|
Post by Daos on Oct 12, 2023 16:17:36 GMT -8
Yeah, I kept thinking, if you apply that sort of logic elsewhere, it really highlights how absurd it sounds. If the party sees a chest full of gold, run over and grab it, and it turns out to be a mimic, is that taking away their agency? If they fall into a pit trap? If the cute barmaid they seduce turns out to be a succubus and drains them? If they walk into an ambush? Like, the character is making a choice in all of these scenarios, so I fail to see how agency comes into play.
But I've encountered this pervasive attitude in a lot of 5E communities that holds that games are supposed to be fun (I agree), and therefore they must always be fun (uh, no). Losing isn't fun. Dying isn't fun. Getting paralyzed, stunned, cursed or put to sleep isn't fun. Therefore, we should eliminate these things.
But there are no highs without lows. There's no victory without struggle. I'd argue a game where the only outcome is success would, actually, take away your agency. Because none of your choices matter. Regardless of what you do, the outcome is the same. And combat, without the threat of death or loss, is just a boring slog that takes forever to push through.
That's my take, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Igordragonian on Oct 12, 2023 23:05:39 GMT -8
You know, I played ROleplay systems based on My Little Pony. Some of them d&d-ish, some of them more directly fitting and social focused... and no matter the setting and system- there has to be failure.
It could be eaten alive by Tiamat or to fail to do a surprise birthday party.
I have a solo player IRL (we play a makeshift d100 set in Games Of Thrones) sometimes he complain
"But why to roll, cant I just have this one?"
I always reply "Look. It all a make believe game. I can just say you won the game and we can be done. Does it asound fun?"
And he is remotivated for the challenges. I really dont get it
|
|
|
Post by GravityEmblem on Oct 13, 2023 4:19:53 GMT -8
I know I’m a 5E baby, but I totally get it. Us new-gen D&D players don’t really play D&D for a challenge—it’s not, like, a board game with strict rules and stuff. It’s about feeling cool and powerful, and for some players, telling a story. So things that make the game more difficult are only desirable if they make the players feel more powerful. A big powerful enemy is good, because the players feel good when they inevitably beat it because players never lose in 5E. But a cursed item that makes you weaker and punishes you for—what, picking up an item? Lame. Except, of course, if you’re a player who wants to tell a story about your character struggling with a cursed item, which is where asking permission comes in.
I’ve tried to play D&D “properly” before, with actual challenges and consequences and stuff, but I consistently find that none of my players really enjoy it. And honestly, I don’t really enjoy it either; it’s a lot of extra work that sucks the fun out of the game unless EVERYONE is really into it. No matter how much some people dislike it, that’s become the default philosophy/game style of D&D. And I don’t mind too much, to be honest.
|
|
TristenC
Elite
in the æther
Posts: 1,877
|
Post by TristenC on Oct 13, 2023 9:22:23 GMT -8
Ok, but most cursed items just impose something like disadvantage of certain types or vulnerability. And it's easy to get rid of. Remove Curse is only a 3rd level spell so if you party has a lvl 5 cleric/warlock or Wizard, odds are they can just get rid of it after thr next long rest. And, there are often ways to purchase an instance of a spell from a local caster not of the party. I think something like 90 gp?
|
|
|
Post by GravityEmblem on Oct 13, 2023 10:17:48 GMT -8
Ok, but most cursed items just impose something like disadvantage of certain types or vulnerability. And it's easy to get rid of. Remove Curse is only a 3rd level spell so if you party has a lvl 5 cleric/warlock or Wizard, odds are they can just get rid of it after thr next long rest. And, there are often ways to purchase an instance of a spell from a local caster not of the party. I think something like 90 gp? If only more 5E players had your insight…
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Oct 13, 2023 12:00:46 GMT -8
I know I’m a 5E baby, but I totally get it. Us new-gen D&D players don’t really play D&D for a challenge—it’s not, like, a board game with strict rules and stuff. It’s about feeling cool and powerful, and for some players, telling a story. So things that make the game more difficult are only desirable if they make the players feel more powerful. A big powerful enemy is good, because the players feel good when they inevitably beat it because players never lose in 5E. But a cursed item that makes you weaker and punishes you for—what, picking up an item? Lame. Except, of course, if you’re a player who wants to tell a story about your character struggling with a cursed item, which is where asking permission comes in. I’ve tried to play D&D “properly” before, with actual challenges and consequences and stuff, but I consistently find that none of my players really enjoy it. And honestly, I don’t really enjoy it either; it’s a lot of extra work that sucks the fun out of the game unless EVERYONE is really into it. No matter how much some people dislike it, that’s become the default philosophy/game style of D&D. And I don’t mind too much, to be honest. That's been my experience, too, yes. The 5E generation just wants to feel strong and tell a story. Which, to me, is odd, because if your goal is to be powerful and tell a specific story, D&D is like the worst way to go about it. The rules are not set up for that, and only would get in the way. I don't understand why, if that is the experience people want, they don't just freeform it. Why even have rules at all, especially if the intent is to ignore them when they are inconvenient? If nothing else, there are way, way better game systems out there for that sort of storytelling. Even 5E, with all the changes it's made, is still at its core, what D&D has always been--a dungeon crawling simulator. Everyone tries to modify it into something else (even myself), but at its core, that is what it was always meant for. This is the main conflict within 5E, I think. It relies heavily on rolling dice, but the entire point of rolling dice is to introduce randomness into the game. Everyone enjoys the sensation of rolling dice, but nobody wants them to be low. And 5E, on some level, seems to recognize this? Like, it has things like the Standard Array and average HP rolls and average damage rolls. Which makes more sense given its deign philosophy. In fact, rolling dice can really muck things up. It's why I switched to Standard Array for my 5E games, because someone getting an ability score of 19 at 1st level throws the balance really out of whack. And also, if you are trying to tell a specific story, then having a lot of randomness is going to mess that up. But most people want their cake and to eat it, too. They want the physical sensation of rolling dice, but don't want any possibility of failure. To me, though, the chance of failure is important. I've been in games where I, as a player, cannot lose. Where monsters will always avoid me if I'm hurt too badly, if I ever take any damage at all; where the DM helpfully points out to me ambushes before I walk into them, or traps before I step onto them, and who fudges rolls to ensure things always work out in my favor. And I really hate it. It's so boring. Because it means my choices don't matter. Things will play out the same way regardless of my input. I'm reminded of that episode of the Twilight Zone, where a gambler dies and wakes up in a casino where he always wins, no matter what. At first he thinks he's in Heaven, but then he realizes he's actually in Hell, because if there's no chance of failure, winning feels pointless and empty. There's no thrill, you're just pulling a lever on a slot machine again and again and again. It's the fear of losing and the thrill of winning that makes that worthwhile. To me, what makes D&D stories so interesting is that they are randomized to some degree. Players make choices, but they do not have full narrative control. Maybe the player wants to tell the story of how their character woos the beautiful princess, marries her, and becomes ruler of a nation. But then the player rolls a nat 1 on Persuasion and the princess rebuffs them. That sucks for the player, but this means they have an opportunity to tell a different story instead. How does the PC react to this development? Do they become bitter and resentful and seek to get revenge? Do they learn to accept and respect her decision? Do they seek out love elsewhere? Heck, this sort of thing can happen even with character creation. The player wants to be a Paladin, but they don't roll high enough (as the requirements are quite high in 2E), so they decide to be a Fighter instead, who is still quite devout and honorable, but never was good enough to make the cut. Maybe they are hoping to prove themselves somehow through heroic deed. Maybe they are upset that they weren't good enough to be a paladin, and are self-conscious about it. It's not the story the player wanted to tell, but it could still be a pretty good story. To me, that's what makes D&D fun. The random elements that throw a curve ball at you, and change whatever you had in mind. This goes for DMing, too. I might have a specific plan for how things are supposed to go, but player choice and/or dice rolls change that. It's like that old game I ran years ago, where the party was supposed to hunt down these monsters and slay them. But Horizon chose to try and negotiate with them, and got an amazing Persuasion roll, which changed the face of the entire setting, eventually leading to those 'monsters' becoming civilized, forming their own nation, and even becoming playable down the line. It saddens me that that sort of playstyle is dying out.
|
|
|
Post by GravityEmblem on Oct 13, 2023 13:48:57 GMT -8
On the contrary, I believe that aspect of D&D is alive and well, in circumstances where failure or randomness leads to…I don’t know, “interesting” results? I can totally imagine a failed attempt at flirting, or a player solving a problem in a way I don’t expect, lending some randomness and wackiness to one of my games. It’s just that there aren’t that many interesting spins on “you die,” or “you beat up and get captured,” at least ones that I can come up with.
One way to say it is that players don’t like to be punished, or penalized, or fail. But they don’t mind “not succeeding,” if that turn of phrase makes some sense.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Oct 13, 2023 16:42:17 GMT -8
Rewards and punishments are part of the game, in my mind. Every DM uses them, whether they realize it or not. Every time the party does anything, the consequences (or lack thereof) influences how they will play the game in the future.
For instance, if the party is in a dungeon and reach a long corridor, and they just step through it without checking for traps, and then they get cut up by a bunch of blades that spring forth from the walls, they learn a lesson. They should check for traps first. (Or they fail to learn that lesson, in which case they will likely continue to stumble into them.) On the other hand, if there are no traps, ever, or if there are but the DM always allows the party to escape taking damage from them, the party will continue to move heedlessly.
If the party is having an audience with the king and one of the PCs starts mocking and insulting the king, if the king has that PC arrested, it teaches a lesson. Don't mouth off to powerful NPCs. If the king ignores it, or laughs it off, then it teaches the group that they can get away with that sort of thing in the future. They may not take the king as seriously in the future.
Sometimes it even happens when the DM isn't even trying to reward or punish. You ever hear the story about the pooping dwarf? A group of adventurers camp down for the night, when the player of the dwarf announces he's going into the woods to take a dump. The DM is impressed, because PCs generally never think about that sort of thing, so he decides to reward the player a bit of roleplaying XP. However, it turns out the dwarf was very close to leveling, so that little bit of XP was enough to push him over the edge. Which means, in a nutshell, he leveled up from pooping. Do you know what happened as a result? The other party members started pooping all over the place.
Don't know if that's a real story or just a joke, but it illustrates my point. If behavior is rewarded, that behavior will increase. If it is punished, it will be decreased. That's just human nature.
It's why I tend to be very conscious about what sort of behavior I reward or punish. I had a recent game that fell apart. The party was gearing up for a big boss battle, and one of the players asked me to give the party Inspiration to help out. I found this a bit gauche, to be honest. It's one thing to ask for Inspiration for good cause, but like, "Give it to me because we're about to fight a hard battle?" Still, I decided instead, what I'd do, is allow the players to nominate each other for Inspiration. If a player did something that you felt made the game better, you can nominate them, and if I agree, I'll give them Inspiration. It seemed a compromise, to me.
A second player nominated the first for Inspiration, by bringing up an encounter earlier. The first player got into an argument with a third player. They insulted each other, and got a bit nasty. Fortunately, nothing too bad came from it, and they later made up.
However, despite that, I felt uncomfortable giving Inspiration for that scene. While it did work out this time, I didn't like the idea of rewarding a player for picking a fight with another PC. My concern was, upon learning that inter-party conflict can generate Inspiration, more players might try that tactic in the future. Maybe that wasn't the case, and I was overreacting. But that was my concern, and as I said, I tend to be hyper-aware of that sort of thing. So I declined. The first player was so angry by this, he quit the game. It fell apart shortly after.
In hindsight, though, I don't regret my choice. If I had just given in to him, given him what he wanted, the game would probably still be on-going. But it would have taught the players that they can demand the DM give them Inspiration, or magical items, or whatever, whenever they want. It almost certainly wouldn't have ended there.
And that's part of being a DM, is walking that line. It can be easy to give in to the line of thinking of, well, this is a game, and my players want to have fun, so if I give them whatever they want, if I fudge rolls in their favor, if I remove negative consequences like curses, dying, etc., then the players will have more fun, and the game will be more fun. But in my experiences, those sort of games inevitably lead to players become entitled, demanding and treating the DM like some customer service rep, demanding to see their manager or threatening to get them fired. (I actually once had a player tweet Chris Perkins to overrule a decision I made, as if Chris Perkins was somehow my boss.)
Anyway, character death can be a punishment. If the party rushes into a situation they can't handle, if they make bad decisions ("I poke the dragons' snout!"), etc. It can also be by accident (a goblin gets a lucky crit). But I still think it's important for the sake of stakes. If there's no threat of death, then combat is something of a slog. I remember as a youth, playing Final Fantasy and similar games. There's no permanent death. If the party wipes, you just reload your save and try again. I was never afraid of dying in a fight. And combat was pretty boring, as a result. Unless it was a big boss fight, I tended to just hold down the attack button each round, to speed things up. Wouldn't even bother wasting MP on spells, or consuming items. If I could avoid it (Moogle Charm), I'd skip the fights altogether. Although that would lead to me being under-leveled and having to grind to make up for it, so sort of a mixed bag.
I feel like adventuring should be dangerous. Otherwise, it raises the question why everyone doesn't do it (considering how much more profitable it is than say, farming or baking or waiting tables at a tavern). But also, yeah, there's just no excitement without it. Combat is just something you push through. There's got to be some kind of stakes. Especially in 5E, where every enemy is a huge HP sponge that takes forever to bring down.
|
|
|
Post by Igordragonian on Oct 16, 2023 6:54:51 GMT -8
Gravity Emblem- can you give an example for an ideal adventure then?
|
|
|
Post by GravityEmblem on Oct 16, 2023 8:14:44 GMT -8
Gravity Emblem- can you give an example for an ideal adventure then? Nah, I’m removing myself from this argument because it’s really upsetting me.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Oct 16, 2023 8:21:20 GMT -8
I'm sorry for upsetting you. That was not my intent. I'm just an old man, lamenting that he's been left behind. I know nothing I say will change anything, and the way things are are just the way they are.
|
|
|
Post by Igordragonian on Oct 16, 2023 8:25:44 GMT -8
Gravity Emblem- can you give an example for an ideal adventure then? Nah, I’m removing myself from this argument because it’s really upsetting me. I never meant to upset you.. Sorry. I just really want to understand- as a fellow player and sometimes a DM. As a DM, (mostly at IRL...) I communicate as much as I can. I have a player who has a phobia from anything related to ancient egypt. So no mummies, no pyramids in games he plays at. I dont *argue* per se.
|
|
|
Post by GravityEmblem on Oct 16, 2023 9:38:14 GMT -8
It's all right, I understand. I'm honestly pretty content with the way I run my games, and the way my players play in them. It's a little upsetting for someone to say they hate that way of playing and wish people didn't play the game like that. It feels like a personal attack, though I know that's ridiculous and untrue.
Honestly, my vision of an ideal D&D adventure is just a group of friends sitting around a table, playing a game of D&D. I've tried in the past to make the game more "proper," to run the game the way it "ought" to be run--that is, a game with real challenges, real danger, real consequences--but I don't really enjoy it, and my players don't either. I could feel frustrated at my players for not fitting into this ideal of a TTRPG that I want to live up to, but in the end, it isn't that important to me. I try to run that way because other people tell me I should, but I care more about my own enjoyment and the enjoyment of my players than how "other people" think I should run the game.
|
|
Matt4
Paragon
Posts: 3,545
|
Post by Matt4 on Oct 16, 2023 10:20:33 GMT -8
I don't really think there is a proper way of playing D&D, after all every group has it own set of homerules, quirks, etc. I think the important thing is that everyone is having fun, and to find compromises (when possible) if the people involved have different views about the game.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Oct 16, 2023 15:59:33 GMT -8
This probably just boils down to me not expressing myself particularly clearly.
My complaints about the hobby and the community are less "'Someone out there, somewhere, is playing the game WRONG and BAD and I won't stand for it!" and more "My preferred playstyle is not only no longer mainstream among the community, but viewed as WRONG and BAD by the community at large."
Like if you told me that at your table, you've eliminated death and at 0 HP, a PC just immediately heals back to full and continues fighting, I'd be like, "Okay, weird. But whatever works for you, I suppose." But if you told me that's how pretty much everyone runs their games now, I'd get pretty upset. Because I absolutely would not run games like that, which means I am going to get pushback from younger players, and get called a bad DM, etc., when one of their characters inevitably dies.
I mean, I get a ton of pushback just from running 5E the way it was written. I've had people ragequit my games because I use variant encumbrance, a rule written into the books.
So when I complain about people's reactions to the ending of Curse of Strahd, my complaints stem from my fear that the community, at large, won't accept games with dark endings. Because I run a lot of games with dark endings, or games where Evil cannot be truly defeated and will one day rise again. And I'd hate the idea that players would revolt against that in the future.
Or when I complain about cursed items being beneficial; I can't even remember the last time I actually used a cursed item in any of my games (maybe Sumina's mace in Module Matinee? But technically it's not cursed, just sentient and Evil). It's just, if I ever do roll one up, I don't want players to jump down my throat and accuse me of being a bad DM because of it.
I'm just afraid, I guess, of things changing. Which is something I can't stop, but I don't have anywhere else or anyone else to vent to, so I vent here. I don't mean to hurt anyone in the process, though, and I am sorry about that. I'll just have to learn to keep my 'old man yells at cloud' thoughts to myself.
|
|