classes, and utilizing a percentage based mechanic like surge value bypasses this concern.

Well... not entirely. The damage they face from their antagonists doesn't scale, so a Wizard who deals himself 5/20 damage is still going down sooner than a Barbarian who deals himself 15/60 damage. The former is two hits away from doom, while the latter is six hits away.

Anyway, I personally don't mind that being hit by a foe takes some choices away. Being hit is a bad result.

I try to use few foes who can Dominate or Stun, and I don't usually put more than one of them in a group -- but Stun and Dominate are tools, and I'm not afraid to use them when I feel they're appropriate.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Here's my 2 cents on a really slow day at work!

Some statuses are really annoying, some combined statuses are as bad. A limited and by no means inclusive list is:

Dominated
Stunned
Dazed, pushed and prone.
Dazed and Pushed/Slid down a deep pit.
Pushed down a really big pit.
Etc

And it goes on!

The common factor is they remove your ability to interact with the game in a meaningful way. Either remove your choices or reduce your options to a list with one item on it.

It's not an argument for removing them - they definitely have their place. They can be fun and it's good to have nasty effects in the game. Scary monsters are important!

IMO, where it gets bad is when one player keeps eating these attacks round after round and end up spending a whole long fight (which can be 2+ hours) doing nothing. Think that's when some people will complain. At least it is in the games I've run. Less said about that the better!

This is paricularly exacerbated in a big fight where the turns take ages to come around.

Mix that with a bad day at work or some external stresses and that's the sort of situation where the toys come flying out of the pram. Both 4e toy/pram ejection scenarios I have seen come from just such a combination of circumstances. (one from me when playing, one from one of my players)

There is a strong argument for PCs prepping to remove them - and they often do, but there's limits on this. There's only so many saving throws even a well prepared group can generate. And if it's 'until end of next turn' then you're clean out of luck.

Other statuses are mostly a bit more amusing IMO. Blinded leads to some flailing (although can be a bit much sometimes!), slow and imobilise punish the fool who melees but doesn't buy a ranged weapon, knocked prone rewards cheesy 'stand up as a minor action' boots/charging PCs, marking is my fave - puts the boot on the other foot and makes PCs react to monsters for a change.

My answer has been to avoid overusing the 'bad statuses' and I'm especially leery of critters that have them as at wills or recharge powers. Particularly in groups. I tend to avoid 'chain hitting' someone with these powers if possible.



On a side note:
The Unable to use encounter/daily powers. status just plain smells of dead ferret. But it's really quite funny sometimes.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Perhaps the answer is to just replace statuses with more damage.

Won't they just complain more? Dying is possibly the worst status effect.

Adventuring is a dangerous business with possibly lethal side effects. Add me to the camp of fire your PCs and hire new ones.

 

[Barastrondo]

Some of the answers here are a little OT; just to clarify (in case I wasn't clear) - yes, I and the players understand the game. We're merely considering ways in which we might change the game in order to incease our enjoyment of it.

I'm not sure I would house rule out most conditions entirely. I certainly don't want to take away the players' ability to use them. Mostly I'm dubious of stun (the epitome of "do nothing and like it"), and things like dominate depend on the player. Some of my players would adore the chance to smack another PC, particularly if they could get into an argument about just how much apology was necessary afterward.

If I were to set out to use fewer conditions, I'd probably want to up the amount of environmental challenge. More enemies that can create difficult terrain or concealment, for instance. More forced movement powers that can dump PCs in firepits or down stairs.

You can also create similar condition-like challenge in more specific ways, buffing enemies as an option to debuffing PCs. Becoming invisible to a PC (save ends) allows the PC more tactical options than being blinded (save ends), and can actually create interesting choices in its own right: do you give up on the thing you've nearly killed because it's hard to see, or do you take the chance and try to finish it?