When status effects annoy the players

[Sammael]

Many advances in the game have been predicated on what players find "unfun" so why should removing status effects be any difference from any other change. Just drop them. There should be an easier way to track hit point loss, too, like damage being streamlined to five point integrals and character sheets having simple check boxes. It would speed up combat both in regard to record keeping and the math(s) involved.

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (4th Edition Character Sheet Preview)

 

[Talysian]

I'm sorry man but unless you use nothing but status effects, there's no Crying in D&D ;p But Seriously bad things happen to your characters, and they can build options in that allow them to help shrug these off. Now if your using nothing but status effects then will it falls into your ship a bit as well. Grr got side tracked, basically if they are not having fun just because of missing a round or so.. I dunno they may be playing the wrong game. Is it all your players or just one in paticular.. I noticed you mentioned the defender, yes marking and damage make the monster want to beat on him, but you know... If that rogue just hit me for a lot.. I'm prolly going to ignore the defender anyhow..and take the risk. Alternativly if you have intellegent Monster's have them take the defender out.. I understand it's there job to slow down monsters and such, but this isn't wow AOE Tanking!

 

[ggroy]

Many advances in the game have been predicated on what players find "unfun" so why should removing status effects be any difference from any other change. Just drop them. There should be an easier way to track hit point loss, too, like damage being streamlined to five point integrals and character sheets having simple check boxes. It would speed up combat both in regard to record keeping and the math(s) involved.

So for a future edition of D&D, remove all status effects altogether which essentially eliminates saving throws in the process too?

Kill two birds with one stone.

 

[Morrus]

Alternativly if you have intellegent Monster's have them take the defender out..

One of the prime characteristics of the defender is that he is notoriously to take out. Especially when backed up by two leaders.

However, how is this a solution to the problem? "Your player doesn't like missing turns? I know, let's make him miss the whole rest of the encounter instead! That'll fix it!"

I dunno they may be playing the wrong game

I'll have to disagree with you again there. They're playing the game they want to play; that, by definition, is the right game. If it takes a little tweaking to make it more fun for them, then so be it - the game exists to serve its players, not the other way round.

 

[Dausuul]

Awesomeocalypse nailed it for me: Conditions that impose tough tactical choices = good, conditions that deprive players of any choice at all = bad. I had one custom monster I was quite proud of, a demon with a venom that drove victims into a demonic frenzy. Each round, you took a hefty swack of poison damage and then got a choice: Spend a round trying to fight down the madness (take a standard action to get a saving throw), or embrace the Dark Side and keep fighting with a bonus to attack and damage for that round (but don't get a save, so you're guaranteed to take the damage again next round).

Now, if you look at how this works in play, it's not too far from "stunned (save ends)." Sooner or later the victim is going to be staring down the barrel of that ongoing poison damage and have to choose the "make a saving throw" option, or die. And the number of rounds you spend giving up your standard action is going to equal the number of rounds you'd spend fighting off the "stunned (save ends)" effect.

But, because players get to choose when to spend that standard action, it's less onerous. Moreover, they can still use their move and minor actions, so they aren't totally shut out. And they even get a nice little ride on the rage train if they want... at a punishing cost, of course.

I could see applying similar mechanics elsewhere. In fact, you could have a whole class of "[type] action ends" and "[type] action saves" effects, wherein you have to spend an action to end the effect or to get a saving throw. In this system, the above would be something like, "Ongoing 15 poison damage and +2 to attack and damage (standard action saves)." Likewise, if you get entangled by a net and it costs a standard action to disentangle yourself, that would be "immobilized (standard action ends)."

 

[Belen]

Sounds like an issue with player expectations versus system. These types of issues annoyed me in 3e and they just got worse in 4e. I am not sure what the real solution to the problem may be, but have you just considered implementing the condition track ala Saga Edition?

It is elegant and I think it would be a nice addition.

 

[The Shaman]

But you're still not playing. You're waiting and observing.

Now I'm curious, B. In the games you and your group play, does a player character never have a one-on-one conversation with a non-player character, like a family member or a contact or a mistress? Does a player character never scout ahead? Do the player characters never split up to cover more ground? Do one or two player characters never stand guard while the rest are sleeping?

Do your players all contribute equally at every moment to everything that happens during the game?

Given that the intrewebs can be a tough medium for sussing out nuance, let me be perfectly clear that I don't mean any of those questions to be taken rhetorically or facetiously - I really would like to get a sense of how your group operates during actual play.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm not Barastrondo nor in his group, but speaking as someone on his side of the debate...

Now I'm curious, B. In the games you and your group play, does a player character never have a one-on-one conversation with a non-player character, like a family member or a contact or a mistress?

Sure, it happens. But we try to limit the amount of that. If I could think of a way to handle it without making everyone else at the table sit and wait, I would.

Does a player character never scout ahead?

Yes. When this happens, however, the activity currently taking place is, "The party is receiving information from the DM," and everyone listens even though their characters don't yet know what's happening. It's pretty rare for the scout to do much beyond "I go, I roll some Stealth checks, I see, I come back."

And if the scout botches the Stealth check and gets jumped by something nasty, we'll act in initiative order just like normal. The scout is advised that screaming bloody murder is a free action.

Do the player characters never split up to cover more ground?

Hell no. What do you think they are, stupid? NEVER SPLIT THE PARTY!

Do one or two player characters never stand guard while the rest are sleeping?

Of course, but when something interesting happens, they wake everybody up. That's the point of posting a watch.

To address your underlying point: Yes, there are situations when some PCs, or even all the PCs but one, are not able to participate in the action. That doesn't change the fact that having non-participating players is a bad thing; it's just that sometimes it's a necessary evil. We try to limit how often it happens, and we're pretty generous about "kibbitzing" - the players of the non-active PCs can make suggestions or ask questions on behalf of the active ones.

In combat, it is seldom necessary to have stun-type effects purely for verisimilitude. A dragon's fear ability, for instance, could be modeled any number of ways. So, I would contend that a lot of the combat conditions that result in non-participating players are unnecessary evils.

 

[roguerouge]

One of my co-workers would argue, and I find it difficult to disagree, that when you miss a turn you aren't playing Monopoly anyway. You're watching everyone else play Monopoly until you're allowed to play again.


Now, maybe it's an exciting fight. But you're still not playing. You're waiting and observing. And although that might be an enjoyable pastime for some players, I doubt it merits status as some form of sacred cow of the hobby. If the chance of non-participation were that important to roleplaying, there'd be more games out there with rules for making the GM "miss a turn" now and again so the spectator role could be passed around more liberally.

I really disagree here. They are playing when their turn has been skipped. The player should be putting the time to good use: strategizing on what to do next. If they're not doing that, then they're playing badly.

 

[Talysian]

One of the prime characteristics of the defender is that he is notoriously to take out. Especially when backed up by two leaders.

However, how is this a solution to the problem? "Your player doesn't like missing turns? I know, let's make him miss the whole rest of the encounter instead! That'll fix it!"



I'll have to disagree with you again there. They're playing the game they want to play; that, by definition, is the right game. If it takes a little tweaking to make it more fun for them, then so be it - the game exists to serve its players, not the other way round.

It may not fix it, but it may make him realize there are a heck of a lot more boring things then conditions!

I probably should have re wrote this when I had more time ;p that came out much harsher then what I wanted. But you do have to look at it this way, 4e to me has the least amount of your character going out of your control then any all of the other systems put together. Even if someone is restrained or dazed. They still should have things they can do. Maybe not the optimal I'm bad a&& things, but something.

I agree with the game exists to serve it's players, but on the other hand there may be a time to take a look at if one of the biggest components of the game is makign it not so fun. (I.E. the combat due to condition effects) you only have a few options.

1. Use less conditions (going from fewer to none) which make combats swingyer and almost too easy.
2. Revamp the conditions or redesign how combat works.
3. Make all combats god mode.
4. Allow players to rebuild (items/powers) that allow them to get out of conditions.
5. Switch to a system that has a faster combat and doesn't have conditions like that.