# What the heck is "Unfun"?



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

Sometimes when I hear the term unfun, I think of the term "instant gratification." In the 4e discussions I am seeing this word more and more

On various RPing boards, including this one I have seen certain things labeled as unfun including, for example:

That a halfling PC might not be able to use an ogre's magical sword that is part of the treasure because it is simply too large.

That encumbrance should be done away with.

That limiting the player's options in regard to character races that are part of the setting is unfun and limits their creativity when the race in question ie. warforged do not fit in the setting without really changing the feel of the setting.

That even the basics of versimilitude such as not having anime style 7ft long swords with 8 inch diameter blades in a internally consistant setting is unfun.

That a DM mandating only certain classes based on the nature of the setting such as a Teifling paladin in Conan's Hyboria is unfun.

That the very real possibility of character death is unfun in an adventure game where the point is to face terrible foes and hopefully be victorious, but with absolutely no guarantees. There is NOTHING heroic about guaranteed victory.

In the above examples, I am paraphrasing various issues, but the point it that in the decades I have been DM I have never really encountered the kind of disregard for versimilitude as well as the sense of anything goes entitlement and instant gratification that I have seen since the dawn of 3e.

Honestly, I have run really fun and satisfying games for my players in campaigns and settings that have certain atmospheres and natures that do not allow for this IMO odd atittude I am seeing recently. When I ran a ravenloft campaign, none of my players thought it was unfun when they were placed in scary situations where is seemed hopeless (though it really wasn't). In Dark Sun you either survived or died by the strength of your sword, your magic and a steady supply of water. Every IMO quality setting has its own feel and integrity and playing and DMing in a given setting is in itself fun. Facing and overcoming challenges is fun. Achieving something is fun, even if that something is an increase in your character's reputation and notoriety and not a cool new magic item or power.

I think that when a setting is deprived of its atmosphere and core assumptions for the sake of "fun" ie. instant gratification of any and every whim is unfun and my players would agree. When all concerns for realism (such as needing water in a Dark Sun campaign, or facing the dark and sobering reality of Midnight) are cast aside because someone thinks their character should have the right to step all over the believability of the setting, I feel the setting and the campaign is damaged and unfun.

I would argue that if one bastardizes a setting by trying to avoid the impression of avoiding every possible thing that can in any way be construed as "unfun" one might as well not bother with a setting at all and stick to the colorless vanilla of the unnamed core D&D world, whatever that is.

It isn't that the DM shouldn't attempt to fit a character concept, race, feat, class, etc. in the setting if it can sensibly be added. However, some of these things can alter the feel of the setting until it destroys either the atmosphere or the necessary suspension of disbelief. And no, just because a setting has dragons and wizards doesn't mean that anything goes. One could add pink unicorn PCs to ravenloft, warforged to Dark Sun (where metal is nearly nonexistant), half-orcs to Dragonlance (no orcs), Inuyasha style anime big silly swords and whatnot to Eberron, little girls in parochial school girl dresses and mighty magical powers (Sailor Moon) into Midnight but ust because you can doesn't mean you should. Fantasy isn't necessarily synonomous with whimsy. Whimsy is fantasy but not all fantasy is whimsy.

Not allowing these things is not unfun, its just respecting the nature of the setting you've chosen.


Sundragon


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 12, 2007)

while much of the removal of the "Unfun" things are an attempt to get more of the instant gratification types to open their wallets, there is something to be said of the annoyance of being sidelined for 3d4 rounds after a Mind Blast. I think I'd rather have my character's brain blown out the back of his skull ala Scanners so I can get started on the next character sheet rather than sitting there and sucking for the rest of the fight.


----------



## The Human Target (Sep 12, 2007)

Ugh.

How many of these judgmental, borderline trollish threads are you going to make a week until 4E comes out?


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 12, 2007)

Troll or not, one thing is sure: D&D has not been "unfun" for 30 years, otherwise the game would have died long ago. And it has not become "unfun" all of a sudden either...


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

The Human Target said:
			
		

> Ugh.
> 
> How many of these judgmental, borderline trollish threads are you going to make a week until 4E comes out?




Funny a threacrapper calling me a troll. Amusing.   

I am in support of 4e and like much of what I'm hearing about it. My criticism is of an attitude amongst some who feel that the fun of playing the game with a well designed, interesting character, isn't enough anymore. For decades it has been, but not anymore it seems. IMO there is the attitude of being entitled to anything one desires as a fulfillment of the D&D experience when this has never been the case.

Versimilitude matters.

If this is trolling to you, then feel free to ignore the thread.



Sundragon


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Troll or not, one thing is sure: D&D has not been "unfun" for 30 years, otherwise the game would have died long ago. And it has not become "unfun" all of a sudden either...




My point entirely.


Sundragon


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> while much of the removal of the "Unfun" things are an attempt to get more of the instant gratification types to open their wallets, there is something to be said of the annoyance of being sidelined for 3d4 rounds after a Mind Blast. I think I'd rather have my character's brain blown out the back of his skull ala Scanners so I can get started on the next character sheet rather than sitting there and sucking for the rest of the fight.




No doubt you are correct. I am all for getting the MMORPG kiddies to play D&D....I want the game to thrive and I'm always free to DM in the style I am accustomed to.

But c'mon if you have a good character, is it really better to be dead than to suck in a given fight? There will be other fights.  


Sundragon


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 12, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> while much of the removal of the "Unfun" things are an attempt to get more of the instant gratification types to open their wallets, there is something to be said of the annoyance of being sidelined for 3d4 rounds after a Mind Blast. I think I'd rather have my character's brain blown out the back of his skull ala Scanners so I can get started on the next character sheet rather than sitting there and sucking for the rest of the fight.




You know what's funny? That _most_ of the "unfun" arguments I've read in the past 2 weeks go into the opposite direction, i.e. stuff like you describe (which would be a typical Save or Die effect) is labeled as major unfun and lobbied to be removed or toned down (i.e. turned into Save or Disabled effects).  And I bet you dollars to donuts that those toned down effects will be the next level of "unfun effects" that will be marked for removal as soon as the next revision rolls around.

I'm eagerly awaiting the "More Fun Monopoly" Edition, where the designers finally realized that going to jail is entirely unfun, and that paying rent on a street should be reduced to a token sum of 1$...after all, it's no fun to be ruined by a random die roll, is it?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 12, 2007)

Here's some things I find unfun:

Keeping track of arrows, every last copper piece, food and encumbrance. Being ineffective in a fight, such as a two-weapon fighter versus a high DR monster. Serious power imbalance between the PCs.

The setting flavour issue is a tricky one. While it's important to retain flavour, sometimes with a bit of tweaking you can make a concept work. For instance the warforged ninja in 7th Sea can work, imo, provided he isn't called a 'warforged' and provided he isn't called a 'ninja'.

There actually are tieflings in Conan. The wizard Tsotha from The Scarlet Citadel is a half-demon. There are also heroic knights, though nothing quite like a D&D paladin. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to have an Aquilonian cavalryman with demonic heritage, basically a tiefling paladin.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 12, 2007)

The Human Target said:
			
		

> Ugh.
> 
> How many of these judgmental, borderline trollish threads are you going to make a week until 4E comes out?




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.

Thanks.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 12, 2007)

What is unfun to me:

Dying _again_ just because I rolled a 1 on a saving throw that would have been a pretty good success rate again. (Cleric: Destruction: Fighter: Oh no, that's my best save! AARGH!)
Dying _again_ just because I failed a save I hadn't had a reasonable chance to succeed in the first place. (Bodak: Hello Wizard. Wizard: ARRRGH!)
Killing a BBEG _again_ with a single spell during the first round of the final encounter.

Combats in which my characters got nothing to do, because 
- I fear I am running out of spells and having no meaningful alternative to do instead.
- I am out of spells and meaningful alternatives to do.
- I died in the first round due to a single stupid dice roll
- I was stunned, dazed or helpless for several rounds and no chance to get back.
- I was unable to contribute because the monsters were immune to all of my abilities and I was also not able to use any of my abilities to help my comrades.

What can be fun, despite my character not taking the spot-light or suffering from bad consequences: 
- Dying near the end of an encounter, possible due to a failed save or lucky critical hit, but maybe through sheer attrition.
- Holding back after having buffed a meelee Fighter to do the work and watch him crush the opposition, partly thanks to my help
- Holding the line so that the Wizard has time to crush the opposition with a few well placed spells.

Yes, a few of these unfun things might somethings be fun. But not if they happen regularly. Some aren't even fun anymore if they happen more than, say, twice. (I am specifically looking at failed saving throws at the beginning of an encounter that lead to the character's death or uselessness for the remainder of the encounter)

And if me not liking these things mean I have a short attention span or that a game that will suit my taste more will be "video-gamey" - well, I don't care, as long as I get to have fun!


----------



## FireLance (Sep 12, 2007)

There are as many definitions of unfun as there are styles of play.

However, I think a good principle for the design of RPGs is: the rules shouldn't get in the way of your fun. That's the DM's job.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Here's some things I find unfun:
> 
> Keeping track of arrows, every last copper piece, food and encumbrance. Being ineffective in a fight, such as a two-weapon fighter versus a high DR monster. Serious power imbalance between the PCs.
> 
> ...




I would think that it would be important to make sure that the archers are actually able to shoot the arrows they're firing at the orcs they're trying to kill. I don't know that arrows should have the same unlimited quality as bullets in a John Woo film.

I can see not keeping track of money til the last copper, easpecially when IME characters are never quite completely out of funds.

Not really familiar with 7th sea, but that's an interesting point about the tiefling in Conan. I would think that such things have to be handled with care and good sense when it comes to frequency.



Sundragon


----------



## wedgeski (Sep 12, 2007)

'Unfun' seems to me to have become nothing more than a projectile to lob over the wall at someone you don't agree with and want to discredit. Just one more in a long list of such words: 'railroad', 'munchkin', 'roll-player', etc.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> I'm eagerly awaiting the "More Fun Monopoly" Edition, where the designers finally realized that going to jail is entirely unfun, and that paying rent on a street should be reduced to a token sum of 1$...after all, it's no fun to be ruined by a random die roll, is it?




I'm holding out for the "More Fun" version of Trivial Pursuit where even if you know nothing you still win so you can still feel good about yourself.

My son was playing the "More Fun" version of football where everyone won just by stepping onto the field.....of course he was only 6 at the time. Unfortunately, he is forced to play the "unfun" version of football where one team wins and one team loses. 

Life is tough sometimes when your 9yrs old, deal with it.   

I'm thinking that this is a lesson some D&D players need to learn....::ducks and runs for cover::  

Sundragon


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 12, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> I'm eagerly awaiting the "More Fun Monopoly" Edition, where the designers finally realized that going to jail is entirely unfun, and that paying rent on a street should be reduced to a token sum of 1$...after all, it's no fun to be ruined by a random die roll, is it?



Well, if they manage to create a Monopoly version that doesn't require any die rolls, I'd actually be quite interested in it.

I like strategy games that don't have any elements of chance. One of my favorite examples is Diplomacy. It's only problem is that the starting positions (i.e. the country you're playing) are not equally good.

Ah, now that was completely off-topic, I guess...


----------



## StarFyre (Sep 12, 2007)

*hmmm*

I find magical immunities and DR a part of challenging planar creatures that are not supposed to be from 'our world.' 

If you think of people who are religious and believe the bible, etc is all true.

Do you really think some tiny dagger you bought at a store would have a chance, no matter how strong you are, to hurt Michael the Archangel? 

I believe, that if such beings did exist, they should be immune to normal weapons (ie. non magical or have a type of DR)....if this stuff is removed for instance, I have explained this to my players, that I will add it back based on the creature.

Sanjay


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 12, 2007)

Well, this is my list of "unfun" things then:

- playing with a rules lawyer who constantly bitches about the exact wording of a rule
- playing with someone who cares only about his PC being in the spotlight all the time, and when he's not he does his best to spoil someone else's spotlight

These first ones I'm afraid no ruleset will help getting rid of. But instead the next may be handled better at the rules level.

- buying magic items from a shopping list that contains everything even in the smallest village grocery store
- finding magic items that looks like mass-production technology: loads of +1 weapons, +1 rings of protection, +1 cloak of charisma... what about having a stamp on all the cloaks that says "Made in Thay"?
- selling magic items like they are doubled chrismas presents being returned to the shop

(you might notice I have issues with magic items...   )

but also:

- checking precise areas and distances for spells and abilities, being pushed to use a battlemap
- rolling MORE than 2 dice to determine the outcome of a single action IN combat (e.g. grapple, dispelling)
- rolling LESS than 2 dice to determine the outcome of an interesting action OUT of combat (e.g. dealing with traps or diplomacy)
- still not knowing how to properly make a dragon fly or a horse carry its rider without looking up the PHB


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Sep 12, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> I'm thinking that this is a lesson some D&D players need to learn....::ducks and runs for cover::
> 
> Sundragon



I'm going to summarize my response to the earlier parts of this by simply referring you to the dictionary. Well, a single word in the dictionary: *competitive*. Examine the definition of the word as it applies to sports. Got it clear in your head? Okay, now here's the tricky part - understand _D&D isn't that._ 

As for this little closing sentiment here, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that most D&D players know life isn't fair when you're nine, having been nine already. Hell, I'll bet most of them know the bigger secret (and I'll even let you in on it) - it doesn't get any more fair at 15, or 19, or 25, or 40. Life, as it turns out, kinda sucks sometimes. For everybody. More important lessons for D&D players of all stripes include:


Fresh air, the sun, and vegetables will not kill you at low exposures.
D&D is not a substitute for actual life experiences.
Your play style is not objectively better. Hell, it might not be subjectively better. But it's fun, so keep at it. 
Soap: Not just a decorative element in the shower!
Your dice are perfectly random. Unless someone else in the group touches them.
D&D is not, however over-burdened your 'realistic' house rules may be, life. It is thus not beholden to the Sometimes It Sucks clause.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

StarFyre said:
			
		

> I find magical immunities and DR a part of challenging planar creatures that are not supposed to be from 'our world.'
> 
> If you think of people who are religious and believe the bible, etc is all true.
> 
> ...




I'm so with you on this.

The very idea that someone could complain that _"I felt that my character was useless because he couldn't use his sword on the demon, werewolf, vampire, angel, etc. and I think that the rules should make sure that I am relevant in every encounter no matter what"_ is unfortunate IMO.

There should be great challenges, challenges that player's have to rack their brains over, _"oh my god my sword couldn't affect this creature, I need to research how to defeat it." _ 
Fantasy fiction and folklore is filled with creatures that skill alone cannot defeat and aganst whom wits are greater than steel.


Sundragon


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 12, 2007)

It isn't that things we've been doing for the last 20 years were always "unfun", it's that we tolerated them because we HAD to, the rules said that's the way it worked and we accepted it.

People are actually sitting back and saying "If I could make a new version of the game where the things I don't like about it were gone, what would I remove?"  And the list you're getting is the "unfun" list.

There's going to be things we don't like about any game.  However, in the past we were told that certain things NEEDED to stay since they were NEEDED for the game.  You needed to have 9 levels of spells where you prepared them in advance.  You NEEDED to have a list of every weapon that's ever historically existed and every armor so you can realistically create any period of Earth's history.  Wizards NEEDED to be extremely powerful for one fight in exchange for being really weak in all the other fights.

All of these things were accepted.  Partially because that's the way it's always been done, and partially because no one could think of a better way.  I mean...how do you balance the ability to shoot fireballs with the ability to swing a sword?  The ONLY way (or at least the old way of thinking was) that they had to have only a couple of uses of the ability per day and make them REALLY weak the rest of the time.

The new thinking says "There are lots of examples in books and movies of fighters being able to do some AMAZING things with swords, nearly on the magical level...why not just give them abilities that are just as powerful as a fireball but in a different way?"  And people are responding to that with "Yeah...that makes sense...why didn't we think of that before?  Now that we think about it, we sat back an envied all of those wizards for doing all sorts of cool things and wished my fighter could to.  I wasn't having as much fun as I would have WITH those powers."  So, people are saying things are "unfun".


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> I'm going to summarize my response to the earlier parts of this by simply referring you to the dictionary. Well, a single word in the dictionary: *competitive*. Examine the definition of the word as it applies to sports. Got it clear in your head? Okay, now here's the tricky part - understand _D&D isn't that._
> 
> As for this little closing sentiment here, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that most D&D players know life isn't fair when you're nine, having been nine already. Hell, I'll bet most of them know the bigger secret (and I'll even let you in on it) - it doesn't get any more fair at 15, or 19, or 25, or 40. Life, as it turns out, kinda sucks sometimes. For everybody. More important lessons for D&D players of all stripes include:
> 
> ...




D&D isn't supposed to be competitive between the DM and the players. I am 100% against an adversarial relationship between DM and players. However, where you have it wrong is that there is a distinct competition for survival between PCs and their enemies. Their enemies often want nothing more than to kill them and should be played in a manner befitting that motivation. The PCs on the other hand are often just as intent on killingn them and that is the way it should be in these kinds of circumstances.

There are winners and losers in fantasy fiction, myth and in all fantasy RPGs since the beginning of the hobby. If the good guys die against the BBEG then they die and there may be no chance to return depending on the nature of the setting and the situation. When the good guys kill the BBEG there is celebration. There most certainly is competition, the competition for survival in heroic fantasy makes it HEROIC.

Anything is sterile and distinctly unheroic and unfun.

The rest of your post has nothing whatsoever to do with my point in the context of gaming. If some gamers need to take more showers and enjoy more of the "real" world than that is between them, their loved ones and their god(s).



Sundragon


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 12, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> The very idea that someone could complain that _"I felt that my character was useless because he couldn't use his sword on the demon, werewolf, vampire, angel, etc. and I think that the rules should make sure that I am relevant in every encounter no matter what"_ is unfortunate IMO.
> 
> There should be great challenges, challenges that player's have to rack their brains over, _"oh my god my sword couldn't affect this creature, I need to research how to defeat it." _
> Fantasy fiction and folklore is filled with creatures that skill alone cannot defeat and aganst whom wits are greater than steel.



The lesson I learned is that two-weapon fighting sucks, so next time I'll go for two-handed PA. Doing massive damage is a more effective means of getting past DR than having a weapon of the right material as it also helps you kill non-DR creatures faster.

In that particular game fights tended to be over in about 3 rounds so it was vital to make each round's action count. The time taken to change weapon was often too long. Also it was a Savage Species game so we had no knowledge skills to tell us what materials were required anyway.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Sep 12, 2007)

I have no problem if a DM limits whats what Race/Class combinations are available.  Saying I can't play a Warforged in this campaign in the DM's perogative.

There are; however; things I find 'unfun':

Twiddelling my thumbs for a large portion of a combat because I rolled a 1 on a saving throw (against my best save none-the-less).

Shooting things with a crossbow when I'm supposed to be using magic and/or attacking something and hope I roll a 20 so I actually hit.  
(Please note:  this is fine in small doses.  I don't mind fighting a golem (pre-orb spells) so the fighter has a chance to shine or being the fighter attacking a tank critter that has a really low touch AC so the wizard can shine... every so often.  I don't want to have the magic using PC firing the crossbow every session though.  He's the magic user.  He should be using magic.)

Those are the two big ones.  There are some minor ones (why do I need to keep track of copper pieces at level 20?) but I think those qualify more as "annoying" than "unfun", for me at least.


----------



## StarFyre (Sep 12, 2007)

*maybe it's just me*

As sundragon said..

in my current 3.5 campaign (with some modified/house rules of course), planescape setting (using 2E materials for all the background info removed from 3.5E monster manual), my players had to help someone, which would take them to teh abyss (they didn't know this).

One player was smart enough (screw the intelligence of the character..my goal is also to help my players become better actors (ie. roleplayers) AND to learn problem solving skills, etc in real life, so I am ok with them using their own intelligence, etc to solve problems, puzzles, etc..but not using background knowledge for creatures they never faced in the game before....long story).  anyways, one player asked, what type of 'enemies may we face in this area you are sending us?" 

My notes, mentioned, if anyone asked, not to tell WHERE, but mention cold iron weapons would help as many creatures in the area appear almost immune to normal stuff.

So my friends asked me (out of character, since it's not in PHB, do I use cold iron in my campaign)..i replied of course. So then in character, they went shopping. Now the dumb part was..they only bought 1 cold iron dagger?!?!? (what the hell were they thinkign!)

in the ensuing adventure (the next session...we don't have many fights in my campaigns)...the battle was with 1 bar-iguara, who summoned several dretches (I modified summoning, so it's like 2E....attrition..demon summons help, that help summons help, etc..the way it should be damnit)

due to tehir bad planning, only 1 person could hurt the enemies..but due to my experience as DM, I was certain the battle itself, while challenging, and 'logical' for the setting, was not overly insane.

They won, but it took a while!!! 12 or 15 rounds, with lots of tactical movement (or so attempts).

In the end, they learned...not to charge the stuff like that, to equip properly, etc.

Next time they went to a new place, they planned better.

I want my friends to get better.

I firmly believe, tactical combat, asking questions, learning as if this was real life, puzzles, riddles, logical puzzles, etc all help them problem solve in real life (IF the difficulty is hard enough...even many of my boss battles are hard enough to be considered more of a puzzle on how to get by it..since toe to toe won't work!!!).

It sounds like every edition of table top games is moving away from such challenges and just making it a pure #s game 

Sanjay


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 12, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> I would think that it would be important to make sure that the archers are actually able to shoot the arrows they're firing at the orcs they're trying to kill. I don't know that arrows should have the same unlimited quality as bullets in a John Woo film.



I can see three options here:

1) Keep track of every arrow, which means marking one off every time you shoot.
2) Unlimited arrows, a la John Woo.
3) A different kind of system which makes it possible to run out of arrows. Perhaps Buffy-style where the DM gives you a hero point in exchange for saying you run out at a dramatically appropriate point.

To my mind, (1) is by far and away the worst solution. It's boring, error prone and undramatic. The extra realism isn't worth the hassle, by far. (2) and (3) are much better. 

Likewise with money I would like to see a more general system. Perhaps wealth could be a +modifier. Minor purchases are waived, major ones require a roll against a DC.

Same with encumbrance. PCs tend to be ridiculously strong anyway. Assume they can carry the typical backpack and gear without toting up the weight of every last iron spike.

All of this very much relates to the '20 minutes of fun packed into four hours' comment in my sig. When you're spending most of your time at the game table keeping track of arrows and money, calculating encumbrance and other unfun activities such as haggling with shopkeepers or mapping, it's easy to see why there's only 20 minutes of fun in a session.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 12, 2007)

Another thing I find unfun is totalling up and dividing treasure. This can take ages if each monster slain has pp, gp, sp and cp*, various art objects, gems, trade goods and magic items.

The best solution I've found is to unify the loot more - a few big hoards, a few powerful items.


*And that's another unfun thing. Electrum pieces. What in the name of Jesus was the point of those?


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I can see three options here:
> 
> 1) Keep track of every arrow, which means marking one off every time you shoot.
> 2) Unlimited arrows, a la John Woo.
> ...




I get what you are saying, and though part of me can agree with a bit of it, the annoying versimilitude DM within me screams at the idea of John Woo arrows. There is something cinematic and dramatic about being down to your last arrow.

Green Ronin's True20 system has a wealth mechanic that might interest you as it isn't about cataloguing the last copper piece.

But yeah, I think that assuming certain things like some torches and iron spikes and other negligable essentials can be overlooked.

I am of the line of thinking that there is fun in the game via playing the game through your character and his or her interactions. Cinematic combats are great, but by the same token there are plenty of things in the game that add to drama that are grittier and therefore more challenging. Crossing wilderness in the winter seeking shelter from a coming storm while fleeing the hill giants tracking you through the snows is cool too as is in character role-playing social interactions with other PCs and NPCs.



Sundragon


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 12, 2007)

Another thing that strikes me as pretty funny is that a lot of "unfun" things players seem to dislike are directly connected to how much bookkeeping they have to do for their *one* player character.

Makes me wonder if DMing isn't the most unfun activity of all.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 12, 2007)

StarFyre said:
			
		

> In the end, they learned...not to charge the stuff like that, to equip properly, etc.
> 
> Next time they went to a new place, they planned better.



That's something the players can fix fairly quickly though. The only thing I could do was change my character, since I was pretty much locked into the two-weapon fighting build.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Another thing that strikes me as pretty funny is that a lot of "unfun" things players seem to dislike are directly connected to how much bookkeeping they have to do for their *one* player character.
> 
> Makes me wonder if DMing isn't the most unfun activity of all.




If bookeeping and paying attention to minutea is unfun for the players, they really need to sit behind the DMs acreen. Much of the DMs job is rooted in paying attention to details, the details of an entire setting as opposed to one character. 

I love DMing because I enjoy details. For me its the details that make a setting come to life. When a player complains I think that the souls of DMs in the afterlife return to this world and make the player rolls 1s on important saving throws. Yep, that's what happens, so watch the complaining.    

I can tell you that those who enjoy DMing are outnumbered by players several times to one. I think it takes a certain personality type to DM for years and years and love it. Not a superior type, just one different from those who are dedicated players.


Sundragon


----------



## SavageRobby (Sep 12, 2007)

The more I read about 4e, the more they seem to be going the direction of Savage Worlds. And thats not a bad thing.

I'm an old school guy, and love AD&D and C&C, finding them chock full of "fun" (as its being discussed), but I have to admit that I really love Savage Worlds as well. I've been spending time stealing the best elements of SW and putting them into my C&C game. If 4e does this for me, I think it will be plenty of fun.



I see a bigger and bigger disconnect between those who want verisimilitude (or a close portrayal of reality, as close as you can get with Dragons and magic and such), and those who want cinematic action. IMO, gritty & verisimilitude come at the expense of having some of the "unfun" elements discussed. To solve those "unfun" issues, you get a more cinematic game. I see a place for both, but I think the market researchers have decided that cinematic wins out in terms of sales to the new gamer (or the WOW players).


----------



## SavageRobby (Sep 12, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> If bookeeping and paying attention to minutea is unfun for the players, they really need to sit behind the DMs acreen. Much of the DMs job is rooted in paying attention to details, the details of an entire setting as opposed to one character.




Go DM a game of C&C or Savage Worlds, and you'll quickly find that DMing doesn't _have_ to be that way. DMing 3x might have had to be that way, but that doesn't mean 4x has to. And if the direction the designers are going, more power to them.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Another thing that strikes me as pretty funny is that a lot of "unfun" things players seem to dislike are directly connected to how much bookkeeping they have to do for their *one* player character.
> 
> Makes me wonder if DMing isn't the most unfun activity of all.




Yeah, that bookkeeping can be unfun all right.......   

BTW, D&D is not a game in which it is necessary to be competetive with others at the table, but that doesn't mean that there isn't competition ongoing.  When your characters fight orcs, the DM takes the role of those orcs, and they probably are competing with your PCs.  

Or else, really, why roll dice at all?  Why not just sit around and tell cool stories?



RC


----------



## Insight (Sep 12, 2007)

Re: Unfun

I'd like to see a drastic reduction in the rules elements that bar you from an action "You can't...", changing them to making it harder to succeed "It's harder to..."

It's not fun when the rules prohibit you from doing something.  It's a challenge when the rules make it harder for you to do something when you've made a decision that is detrimental to your situation.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Sep 12, 2007)

While I'm not going to go into a list of things I think are fun and unfun, I think this topic is interesting, and I hope the 4th edition designers take a good long look at what they consider unfun before just yanking it out of the game. The big problem areas will hopefully be smoothed over, but only taken out if there is no other solution. Doing otherwise could lead down a slippery slope.

For example, lots of people seem to believe that save or die/save or be removed from combat are unfun. If the solution is just to pull those effects out of the game, though, it hurts some of the drama in the game as well as the setting. That means the basilisk and the medusa have to either be taken out of the game entirely or stripped of their signature powers because the risk of petrification is deemed unfun.

Hopefully, any examination of things that are deemed unfun will be looked at long and hard before being removed from the game.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 12, 2007)

> In the above examples, I am paraphrasing various issues, but the point it that in the decades I have been DM I have never really encountered the kind of disregard for versimilitude as well as the sense of anything goes entitlement and instant gratification that I have seen since the dawn of 3e.




May I paraphrase:  "Kids these days!  Arr!  Get offa ma lawn!"

If you look at the things getting labeled unfun, I think you will notice a trend.  The things being described as "unfun" tend to involve 1) a lot of bookkeeping for an in game effect of minor importance, 2) "losing" for reasons outside of the players control, or 3) disputes between players and DMs regarding control of the setting.

Regarding 1) if I have a magical quiver that can hold 300 non magical arrows, and it takes me 100 rounds of shooting at full capacity to use up those non magical arrows, and if it costs me a trivially small amount of gold relative to my wealth to replenish those arrows, then why SHOULD I keep track of them?  Doesn't this remind you of magical components?  Sure, an element of realism is added, but an element of realism would also be added by making wizards count out how many units of bat guano they are carrying, and we don't do that.  Should we?  Would it be fun counting out all the different magical components a wizard might hypothetically need, making a list, and marking down each time he uses one?

Regarding 2) it really isn't that fun to lose for reasons outside of your control.  Even if its realistic.  I suspect you agree, but you changed that complaint in your mind from "its unfun to die due to a random saving throw" into "its unfun to die!  Waaaah!"

Regarding 3) this is an eternal fight between DMs and players for control of the game.  I'm sure you feel it is "unfun" for a DM to be forced to permit warforged or monks in a campaign world he designed.  You should then recognize that its unfun for a player to be told he can't play a warforged monk character he designed.  Considering that this issue is not going to be decided by the rules of the 4th ed, I'm not sure why you brought it up.  Every gaming group has to come to a balance between the DMs desire to run the game he wants, and the players desire to play the game they want.  They reach this equilibrium by considering things like friendship ties within the group, strength of preference, and the availability of alternate games.  This has nothing to do with instant gratification, it has to do with your preference for DMs over players.  There is no objective answer to the question, "is it better for a DM to make an exception and allow one warforged character in his campaign world, perhaps by writing a unique creation story for him, or is it better for the player to find something else he'd like to play?"


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 12, 2007)

You know what else is funny about this thread?

There's a thread in this forum making the EXACT OPPOSITE COMPLAINTS as this thread.

This guy thinks that 3e+ has led to a lack of respect for verisimilitude, a demand for instant gratification, and (though he doesn't say so explicitly) diminished respect for DMs.

The other thread has people in it who believe that 3e+ has "reduced creativity" by binding the game down with all kinds of rules (ie, increased verisimilitude in a way which they do not like), and replaced instant action with spreadsheet oriented character construction.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

SavageRobby said:
			
		

> The more I read about 4e, the more they seem to be going the direction of Savage Worlds. And thats not a bad thing.
> 
> I'm an old school guy, and love AD&D and C&C, finding them chock full of "fun" (as its being discussed), but I have to admit that I really love Savage Worlds as well. I've been spending time stealing the best elements of SW and putting them into my C&C game. If 4e does this for me, I think it will be plenty of fun.
> 
> ...




I'm old school in a variety of ways. I think slower leveling up is best, that the fun of the game is playing the game and not necessarily tied to aquiring powers and other stuff, that settings have their own flavors and dynamics that shouldn't be watered down for the sake of unlimited choices, that DMs aren't just arbiters of "core" canon law ie. sacred rules and some other ways as well.

The problem with the cinematic vs. versimilitude camps is that their needn't be a mutually exclusive attitude from either camp. I have had some high cinematic action in my games, but at the same time versimilitude never suffered, well not enough to destroy the suspension of disbelief. There is a fine line sometimes and it takes skill as a DM/GM to know where the line is.

I'm creating a setting for eventual publishing and am weighing the merits of different rule sets. I am interested in 4e (wait and see on this one), true20 and runequest. Is Savage Worlds OGL? I'll check into Savage Worlds because I have heard good things. I would like to make it suitable for 4e if possible but if it seems I'm swimming uphill by trying to create a certain kind of setting with an innappropriate ruleset.



Sundragon


----------



## Dragonblade (Sep 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> May I paraphrase:  "Kids these days!  Arr!  Get offa ma lawn!"
> 
> If you look at the things getting labeled unfun, I think you will notice a trend.  The things being described as "unfun" tend to involve 1) a lot of bookkeeping for an in game effect of minor importance, 2) "losing" for reasons outside of the players control, or 3) disputes between players and DMs regarding control of the setting.
> 
> ...




Fantastic post! QFT!


----------



## Nifft (Sep 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> If you look at the things getting labeled unfun, I think you will notice a trend.  The things being described as "unfun" tend to involve 1) a lot of bookkeeping for an in game effect of minor importance, 2) "losing" for reasons outside of the players control, or 3) disputes between players and DMs regarding control of the setting.



 Fully agree. Needs to be said more.

Thanks, -- N


----------



## The_Gneech (Sep 12, 2007)

So Saturday I was playing a nonstandard race barbarian, size large, and in the dungeon we encounter a crazy golem thing made up entirely of magical stone tablets. Most of the rest of the group is size small (long story), so their d4-based weapons are bouncing off its DR. With my 2d6+5+1d6 (fire) battleaxe, I'm pretty much the only one in the party who can hurt it.

The wizard casts _enlarge_ on me, making me size huge -- I now have a 3d6+6+1d6 (fire) battleaxe! Yeah, baby!

However, whenever you hit this golem with a melee attack, it automatically triggers a random spell effect. In my case, _cause fear_. I got a reflex save to avoid the spell "blast" (missed), and a willpower save to resist the effect (also missed) -- so after hitting it once, my huge barbarian was out for the rest of the fight, cowering in the corner like the Cowardly Lion.

The rest of the party did manage to nick it into submission eventually.

Was this "unfun"? Well ... yeah, kinda, in the same way that having your behind handed to you by a superior football team would be. But it's also part of the game! "You win some, you lose some," is a necessary element of sustained enjoyment. "You win some, and then you win some more," is a surefire recipe for people quickly becoming tired of the game and finding something else to do with their Saturday night.

Is 4E going to go that route? I'm not sure. I certainly hope not! But after trying to hash out things with Mike Mearls re: his rust monster remake and seeing the thought process behind it, I think it's a valid concern.

-The Gneech


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Sep 12, 2007)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> It isn't that things we've been doing for the last 20 years were always "unfun", it's that we tolerated them because we HAD to, the rules said that's the way it worked and we accepted it.



Why?  There have been dozens of RPGs made over the past 20 years.  Huge array of systems and rules.  Why didn't you play a system that was more fun for you? And if you have been playing such a system, does the hobby not benefit from having a diverse array of games with different rulesets for different styles?  Why must D&D change to be more like other games?  I wouldn't walk into a GURPS forum and recommend that they change their rules to be more like D&D -- I'm sure their rules are great for people who like GURPS since they knew what they were getting.  If you HAVEN'T switched to another system, why not?  Why have you felt forced to stick with D&D's unfun rules?

Gamers have "voted with their wallets" and most, I think, chose D&D from among the TRPGs.  So in that regard, one might surmise that D&D is the most fun to the most people.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 12, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Gamers have "voted with their wallets" and most, I think, chose D&D from among the TRPGs.  So in that regard, one might surmise that D&D is the most fun to the most people.




"Most fun" /= "Objectively maximized fun which cannot be improved upon."
"Most fun" /= "No other system has fun bits which can be stolen to replace less fun bits in D&D."


----------



## SavageRobby (Sep 12, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> I'm old school in a variety of ways. I think slower leveling up is best, that the fun of the game is playing the game and not necessarily tied to aquiring powers and other stuff, that settings have their own flavors and dynamics that shouldn't be watered down for the sake of unlimited choices, that DMs are just arbiters of "core" canon law ie. sacred rules and some other ways as well.




Heh. I think in this short paragraph you've already made it clear you're not the target audience for 4e. Faster leveling (and more of it!) and getting "kewl new stuff" seems to be an overriding theme in 4e. 





> The problem with the cinematic vs. versimilitude camps is that their needn't be a mutually exclusive attitude from either camp. I have had some high cinematic action in my games, but at the same time versimilitude never suffered, well not enough to destroy the suspension of disbelief. There is a fine line sometimes and it takes skill as a DM/GM to know where the line is.




Hmm. How to say this. For actual implementations of games, I think you can blur the line between cinematic and verisimilitude, in the exact manner you suggested: "well not enough to destory the suspension of disbelief" - but that is in-game. The game you play itself acquires reality in your imagination-space, and so its easier to suspend disbelief. _Reading_ a ruleset, that is, analyzing it apart from an actual implementation of the game, has its own dynamics, and its much easier to view the uncoupling of the two elements as there is no emotional attachment to the game itself to cloud one's vision. Or put another way, when not playing the game but studying the rules independently, I think its much easier to see the division of those two camps. 

I think both camps have their own definitions of fun, too, and what is fun in one is not necessarily fun in another. Savage Worlds has a cool mechanic where you have as much ammo as you need - until you roll a critical failure, at which point you run out. Very cinematic? Very un-realistic - you could go through multiple combats and never run out of ammo - or run out of ammo, acquire more and immediately run out again with a second critical failure. (And we haven't even mentioned Bennies, a player mechanic that allows for re-rolls, among other things, so that the player could have simply re-rolled the critical failure to avoid running out of ammo.)

If I was trying to be a simulationist, that mechanic would bug the snot out of me (and truth be told, it did upon first read). But I've shifted from my old school mentality to the other side of the fence, and to me, its simply more fun. Its more dramatic. Its more like grabbing arrows and firing at the oncoming hordes, then suddenly reaching back and realizing you're out - and screwed (very movie-like, and great for player-based drama/tension), and its less like carefully counting and husbanding each arrow and taking careful stock of how they're used. Both are valid approaches, and both are fun to different types of gamers (and unfun to others) - and both ultimately accomplish the same thing in different ways, which is creating a decision moment when a player runs out of arrows.





> I'm creating a setting for eventual publishing and am weighing the merits of different rule sets. I am interested in 4e (wait and see on this one), true20 and runequest. Is Savage Worlds OGL? I'll check into Savage Worlds because I have heard good things. I would like to make it suitable for 4e if possible but if it seems I'm swimming uphill by trying to create a certain kind of setting with an innappropriate ruleset.




Savage Worlds is not OGL. Its not remotely d20. But it does have licensing opportunities. You'd need to contact the PegInc guys. (Email me if you're interested and I can probably point you in the right direction). 

That said, its billed as a "Fast! Furious! Fun!" game (their tagline). Its pulpy and heroic and cinematic, but with some excellent nods to more realism (handling of wounds, the best and simplest fatigue system I've seen yet, and handles combat tricks like "look over there!" and sand in the face and other cinematic staples extremely well). It has its limitations - BTB the magic system is very tactical, and not at all strategic (something D&D magic is).

I hear the designers talk about their more incremental leveling, and that is exactly what SW does (much like other non-class based systems). When you "level-up" you can basically pick one incremental addition to your character - increase an ability, your fighting skill, a non-combat skill, add an Edge (similar to feats), etc - instead of getting an entire package of increases.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> May I paraphrase:  "Kids these days!  Arr!  Get offa ma lawn!"




Absolutely not. There are plenty of players in their 20s who feel as I do about internal consistancy and versimilitude in their campaigns. Lots of teens might not feel the same way but I didn't when I was a teen either...well until my late teens anyway.




> Regarding 1) if I have a magical quiver that can hold 300 non magical arrows, and it takes me 100 rounds of shooting at full capacity to use up those non magical arrows, and if it costs me a trivially small amount of gold relative to my wealth to replenish those arrows, then why SHOULD I keep track of them?  Doesn't this remind you of magical components?  Sure, an element of realism is added, but an element of realism would also be added by making wizards count out how many units of bat guano they are carrying, and we don't do that.  Should we?  Would it be fun counting out all the different magical components a wizard might hypothetically need, making a list, and marking down each time he uses one?




You make a point in regards to spell componants and I always check to see how many 5,000gp jewels a mage is carrying for example. However, the arrow analogy falls flat as a comparison to spell componants because any DM who allows a wizard to cast 300 fireballs without even the appearace of componant aquisition is IMO crazy. 

What is so darned difficult with keeping track of such simple things when you having nothing but your character to worry about?



> Regarding 2) it really isn't that fun to lose for reasons outside of your control.  Even if its realistic.  I suspect you agree, but you changed that complaint in your mind from "its unfun to die due to a random saving throw" into "its unfun to die!  Waaaah!"




Random saves are a vital part of the game as are hopefully rare save or die effects. This is a dice based game and there is an element of randomness. If someone doesn't want that they can hang out with their friends and play make believe without dice, rules or danger. I have seen the "Waah, its unfun to die" attitude and its amazing and is only had by new players who think you be able to respawn like you are playing a video game.



> Regarding 3) this is an eternal fight between DMs and players for control of the game.  I'm sure you feel it is "unfun" for a DM to be forced to permit warforged or monks in a campaign world he designed.  You should then recognize that its unfun for a player to be told he can't play a warforged monk character he designed.  Considering that this issue is not going to be decided by the rules of the 4th ed, I'm not sure why you brought it up.  Every gaming group has to come to a balance between the DMs desire to run the game he wants, and the players desire to play the game they want.  They reach this equilibrium by considering things like friendship ties within the group, strength of preference, and the availability of alternate games.  This has nothing to do with instant gratification, it has to do with your preference for DMs over players.  There is no objective answer to the question, "is it better for a DM to make an exception and allow one warforged character in his campaign world, perhaps by writing a unique creation story for him, or is it better for the player to find something else he'd like to play?"




The DM can never, ever be forced to provide anything. The DM's responsibility is to provide a fair, exceting, dramatic, vividly realized, fun game with understandable rules and a consistant setting (if this is desired). The fact is some DMs suck and don't provide this, if this is the case the players have to live with it or find another game.

Setting consistancy requires limits, period. Anything goes, kitchen sink D&D is fine for the nebulous, undefined core setting but not for anything that exists as a published setting. If the player knows that his DM runs a Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Midnight or Hyborian campaign then they aren't entitled to a warforged monk. Can't accept it find another game. 

If on the otherhand the DM is running a non defined setting ie. a life support for dungeons setting, then the player can feel entitled to a warforged monk especially if one can have a half-dragon, half demon ranger, warlock, hulking hurler. It all depends on the groundrules of the setting.

Having said that, the DM decides what is allowed and disallowed in his or her game. There is no struggle for control, there may be rational discussion and disagreement, but the DM is the final arbiter of what is exists in the world. The players have a right to come up with a character concept that fits in the setting. With rights come responsibilities. If the DMs obligation is to create a fun setting and guide a quality campaign for his players, then the player's have an obligation to respect his or er decisions and the integrity of the setting.

Also, because no one creates a character without DM input...if the DM has any good sense at all, the warforged monk would not be created in the first place because there would be communication between the player and DM.



Sundragon


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2007)

It should be noted that the design goals for instant gratification and sustained fun are often at odds with each other.  What is "unfun" for one might be necessary for the other.

Of course, "unfun" (like "wrongbadfun") really means "This isn't what I like, and I don't want to compromise".    

RC


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 12, 2007)

I think the 'unfun' bandwagon is like everything else: it started off being something very specific and some people took that to mean that everything that thwarted them should be take away. Removing the 'unfun' elements to D&D is a very specific process and it's not supposed to be about the tone and feel of the GM's world.

Removing the 'unfun' is about getting rid of the silly, stupid things that probably sounded good in 1977 but as time has gone on, we've seen that they simply are annoyances and that most people house-rule them away or ignore them. There might be a good point in some campaigns for keeping track of every stick of Encumberance, but for most people it's something that contributes to that '20 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours' feeling. A lot of the resource management - but not all of it - is just make-work in a vain attempt to create some sort of balance to the whole thing. Or was just poorly thought out and now has acquired the status of Sacred Cow just because it's been there so long. Like that piece of deadwood in the corner office that's been with the company for 30 years and hasn't contributed for the last 20.

Removing the 'unfun' is something you do with a scalpel, not a shotgun. Every impedence to success can't be removed, nor should it conflict with the restrictions a GM places on his world.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2007)

Good post, WayneLigon.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> ...snip high quality content.....
> 
> Removing the 'unfun' is something you do with a scalpel, not a shotgun. Every impedence to success can't be removed, nor should it conflict with the restrictions a GM places on his world.





Sweet post in its entirety. I'm sigging the last line...and I never do that.   



Sundragon


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Sep 12, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Here's some things I find unfun:
> 
> Keeping track of arrows...




Too true, but sometimes quite necessary. Think about it... if Legolas had infinite arrows, he'd never have had to switch to his longknife, slowing his kill-ratio. 

Gimli would never have been able to beat Legolas' score.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 12, 2007)

With regard to fun, there was a survey in a Dragon magazine back in the 1E days. One of the questions was basically "How heroic do you want your PC to be?" and the #1 answer was "In real life, I can trip over a garbage can. I want my dwarf in plate to jump over those cans and keep fighting" or some such.

Most players want to play Heroic PCs. They do not want to sit around twiddling their thumbs while the other players shine. Sure, some players want to play angst ridden whiny PCs that may or may not be incompetent, but that is not the majority of players.

Players want their PCs to shine. And, they also want their PC to be the best in some areas. And I think the designers of 4E understand that.


The designers of 3E understood it as well, but their solution to the problem was problematic at best. Their solution was to give the PCs more and more, better and better. More feats. More PrCs. More magic items. More capability. Part of this is pure business and marketing, but it did hurt the versimilitude of the game for some people by making the cinematic "too fantastic" and overwhelming.

The 4E designers appear to understand this to some extent. But the same industry pressures are there. There are WOW players that the designers are targeting. There are players who feel that their PCs are entitled to every new thing printed by WotC.


In 2E, Wights drained a level with every hit. They were damn scary. In 3E, they effectively drain a level with every hit if a save is missed and then, the PC still gets another save the next day, and Restoration is a 4th level spell instead of a 7th level spell. The 3E designers went way out of their way to "protect PCs" from certain nasty events and also went out of their way to make sure that PCs had access to spells that could reverse these types of bad events.

Which is all nice and well. But, I do not think the 4E designers should continue in that direction (beyond a few minor adjustments like more hit points at first level). Players are not entitled to have their PCs totally protected. Players are not entitled to have DR and Energy Resistance removed from the game. Players are not entitled to fight every round of a combat. Sometimes, bad things happen in a game. A PC can be heroic and a game can be a lot of fun without him being protected from all of the bad things that can happen.

It's all a matter of balance. As long as 4E has significant challenges (and not just hit point damage, but various unusual effects like energy drain), it will be a fun game. If the designers give in too much to "remove all elements of the game which might be a roadblock to a player", it might not be. Win some, win some is really not as much fun as win some, lose some.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 12, 2007)

Your argument would be stronger if it responded to mine instead of making things up and responding to them instead.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> However, the arrow analogy falls flat as a comparison to spell componants because any DM who allows a wizard to cast 300 fireballs without even the appearace of componant aquisition is IMO crazy.




Then require the archer to make an "appearance" of arrow collection.  Whenever he's in town, he announces, "I'm going to buy more arrows," and tosses away a trivial handful of gold coins.  That's _exactly_ what the wizard does, _if_ the wizard does anything at all, and the wizard doesn't even get charged a handful of gold coins.

See?  Verisimilitude gets its nod, and a 12th level archer doesn't have to count backwards from 300 just to know when its time to shell out 15 gp for 300 arrows.



> What is so darned difficult with keeping track of such simple things when you having nothing but your character to worry about?




Its not about how difficult it is in a vacuum, its about how difficult it is in comparison to what the game is getting out of it.  We could track degradation of the fighter's sword, too.  After 300 hits it starts needing repair work that costs about 15 gp.  It wouldn't be difficult per se, but it would be annoying.  There are a lot of things we could require players to account.  Armor damage, caloric intake, fruit consumption tied to a rule that gives you scurvy if you eat nothing but iron rations for too long... just because we can count them doesn't meant that we should.



> Random saves are a vital part of the game as are hopefully rare save or die effects.




Try to keep on topic.  There's a difference between liking random saves, and liking random saves that you couldn't avoid taking and which force you to go play on the DM's xbox for the rest of the night if things go badly.



> This is a dice based game and there is an element of randomness. If someone doesn't want that they can hang out with their friends and play make believe without dice, rules or danger.




There is a difference between hating randomness, and hating extremely long shot randomness which, when it goes bad, kills (or long term disables) you instantly.  People who want to avoid instant random death do not necessarily want to destroy all elements of randomness.  This should be self evident.



> The DM can never, ever be forced to provide anything.




If the DM 1) wants to be a DM, and 2) doesn't restrain his players in a hole he dug in his basement, yes he can.  If he isn't providing a game the players want, they leave.  He either gets new players, changes his mind, or gives up being a DM.  His ability to get new players, willingness to change mind, and desire to remain as DM will be major factors in which one happens.  I used to play exclusively as part of a gaming club.  If I wanted to run a game, there were about 80 people who might play.  So if one set of my friends didn't want to play in a game I created, I'd ask a different set.  No hard feelings were had, as there were lots of different games available.  Now I live in an area where I haven't got a gaming club, and if I want to play, there's basically five guys who will be playing with me.  Now its much more important that a setting and a campaign I create appeal to those particular guys' taste.  Capisce?



> Setting consistancy requires limits, period. Anything goes, kitchen sink D&D is fine for the nebulous, undefined core setting but not for anything that exists as a published setting. If the player knows that his DM runs a Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Midnight or Hyborian campaign then they aren't entitled to a warforged monk. Can't accept it find another game.




There is a big difference between "some limits are necessary for consistency" and "every particular limit I have thought up is 100% necessary for consistency and cannot have any exceptions."



> Having said that, the DM decides what is allowed and disallowed in his or her game. There is no struggle for control, there may be rational discussion and disagreement, but the DM is the final arbiter of what is exists in the world. The players have a right to come up with a character concept that fits in the setting. With rights come responsibilities. If the DMs obligation is to create a fun setting and guide a quality campaign for his players, then the player's have an obligation to respect his or er decisions and the integrity of the setting.




Or not play.  And if the DM needs them to play, he'll bargain with them and suddenly he's not the final arbiter anymore.  The struggle is begun once again.

On the DM's side, he's got the following leverage: his friendship with the player in question, other players who take his side, the ability to quit DMing and leave them without a game, and a social norm that gives DMs control over settings.

On the players side, they've got the following leverage: their friendship with the DM, other players who take his side, the ability to quit playing, and the ability to play disruptively just beneath the level at which they'd be ejected from the group.

Notice that the rules don't matter?  What's the DM going to say? 

"The rules say I'm in charge!  ME!  I'm in charge!  Get back here!  Where are you going?  Don't get in that car and drive away!  You HAVE to play!  The rules say so!  Why are you starting up your own gaming group next door?  YOU CAN'T DO THAT!  The rules put me in charge!  I have the right to make these decisions!  You have the right to obey!  Get back here!"


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 12, 2007)

Save or die is something I do find fun, whether it's a PC or NPC. I've got no problem with a BBEG going down in the first round. I also rather enjoy totally random PC death. There absolutely must be some way to get the player back into the action asap though. The old school method was to give each player four characters each. In 3e that's not really possible so you either need quick and easy rez or have a new PC pre-created and ready to roll. As a DM the one area I don't mind totally breaking verisimilitude is getting a player back into the game right away. The party could be in a dungeon no one knows about on another plane of existence, somehow the new PC will have found a way there.


----------



## GreatLemur (Sep 12, 2007)

This thread ain't quite trolling, but Sundragon2012 sure did unleash a horde of straw golems in that first post.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 12, 2007)

On the halfling wielding an ogre's sword bit, I quite like the much despised 3.5 weapon sizing rules. They feel quite realistic without, imo, detracting anything from the game. That said I can see how they do screw over small-sized PCs quite a bit. Also the idea of a halfling wielding an ogre's dagger is a two-handed sword is really cool. Unfortunately almost impossible under the current rules as he'd be -4 to hit. I've changed my mind, maybe they are unfun after all.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> This thread ain't quite trolling, but Sundragon2012 sure did unleash a horde of straw golems in that first post.





Wasn't this already addressed by a mod on this thread?


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Sep 12, 2007)

Wait, "only have your character to worry about"? . I also have a job, a fiancee, bills, my homebrew worlds and smaller campaign settings, my cat, some historical reading, and a hotter-than-all-hell 9' by 9' custom-built Necromunda board (WiP) to worry about. Gaming is 5 hours a week, give or take, I get to sit down and _*play*_ in the classic sense without worrying about getting to choose between a) fulfilling the campaign timeline and clash with the lich lord when he emerges from his sanctuary to finish the ritual or b) casting _lightning bolt_ at all for the next six sessions, climactic fight included, because there's no goddamn amber in this part of the campaign world.

You can count nails and waterskins all you like, I seem to prefer counting apocalypses (apocalyptii?) averted and warlords humbled.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Sep 12, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Wasn't this already addressed by a mod on this thread?



Yep. Said they didn't feel he's a troll. Which is what was said, in addition to pointing out the absurd and extreme hyperbole used to "sell" his point.

Color me confused this needed a going over.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Your argument would be stronger if it responded to mine instead of making things up and responding to them instead.



 Such as?




> Then require the archer to make an "appearance" of arrow collection.  Whenever he's in town, he announces, "I'm going to buy more arrows," and tosses away a trivial handful of gold coins.  That's _exactly_ what the wizard does, _if_ the wizard does anything at all, and the wizard doesn't even get charged a handful of gold coins.




Never said that couldn't be the case did I? In battle however, if you run out, you run out. I think 300 is a reasonable amount to assume for the guy and his magical quiver. When he creates a quiver of endless arrows we'll talk.



> See?  Verisimilitude gets its nod, and a 12th level archer doesn't have to count backwards from 300 just to know when its time to shell out 15 gp for 300 arrows.




I see and agree, but in battle there are no assumptions. You have 300 arrows for the fight and when you come back to town spend 15gp for some more. You can even fletch your own given the right skills.



> Its not about how difficult it is in a vacuum, its about how difficult it is in comparison to what the game is getting out of it.  We could track degradation of the fighter's sword, too.  After 300 hits it starts needing repair work that costs about 15 gp.  It wouldn't be difficult per se, but it would be annoying.  There are a lot of things we could require players to account.  Armor damage, caloric intake, fruit consumption tied to a rule that gives you scurvy if you eat nothing but iron rations for too long... just because we can count them doesn't meant that we should.




C'mon man, I'm talking about obvious expendables like arrows and spell componants, especially expensive componants. Versimilitude doesn't have to be completely simulationist just enough to allow for the suspension of disbelief. Anything more is usually unnecessary. 





> There's a difference between liking random saves, and liking random saves that you couldn't avoid taking and which force you to go play on the DM's xbox for the rest of the night if things go badly.
> 
> There is a difference between hating randomness, and hating extremely long shot randomness which, when it goes bad, kills (or long term disables) you instantly.  People who want to avoid instant random death do not necessarily want to destroy all elements of randomness.  This should be self evident.




 happens and though I will try as DM to not have an encounter that slaughters you too I can't guarantee it, nor would I if I could. Sometimes a random save will kill you on a 1 even at high level. What do you suggest? No save or die effects? Automatic saves at a given level? 

There is some level of chance and regrettably that can lead to PC death but just as likely it can add up to villian death. Every good sword cuts both ways. Adventure game require the risk inherent in facing off with powerful foes who can kill you and overcoming them, this is what seperates real heroes from the mooks, not just their stats and magic weapons




> There is a big difference between "some limits are necessary for consistency" and "very particular limit I have thought up is 100% necessary for consistency and cannot have any exceptions."




Any setting I run has non-arbitrary limits built in so that the integrity of the setting is maintained. I don't make rules on whims either and make them with a purpose and that purpose is to make sure my campaign can maintain its feel for upwards of 15+yrs (the longest continuous campaign I've run) while allowing for player choice within the millieu. 

If you are playing in Dragonlance campaign and you just love hobbit type halflings, the best I can do for you is a kender. You aren't getting a mutant hairy footed kender, you are getting a kender, maybe with oddly large feet for his size but he'll be wearing shoes unless he wants to really hurt his feet.

If you have your heart set on a psionicist in my Midnight campaign, you'll have to settle for someone with a heroic path allowing for some mentalist abilities, but that is it. 

If you want a warforged monk in my homebrew setting, you maybe, just maybe going to be a one of a kind sentient construct and not part of a race of such beings. The monk may be doable so long as the "warforged" (renamed certainly) hails from a region with such skills. That's fair. Don't ask for another one if this one gets killed though, I'm reasonable but not some schmuck.



> "The rules say I'm in charge!  ME!  I'm in charge!  Get back here!  Where are you going?  Don't get in that car and drive away!  You HAVE to play!  The rules say so!  Why are you starting up your own gaming group next door?  YOU CAN'T DO THAT!  The rules put me in charge!  I have the right to make these decisions!  You have the right to obey!  Get back here!"




You are completely mischaracterizing me and setting up a straw man for you to knock over. I never indicated that I acted in such a manner and the above examples should demonstrate that. The rules put me in charge sure, but the setting determines what is allowed, and not just my fiat. My baseline is that I am lookig out for the whole campaign and the setting in which it functions and not merely the concerns of one player who may be focused on a temporary whim when I have to look at long term impact.

Also, why is it the DMs job to keep capitulating to player wants without the players having the responsibility to the setting and all the work the DM puts into it for all of their enjoyment? These situations always seem to indicate that the DM is to cave to the players...strange how that works isn't it?



Sundragon


----------



## DM_Jeff (Sep 12, 2007)

I haven't read all these posts but from what I've read elsewhere "unfun" is also known as "challenges". 

It really stinks in Monopoly when you don't land on the property you want five times around the board, so maybe they should make a new edition where you automaticlaly land where you want after a few tries. Brilliant.

-DM Jeff


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Sep 12, 2007)

DM_Jeff said:
			
		

> I haven't read all these posts but from what I've read elsewhere "unfun" is also known as "challenges".
> 
> It really stinks in Monopoly when you don't land on the property you want five times around the board, so maybe they should make a new edition where you automaticlaly land where you want after a few tries. Brilliant.
> 
> -DM Jeff



Sorry, what's the challenge in "First round! Make a Fort save or don't play in this hour long combat" again?

Or to make my own ill-considered analogy, the new edition of Monopoly where there's a Chance and Community Chest card (1 each) that says "Return all your money and property to the bank and return to Go. Your turn is over".


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Wait, "only have your character to worry about"? . I also have a job, a fiancee, bills, my homebrew worlds and smaller campaign settings, my cat, some historical reading, and a hotter-than-all-hell 9' by 9' custom-built Necromunda board (WiP) to worry about. Gaming is 5 hours a week, give or take, ......snip....




Not even worth responding to really considering the fact that we all know that everyone has other non-game things to do. I am obviously speaking of in-game responsibilities. Sweet Baby Jeebus if the internet doesn't seethe with this kind of crap.

Read the posts above I have admitted that ridiculous micromanagement is unnecessary. I am advocating good versimilitude to maintain a level of suspension of disbelief nothing more and nothing less. If you see me claiming otherwise feel free...and quote me in context.



Sundragon


----------



## psionotic (Sep 12, 2007)

It really drives me crazy when people equate a desire to remove the 'unfun' elements of a game with the need to be babied with instant gratification.  This is a perjorative, straw-man argument.

The 'Un-Fun' elements I would like removed are these:

1) Unnecessary bookkeeping:  Get rid of durations by rounds, and make them by encounter (or something equally elegant).  I don't want my players (or worse, my cabal of Red Wizards) to require a pile of 10 siders that I click over every time a turn comes up.  It slows down play, and is invariably forgotten/inaccurate.

2) Multiple resolution rolls.  For example, Player A wants to disintegrate a demon.  They have to:
a) Roll a ranged touch attack, compare against touch AC
b) Roll spell resistance, see if they punch through.
c) Demon rolls a save, to see if they resist the majority of damage.
d) Player rolls damage dice, anywhere from five to 40! of them.
Yes, the player can roll his d20s at the same time, but that doesn't make it much better.  

3) Wal-Mart magic items.  Probably my biggest complaint about 3.x is that all of the Magic has been taken out of them, and they are no more interesting or rare than housewares.  Yes, a DM can reduce the #, but the subsytems (DR, anyone?) are built specifically to require characters to carry around, for example, three +1 longswords, all of different materials.  It has no personality, no spark, and is completely un-fun.

So please, can we drop the 'players just want everything handed to them' rhetoric?  That really isn't what people are asking for when we say the game should up the fun.


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I can see three options here:
> 
> 1) Keep track of every arrow, which means marking one off every time you shoot.
> 2) Unlimited arrows, a la John Woo.
> ...




How hard is it to keep track of 20-30 arrowa??? Give me a break.  We need a rules change for this????????!!!!!!!!!!!1


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 12, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I think the 'unfun' bandwagon is like everything else: it started off being something very specific and some people took that to mean that everything that thwarted them should be take away.




Also, one thing that applies here is that people have varied tastes.  What is "unfun" to some may not be to others.  A lot of people think that because they have fun that something isn't "unfun."  When it comes to a table "unfun" is determined by the group.  When it comes to D&D as a whole, what is "unfun" is decided by the majority of the customers and the designers.



> Removing the 'unfun' is about getting rid of the silly, stupid things that probably sounded good in 1977 but as time has gone on, we've seen that they simply are annoyances and that most people house-rule them away or ignore them.




Indeed, I think a good example of things that are "unfun" are those things that "most people house rule or ignore."  That's a sure sign.

My example, mapping.  In my experience the only people I have ever seen have fun with mapping were adversarial DMs who delighted in confusing the players.  I have never seen a player who felt that mapping added to their game.  I believe they are out there (and there were likely more in the early days), but they are a rarity.



> Removing the 'unfun' is something you do with a scalpel, not a shotgun.




I mostly agree with this.  However, a new edition is when a scalpel approach isn't always appropriate.  A hacksaw is sometimes appropriate.  However, that doesn't mean everything gets hacked.  However, judicious hacking and rebuilding can show great dividends when a new edition is released.


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

SavageRobby said:
			
		

> Go DM a game of C&C or Savage Worlds, and you'll quickly find that DMing doesn't _have_ to be that way. DMing 3x might have had to be that way, but that doesn't mean 4x has to. And if the direction the designers are going, more power to them.




It does not have to be that way, but what if you and your group want ot that way?


----------



## SavageRobby (Sep 12, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Sorry, what's the challenge in "First round! Make a Fort save or don't play in this hour long combat" again?




However, perhaps the problem that needs to be fixed in this case isn't the failed save issue, its the length of combat. For me, its not the failed challenge that is unfun, its the abysmally long combats. 

(That is one reason we stopped playing 3x. Its something I hope is addressed in 4x.)


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> May I paraphrase:  "Kids these days!  Arr!  Get offa ma lawn!"
> 
> If you look at the things getting labeled unfun, I think you will notice a trend.  The things being described as "unfun" tend to involve 1) a lot of bookkeeping for an in game effect of minor importance, 2) "losing" for reasons outside of the players control, or 3) disputes between players and DMs regarding control of the setting.
> 
> ...




Again and over and over again.  All these issues can be easilly handled with a DM who know s what he/she is doing.  Everyone is stuck in this "the rules say this" mentality.  If your playing with a group that is like this, change, or start running the game your way and DM.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Sep 12, 2007)

You know, your tone aside, I'll be honest, Sundragon. After that ridiculous list of non-issues you opened with, I haven't been engaging you with any degree of seriousness, and I guess it'd be more polite to do otherwise or bow out.

Since you're busy trying to prove your playstyle objectively right, I'll guess you didn't read my list of lessons very clearly or attentively and not continue responding to your arguments on this matter.

Have a good thread.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 12, 2007)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> How hard is it to keep track of 20-30 arrowa??? Give me a break.  We need a rules change for this????????!!!!!!!!!!!1




You are reducing it to the minimum level.  Keeping track of 20-30 arrows isn't a problem, *in isolation*.

However, when you keep track of 20-30 arrows you have to keep track of where you keep them.  If you are carrying them or your horse is carrying them, then you need to deal with encumbrance.  Ever fire an arrow and realize that your load changed because of the loss of that arrow from medium to light?  

Then add all the other things to track.  However many potions do you have?  Hit Points?  Condition track?  Stat damage?  Effects of stat damage?  Spells?  Special conditions (fatigued, cursed, inebriated)?  Action Points?  Gold?  Copper?  

Keeping track of one thing isn't onerous.  However, when the things you need to keep track pf keep building up, then it's time to revisit the issue.  Find the things where tracking them isn't important and find a better way to deal with it.

In 4E it seems that limited use items will be reduced or maybe even eliminated.  There goes some bookkeeping.


----------



## SavageRobby (Sep 12, 2007)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> It does not have to be that way, but what if you and your group want ot that way?




Good question, one that can probably only be answered by WotC market research folks. But really, do you want the game to be focused on bookkeeping and minutia? If you could achieve the same amount of "fun" but with less bookkeeping/minutia, would you still want the bookkeping? Or put another way, if you have X time to spend prepping, and you could choose to spend more time on calculating mechanics and less on fluff/story, or more time on fluff/story and less time on calculating mechanics, which would be preferable?

I'm (obviously) in favor of less bookkeeping/mechanics, and more story/fluff - and I suspect (with absolutely nothing to back it up) that the market researchers have come to that same conclusion.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 12, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Never said that couldn't be the case did I? In battle however, if you run out, you run out. I think 300 is a reasonable amount to assume for the guy and his magical quiver. When he creates a quiver of endless arrows we'll talk.




You... still don't seem to be getting it.  The problem is that counting the arrows is time consuming, and adds very little to the game.  Its a perfect place to put in a rule which lets the player skate over this issue.  We do this already with spell components, and I think its a good idea there.  You appear to agree, and don't see a contradiction with your position on arrows for reasons I cannot comprehend.  How and why you feel it is right and just that a player count out individual arrows from a quiver of 300, but that another player should be able to just assume he has an infinite supply of small wooden pyramids, woven doll clothes, silver string, chalk, and bat guano, I will never understand.  Even if you make that second player occasionally say, "I replenish my components," every so often when he's in town.



> C'mon man, I'm talking about obvious expendables like arrows and spell componants, especially expensive componants. Versimilitude doesn't have to be completely simulationist just enough to allow for the suspension of disbelief. Anything more is usually unnecessary.




I agree completely.  I simply think that there are situations in the present rules where verisimilitude is getting in the way of speed of game play.  As someone quoted earlier, "20 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours."



> There is some level of chance and regrettably that can lead to PC death but just as likely it can add up to villian death. Every good sword cuts both ways. Adventure game require the risk inherent in facing off with powerful foes who can kill you and overcoming them, this is what seperates real heroes from the mooks, not just their stats and magic weapons




Again, "I don't like random, unavoidable save or die effects" and "I don't like risk" are not the same thing.  Risk is an intrinsic part of the game.  Random, unavoidable save or die effects are just arbitrary impediments to actually _doing_ things.  What makes risk fun is _encountering_ and _interacting_ with it.  You don't interact with a save or die, you just melt.



> If you want a warforged monk in my homebrew setting, you maybe, just maybe going to be a one of a kind sentient construct and not part of a race of such beings. The monk may be doable so long as the "warforged" (renamed certainly) hails from a region with such skills. That's fair. Don't ask for another one if this one gets killed though, I'm reasonable but not some schmuck.




Exactly.  If you'd taken that position from the beginning instead of ranting about the sense of entitlement the kiddies feel these days, this side of the discussion never would have happened.



> You are completely mischaracterizing me and setting up a straw man for you to knock over. I never indicated that I acted in such a manner and the above examples should demonstrate that.




Actually, you had.  You seem to really enjoy the use of lengthy hyperbole slamming other people, and today's internet lesson is that this causes other people to respond in kind.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 12, 2007)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> How hard is it to keep track of 20-30 arrowa??? Give me a break.  We need a rules change for this????????!!!!!!!!!!!1




Its easy to keep track of 20-30 arrows.  The rules work just fine at level 2.  Its when you get to level 16, and you're rapid shot feat lets you fire five arrows per turn, or 4 with manyshot, and your quiver has 300 arrows in it, and it costs 15 gp to fill that entire quiver and you're carrying 60,000 gp in a bag of holding, that it gets obnoxious.

The rule starts out good, and rapidly goes bad.  If arrow fire in D&D was based on a "one arrow per round" model, where the individual arrows got better as you leveled up, it would continue to work well.  But instead D&D uses a "hail of arrows" model, which makes the bookkeeping much more time consuming as you advance, and for even less importance since the gold to get new arrows is a smaller and smaller portion of your total wealth.


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

DM_Jeff said:
			
		

> I haven't read all these posts but from what I've read elsewhere "unfun" is also known as "challenges".
> 
> It really stinks in Monopoly when you don't land on the property you want five times around the board, so maybe they should make a new edition where you automaticlaly land where you want after a few tries. Brilliant.
> 
> -DM Jeff




SO WELL SAID, WITH SO FEW WORDS, THANK YOU!!!!!!!!


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Wait, "only have your character to worry about"? . I also have a job, a fiancee, bills, my homebrew worlds and smaller campaign settings, my cat, some historical reading, and a hotter-than-all-hell 9' by 9' custom-built Necromunda board (WiP) to worry about. Gaming is 5 hours a week, give or take, I get to sit down and _*play*_ in the classic sense without worrying about getting to choose between a) fulfilling the campaign timeline and clash with the lich lord when he emerges from his sanctuary to finish the ritual or b) casting _lightning bolt_ at all for the next six sessions, climactic fight included, because there's no goddamn amber in this part of the campaign world.
> 
> You can count nails and waterskins all you like, I seem to prefer counting apocalypses (apocalyptii?) averted and warlords humbled.




I hope you joking???????.... :\


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2007)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> SO WELL SAID, WITH SO FEW WORDS, THANK YOU!!!!!!!!





Seconded.


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Its easy to keep track of 20-30 arrows.  The rules work just fine at level 2.  Its when you get to level 16, and you're rapid shot feat lets you fire five arrows per turn, or 4 with manyshot, and your quiver has 300 arrows in it, and it costs 15 gp to fill that entire quiver and you're carrying 60,000 gp in a bag of holding, that it gets obnoxious.
> 
> The rule starts out good, and rapidly goes bad.  If arrow fire in D&D was based on a "one arrow per round" model, where the individual arrows got better as you leveled up, it would continue to work well.  But instead D&D uses a "hail of arrows" model, which makes the bookkeeping much more time consuming as you advance, and for even less importance since the gold to get new arrows is a smaller and smaller portion of your total wealth.




As a DM of over 20 years (playing D&D over 30) I don't let my games get this silly.  I don't need 4E to know how to prevent this.


----------



## Cam Banks (Sep 12, 2007)

"Verisimilitude" is hard to spell. That's my first comment.

"Unfun" itself becomes unfun if it's used to eliminate any sense of player understanding over their character's niche. It's why I don't always get people who multiclass out the wazoo and complain that they can't do anything well. "It's not fair that I can't do X and Y and Z as well as single-classed X, Y, and Z!" Funny, that. Or unfunny, perhaps.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> You know, your tone aside, I'll be honest, Sundragon. After that ridiculous list of non-issues you opened with, I haven't been engaging you with any degree of seriousness, and I guess it'd be more polite to do otherwise or bow out.
> 
> Since you're busy trying to prove your playstyle objectively right, I'll guess you didn't read my list of lessons very clearly or attentively and not continue responding to your arguments on this matter.
> 
> Have a good thread.




oh brother!!!!  Go eat a cookie or something....


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> You seem to really enjoy the use of lengthy hyperbole slamming other people, and today's internet lesson is that this causes other people to respond in kind.




YOU are engaging in hyperbole by stating the above. I have slammed no one...this is a straw man. I disagree with certain things, but I have attacked no one online, nor have I been rude or abrasive. I think I'm right on this issue, fine, but just because I don't waste my time with endless IMOs doesn't mean I have SLAMMED anyone.

Please indicate where I have slammed others, not disagreed....strongly even...but slammed an individual. You won't find it. If you do, I will issue an apology immediately. If you don't find evidence of my mean spiritedness, then admit your use of hyperbole in describing my position.

If you won't do either, just feel free to walk away from the thread or simply cease responding to my posts because I have better things to do that have my thread derailed by nonsense.



Sundragon


----------



## Fobok (Sep 12, 2007)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> As a DM of over 20 years (playing D&D over 30) I don't let my games get this silly.  I don't need 4E to know how to prevent this.




So you avoid all high level play? (Something that would *never* work for me. I, and those I play with, like high level play. Thus, why we stopped keeping track of these things, even though I do like details.)  Or do you just stop keeping track when you get to high levels?


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> You know, your tone aside, I'll be honest, Sundragon. After that ridiculous list of non-issues you opened with, I haven't been engaging you with any degree of seriousness, and I guess it'd be more polite to do otherwise or bow out.
> 
> Since you're busy trying to prove your playstyle objectively right, I'll guess you didn't read my list of lessons very clearly or attentively and not continue responding to your arguments on this matter.
> 
> Have a good thread.




Sorry if I took you seriously when you meant it as a joke. Sometimes humor can be lost online in the midst of a sometimes heated discussion...thus emoticons or smilies can help.   

On a side note, I am arguing for my position as that is the nature of many, many of the serious gaming discussions revolve around on a message board. I feel strongly about this but I am reasonable as my posts will indicate if you read them through.



Sundragon


----------



## Grog (Sep 12, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> happens and though I will try as DM to not have an encounter that slaughters you too I can't guarantee it, nor would I if I could. Sometimes a random save will kill you on a 1 even at high level. What do you suggest? No save or die effects?



Actually, yes. That is exactly what I would suggest.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> There is some level of chance and regrettably that can lead to PC death but just as likely it can add up to villian death. Every good sword cuts both ways.



Actually, I and many others agree that it's also not fun to take out the BBEG on the first round of combat with a save-or-die. How does that play into your "people just want instant gratification" straw man?


----------



## DM_Jeff (Sep 12, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Sorry, what's the challenge in "First round! Make a Fort save or don't play in this hour long combat" again?




Yeah, that's just terrible, it actually makes you fear the monster who might do that to you, doesn't it?   

-DM Jeff


----------



## Grog (Sep 12, 2007)

DM_Jeff said:
			
		

> I haven't read all these posts but from what I've read elsewhere "unfun" is also known as "challenges".



Wrong.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Sep 12, 2007)

DM_Jeff said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's just terrible, it actually makes you fear the monster who might do that to you, doesn't it?
> 
> -DM Jeff



No. Monsters that might do terrible damage to the world she lives in if she doesn't defeat them make my character afraid. Being as I'm playing a game, no monsters make me afraid, though some make me bored and/or annoyed.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 12, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Then add all the other things to track.  However many potions do you have?  Hit Points?  Condition track?  Stat damage?  Effects of stat damage?  Spells?  Special conditions (fatigued, cursed, inebriated)?  Action Points?  Gold?  Copper?




I fail to see how this is overwhelming.

The DM has to keep track of this stuff for all of his NPCs. Each player has to keep track of it for one PC (typically unless they have a cohort).


Btw, we use coins (i.e. painted washers) in our game. We also have gems. We have 5 denominations of coins: SP, GP, 25 GP, PP, 25 PP. We ignore copper. It's been a lot of fun. The only downside is sometimes counting them out and we've even mostly resolved this by grouping the coins with a twist tie.

Some people might not enjoy that in a game. We do: or at least, I have never gotten a complaint and I know that some people enjoy manipulating and playing with the coins.

The point is that how a group handles issues like carried items and wealth can be non-annoying if the group makes it that way. For example, the archer should have the cost of arrows either memorized or written on his character sheet. If he has to stop playing in order to look up the cost of arrows in the PHB, then he's not organized enough himself and is causing delays himself.

But if a player is incapable of keeping track of the dynamic elements of his PC, then he's doing it wrong.


----------



## DM_Jeff (Sep 12, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Wrong.




In your opinion, that's cool.

Ah, 4.0, the "complainers edition".    Sorry, all I'm reading is how unfun means adversity that must be overcome by playing smart, prepping, or whatever.

I guess it's unfun to fall in a pit and all your group forgets to bring rope. Whoops, maybe we should eliminate pits too. This is all just so silly it's laughable. 

-DM Jeff


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> No. Monsters that might do terrible damage to the world she lives in if she doesn't defeat them make my character afraid. Being as I'm playing a game, no monsters make me afraid, though some make me bored and/or annoyed.




Well plenty of players do connect with their characters enough to feel fear when something horrible is coming. I know I felt it when I played, I am certain my players have. Its the kind of vicarious fear you feel in a horror movie when you know that the monster can't really get you but you still feel dread for the character on the screen you care about.

Its fun, I recommend it. 



Sundragon


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

Fobok said:
			
		

> So you avoid all high level play? (Something that would *never* work for me. I, and those I play with, like high level play. Thus, why we stopped keeping track of these things, even though I do like details.)  Or do you just stop keeping track when you get to high levels?




Good question and point.  I actually do avoid higher levels as a DM.  I'd say around the 16th plus levels.  I find that by the time you get to these levels it's usually nothing but a numbers game between the players and the challenges.  

And, I'm happy to admit that I'm just not that good of a DM at those levels.  Something I hope to get better at...


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 12, 2007)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> As a DM of over 20 years (playing D&D over 30) I don't let my games get this silly.  I don't need 4E to know how to prevent this.




So silly?  What?  If I play a ranger and choose archery as my combat style, I'm going to shoot 5 arrows per round at level 16.  You can't "not let" me do that without deleting my class features.

Editted to add- Or, right, not letting gameplay go to high levels.  Honestly, I DO think you need 4e then.  Specifically, you need 4e to come up with a way to make high levels less obnoxious and silly so that you can use them.


----------



## psionotic (Sep 12, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> No. Monsters that might do terrible damage to the world she lives in if she doesn't defeat them make my character afraid. Being as I'm playing a game, no monsters make me afraid, though some make me bored and/or annoyed.




QFT, sir.  There are plenty of challenging, scary monsters (demons, devils, dragons) without having to fall back on poorly designed creatures with strictly METAGAME abilities like level-drain.  Creatures like this, along with the Rust Monster, and my least favorite, the Ethereal Filcher, have no other purpose other than to screw PCs.

I can scare my PCs with any number of creatures; I love using weak monsters like kobolds and hobgoblins with tactics that strike terror into their hearts.  But those metagame monsters exist solely for the purpose of shortcutting; they are the ultimate "lazy DM's" path to 'challenging' players.  Instead, however, all they do is actively encourage an adversarial relationship between DMs and PCs.


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Wrong.




Why is that quote wrong.  Back it up big "Grog"!


----------



## wedgeski (Sep 12, 2007)

DM_Jeff said:
			
		

> I guess it's unfun to fall in a pit and all your group forgets to bring rope. Whoops, maybe we should eliminate pits too. This is all just so silly it's laughable.



Actually we hand-wave basic adventurer's kit under everything except extreme circumstances (DM's call). Imagining that a professional adventurer would set out into the wilderness without his basic rope, lantern, food, water, etc. is just crazy. It's the same kind of thinking that doesn't punish a player who, in the course of a month of real time, has forgotten a detail which his character, for whom virtually no time at all has passed, would not have. It all requires judgment calls, but that's what I'm here for.

We still have pit traps, by the way. So it's not the same thing at all.


----------



## Grog (Sep 12, 2007)

DM_Jeff said:
			
		

> Ah, 4.0, the "complainers edition".    Sorry, all I'm reading is how unfun means adversity that must be overcome by playing smart, prepping, or whatever.
> 
> I guess it's unfun to fall in a pit and all your group forgets to bring rope. Whoops, maybe we should eliminate pits too.



Can we eliminate your straw men, too, while we're at it?


----------



## psionotic (Sep 12, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Can we eliminate your straw men, too, while we're at it?




No, because then the debate would have to occur on the merits of both side's arguments.  Its easier and more fun to make overblown analogies that have no basis in what the argument is even about.


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> So silly?  What?  If I play a ranger and choose archery as my combat style, I'm going to shoot 5 arrows per round at level 16.  You can't "not let" me do that without deleting my class features.
> 
> Editted to add- Or, right, not letting gameplay go to high levels.  Honestly, I DO think you need 4e then.  Specifically, you need 4e to come up with a way to make high levels less obnoxious and silly so that you can use them.




No, you are wrong.  I don't need anything.  We have the same group, playing together, once a week, for the past 8 + years and usually if not all the time have a great game.  So why change what's not broke.

Oh and 5 arrows at 16th level is easy to handle.  Let's see, the character has 25 arrows, then shoots 5 arrows, he now has 20 arrows.  Yup...pretty easy...


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 12, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> No. Monsters that might do terrible damage to the world she lives in if she doesn't defeat them make my character afraid. Being as I'm playing a game, no monsters make me afraid, though some make me bored and/or annoyed.




Some of our best sessions in 2E were in barrows when Wights and Wraithes could drain 4 levels off of PCs in a single combat.

The players were actually timid to open doors. That's fun, both for DMs and players. And 3E/3.5 removed a lot of that actual player fear / indecisiveness.

Hold Person. A save every single round.

It went from being a feared spell to being a never even taken spell.

Now that's boring.

Might as well be playing Monopoly.


Btw, I think the solution to this issue is to have some occassional monsters and spells and NPC abilities and such in the game that are "save or die" or whatever. If a given group does not like this type of game, the DM can easily not use them.

The designers have to take into account all types of different play style and so I think having really nasty, hard to resist type effects in the game system is required. It just should not be very common. IMO.


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

DM_Jeff said:
			
		

> In your opinion, that's cool.
> 
> Ah, 4.0, the "complainers edition".    Sorry, all I'm reading is how unfun means adversity that must be overcome by playing smart, prepping, or whatever.
> 
> ...




Too funny.  I love it Jeff!!!!


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> No. Monsters that might do terrible damage to the world she lives in if she doesn't defeat them make my character afraid. Being as I'm playing a game, no monsters make me afraid, though some make me bored and/or annoyed.




If this is true, your not gaming with the right DMs!


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 12, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Please indicate where I have slammed others, not disagreed....strongly even...but slammed an individual. You won't find it. If you do, I will issue an apology immediately. If you don't find evidence of my mean spiritedness, then admit your use of hyperbole in describing my position.




I consider your statements, beginning in the opening post of this thread, to the effect that players these days have a "sense of entitlement" and a need for "instant gratification" to be slamming other people.  

I consider your constant use of straw man reasoning in which you conclude that because someone doesn't like one particular aspect of randomness, that they must obviously hate all randomness and just want to play make believe, to be a not very well veiled effort at being insulting.  My opinion on your conclusion that anyone who doesn't like complete and dictatorial DM control must really just want to play crazy anything goes campaigns with no internal consistency to be similarly insulting, though you did graciously backtrack on that to a more reasonable position.

And the backtracking, of course, just makes it all the more frustrating: you knew when you originally posted about unreasonably players demanding warforged in settings other than Eberron that a DM could, if he chose, make an exception without destroying his game world.  But still you chose to denigrate that player and to insist that the effects of permitting an exception to the general rules of the game world would be disastrous, until you were called on it.

If you do not believe these comments are slamming people, then I am sure that you would not even think to find it the slightest bit insulting if someone were to call you a tyrannical, ego maniacal DM who puts his own fun above his players, views them as his vassals, and denigrates their contributions to the game.  These statements are, of course, analogous to insisting that players these days are instant gratification junkies with an undeserved sense of entitlement who don't properly understand and respect a DM's contribution to the game.  

Really, that statement above is not an accurate reflection of my opinion of you.  Just to make that clear.  I don't think you're an ego manical DM.

What I think you are is a person who enjoys _playing_ an ego maniacal DM _on the internet._


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Sep 12, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Hold Person. A save every single round.
> 
> It went from being a feared spell to being a never even taken spell.



This, this I'm with you on. And _Command_ being reduced to five 'tactically balanced' words? Terrible choice.


My 1e books share space on my shelf with the 3.5 stuff - at least until 4e arrives. The skin-of-your-teeth, sometimes good people die stupid deaths, think first style appeals to me as much as or more than the dragon-humbling, magic-slinging, world-shaping style of 3e. I do, however, think 4e should reach out to those playstyles with the broadest appeal among the potential gamer population, so as to grow the brand and keep the dream alive. We can all run our tables the way we want, so why not bring as many people to the game as possible?


----------



## Dragonblade (Sep 12, 2007)

psionotic said:
			
		

> QFT, sir.  There are plenty of challenging, scary monsters (demons, devils, dragons) without having to fall back on poorly designed creatures with strictly METAGAME abilities like level-drain.  *Creatures like this, along with the Rust Monster, and my least favorite, the Ethereal Filcher, have no other purpose other than to screw PCs.*
> 
> I can scare my PCs with any number of creatures; I love using weak monsters like kobolds and hobgoblins with tactics that strike terror into their hearts.  But those metagame monsters exist solely for the purpose of shortcutting; they are the ultimate "lazy DM's" path to 'challenging' players.  Instead, however, all they do is actively encourage an adversarial relationship between DMs and PCs.




Double QFT!! And bolded for emphasis! Well said!!


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

DM_Jeff said:
			
		

> In your opinion, that's cool.
> 
> Ah, 4.0, the "complainers edition".    Sorry, all I'm reading is how unfun means adversity that must be overcome by playing smart, prepping, or whatever.
> 
> ...




LOL   

*[Jovial Sarcasm]*Sucks to have to worry about proper provisioning for a life threatening expidition to the underworld where you are guaranteed to be attacked and likely injured and perhaps even killed. Oh NOEESSSSS!!!!! Bad, Sucky, Mean DM for not allowing me to come out as a great hero with bundles of gold! If you allowed me to provision using my belt of endless adeventurer's supplies this never would have happened!

 I joke of course and not everyone is saying that (see the smilie   ), but there is a segment that represents such an IMO odd and, in an adventure game, parodoxical point of view. On one hand they want to be heroes who face endless threats, because rest time is UNFUN but I shouldn't be able to be killed by a stray arrow, a random critical hit, a spike trap, a medusa's gaze, a gorgon's breath, powerful necromantic magic, falling into lava because their dex isn't so good, falling rocks in an unstable cave, dehydration in a desert, drowning at sea when a Kraken takes down their ship, drow poison crossbow bolts, and on and on and on.....

Oh yeah, they still want to be heroes but risk nothing and have to put no thought into preparation for their undangerous, undeadly, unheroic adventures. And if they die because they have a sucky DM who undermined their heroicness, they can always get cheap and easy access to resurrection because after all they are heroes and heroes don't die except in cool, prepared, cinematic ways..... The crit of a bugbear can never shatter the adamantine skull of a hero. *[/Jovial Sarcasm]*


Sometimes it seems that this attitude is more akin to the old serial action movies where the hero would seem to die at the end of the movie but next weekend it would show how he heroically escaped. This is D&D not as Tolkien or Howard but D&D as 4 color superhero comic....old school comics before people died in them.



Sundragon


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> LOL
> 
> *[Jovial Sarcasm]*Sucks to have to worry about proper provisioning for a life threatening expidition to the underworld where you are guaranteed to be attacked and likely injured and perhaps even killed. Oh NOEESSSSS!!!!! Bad, Sucky, Mean DM for not allowing me to come out as a great hero with bundles of gold! If you allowed me to provision using my belt of endless adeventurer's supplies this never would have happened!
> 
> ...




All I can do is clap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 12, 2007)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> Oh and 5 arrows at 16th level is easy to handle.  Let's see, the character has 25 arrows, then shoots 5 arrows, he now has 20 arrows.  Yup...pretty easy...




Do your players generally only carry enough arrows for 5 rounds at level 16?

More likely, they have a bow which creates infinite arrows magically, or they have a magical quiver with an obscene payload, which needs to be tracked.

And they don't always attack with the full rapid shot, so it won't always be multiples of five.  There's ordinary attacking, and there's multishot.

And of course if you can run out of arrows, and you're away from civilization, you'll need to salvage arrows after a combat if you can.  Half the arrows you fired are reusable.  So add that bookkeeping in.


----------



## Grog (Sep 12, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> I joke of course and not everyone is saying that (see the smilie   ), but there is a segment that represents such an IMO odd and, in an adventure game, parodoxical point of view. On one hand they want to be heroes who face endless threats, because rest time is UNFUN but I shouldn't be able to be killed by a stray arrow, a random critical hit, a spike trap, a medusa's gaze, a gorgon's breath, powerful necromantic magic, falling into lava because their dex isn't so good, falling rocks in an unstable cave, dehydration in a desert, drowning at sea when a Kraken takes down their ship, drow poison crossbow bolts, and on and on and on.....
> 
> Oh yeah, they still want to be heroes but risk nothing and have to put no thought into preparation for their undangerous, undeadly, unheroic adventures. And if they die because they have a sucky DM who undermined their heroicness, they can always get cheap and easy access to resurrection because after all they are heroes and heroes don't die except in cool, prepared, cinematic ways.....




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

Prove it.

Show me posts from these people saying the things that you claim they believe. And not just one or two people - on the internet, you can find one or two people saying _anything_. Show me... say, half a dozen different people saying that they want risk-free adventures. Not just people saying they don't like save-or-die effects or whatever, but people saying that they want absolutely no risk in their adventures whatsoever, as you claim.

If there are so many of these people out there, it should be a simple matter for you to find half a dozen or so. So let's see the posts.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I consider your statements, beginning in the opening post of this thread, to the effect that players these days have a "sense of entitlement" and a need for "instant gratification" to be slamming other people. ....snipped....




Ok, thanks for that.

I am not using absolutist statements. I have put no one down. If you find yourself insulted by me unintentionally, I apologize. You are however completely wrong about the way I DM and I would argue that I come off not as a draconian DM, but as a DM who offers his players reasonable choices within the millieu of choice and will bend things a bit here and there when I feel it necessary. 

What you call backtracking I call clarifying. Your use of backtracking as a descriptor is nothing more than a negative moniker on my words to strengthen your own argument. Fine, see it that way if you wish. Your above statements are more of a slam on me personally than any comment I have directed at you. That's fine too. 

However, from this point on it would be nice if you added to the discussion about the topic instead of analyzing me or my DMing style, on or off the internet. Enough with this thread derailing.



Sundragon


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 12, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Some people might not enjoy that in a game.



And that is one of my points.  The issue here isn't whether your group enjoys it, or whether my group enjoys it.  It's how the D&D customer base enjoys it, and to some extent whether the designers enjoy that (since they are the ones with the decision making power).



> If he has to stop playing in order to look up the cost of arrows in the PHB, then he's not organized enough himself and is causing delays himself.



So, in your opinion, being well organized is a requirement for playing D&D?


----------



## GreatLemur (Sep 12, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Wasn't this already addressed by a mod on this thread?



Well, yeah, I was kind of _referring_ to Plane Sailing's ruling that the post wasn't trolling.  My point is that even though it's a honest argument rather than an attempt to stir up trouble, the whole post is centered around an unhelpful and somewhat dishonest debate tactic.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Well, yeah, I was kind of _referring_ to Plane Sailing's ruling that the post wasn't trolling.  My point is that even though it's a honest argument rather than an attempt to stir up trouble, the whole post is centered around an unhelpful and somewhat dishonest debate tactic.





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.


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Do your players generally only carry enough arrows for 5 rounds at level 16?
> 
> More likely, they have a bow which creates infinite arrows magically, or they have a magical quiver with an obscene payload, which needs to be tracked.
> 
> ...




I don't allow items like endless quivers of arrows or magic bows that fire infinite number of arrows.  Neither would the group I game with enjoy such a thing.  An occasional magic quiver may show up that hold 2 or 3 times the normal amount of arrows/bolts, but I don't get into endless bags, quivers, etc of holding...

I say this next part seriously and not mockingly at you Cadfan.  How hard is it to add and subtact a few arrows in a fight.  I've never had a character complain of this, ever. My players make a little check mark on a piece of paper and at the end of the fight know how many arrows have been used. I'll admit, in a big battle when the archer (or whomever) states he wants to collect arrows, bolts, etc..., more likely than not, I pretty much tell him he can fine 50% (sometimes more) of his arrow to retrieve...  This is obviously to keep the flow of the game going and not make a roll for each arrow slow down play.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 12, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The players were actually timid to open doors. That's fun, both for DMs and players. And 3E/3.5 removed a lot of that actual player fear / indecisiveness.




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.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

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




Look man, get the stick out of your rear and realize I am poking a bit of fun with the above post. I am a little frustrated with having the thread be about me instead of about my argument. 

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

Feel free to post an opposing argument.

IMO those who want a removal of save or die effects (which include save or petrify, sleep, hold, polymorph and all deadly poisons and their perspective carriers such as giant scorpions, snakes, and certain monsters) want far less challenge that is appropriate for a supposedly heroic fantasy game. Removing these effects will alter the nature of the game dramatically and remove quite a few creatures from the game as well because they are too dangerous.

Those who don't want to deal with resource management whether it is arrows, rations, ropes, ie survival materials don't want a game with much versimilitude and much less challenge than those who do IMO.

Those who believe the DM is somehow abliged to make every character concept a reality in his game and that sticking to the atmophere of a setting is unfair and unfun is IMO totally off base and ridiculous. There is a gigantic thread in the gleemax forums about this, feel free to look it up on your own.



Sundragon


----------



## Imp (Sep 12, 2007)

So what do you do with magic (silver/cold iron/whatever) arrows, then, handwave those too?  You can easily wind up right back where you started.

It isn't always worth it to enforce bookkeeping, but there are always situations where keeping track of something or other does have a real impact on how things turn out.  Encumbrance?  Ballpark it... unless suddenly there's water in the dungeon, that starts to rise, or you're hanging from a rope for dear life...  Food?  Sometimes an issue!  Arrows?  Well, if mister hero intends to singlehandedly stop the goblin horde he had better have enough little pointies; but in a 3-round skirmish in the middle of town, eh.

The only thing I'm categorically not a fan of in D&D is abstract wealth.  I tried when I was flirting with True20, but no.  Unless you are completely ignoring the "kill things and take their stuff" angle for something story-based, every treasure hoard should make you quantifiably richer, it's a big part of it.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Well, yeah, I was kind of _referring_ to Plane Sailing's ruling that the post wasn't trolling.  My point is that even though it's a honest argument rather than an attempt to stir up trouble, the whole post is centered around an unhelpful and somewhat dishonest debate tactic.




Do you have an opposing point of view?

Would you like to add something beyond an analysis of my OP?



Sundragon


----------



## cildarith (Sep 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Do your players generally only carry enough arrows for 5 rounds at level 16?
> 
> More likely, they have a bow which creates infinite arrows magically, or they have a magical quiver with an obscene payload, which needs to be tracked.
> 
> ...




Math.  It is soooo hard.  All that addition and subtraction.  Most unfun.  Brain. Hurtz. Waaah!!!111


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 12, 2007)

psionotic said:
			
		

> QFT, sir.  There are plenty of challenging, scary monsters (demons, devils, dragons) without having to fall back on poorly designed creatures with strictly METAGAME abilities like level-drain.  Creatures like this, along with the Rust Monster, and my least favorite, the Ethereal Filcher, have no other purpose other than to screw PCs.
> 
> I can scare my PCs with any number of creatures; I love using weak monsters like kobolds and hobgoblins with tactics that strike terror into their hearts.  But those metagame monsters exist solely for the purpose of shortcutting; they are the ultimate "lazy DM's" path to 'challenging' players.  Instead, however, all they do is actively encourage an adversarial relationship between DMs and PCs.




Except that kolbold and hobgoblin "tactics that strike terror into their hearts" really don't. Mostly, that's hit point damage. Maybe a little poison. Even a thunderstone against the PC Wizard is merely inconvenient.

Yawn.

The vast majority of DND combat is hit point damage.

It is critical for the game system to have mechanics that actually do strike terror into the hearts of players and to do this effectively, there has to be game mechanics for damage other than hit point damage. And, the game mechanics should be designed to make it difficult to repair that damage (unlike 3E/3.5). Not impossible, but difficult (like going on a quest).

Level Drain (the 1E/2E version) did scare players.

Ability Drain (1E/2E) where getting it back was not simplying praying for the proper spell did this.

4E needs some "scary stuff".

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

Note: a section on good NPC tactics in the DMG would be helpful. Even hit point damage can be daunting if properly run. But, hit point damage really doesn't strike terror into anyone's hearts. It's too pedestrian and commonplace to do so.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 12, 2007)

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.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 12, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 12, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 12, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Ah.
> 
> Well, it seemed to me that you had missed
> 
> ...



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 (Sep 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Sep 12, 2007)

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 (Sep 12, 2007)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 12, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 12, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 12, 2007)

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 (Sep 12, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> 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


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 12, 2007)

psionotic said:
			
		

> Creatures like this, along with the Rust Monster, and my least favorite, the Ethereal Filcher, have no other purpose other than to screw PCs.




Just like dragons.  They sit on big piles of gold that my PC is supposed to have.  That's just a neener neener encounter.  And then if I try to sneak in and steal the gold the DM says something about how they can see invisible.  It typically takes more than two sword-strikes to kill them (way more than two).  That's just sadistic.

Then - get this - rather than go around and have to breathe the face of everyone attacking them, they simply unlease a cone of fire that gets everyone standing in the area at once!  Talk about lazy!  

And don't get me started about leeches, mosquitos, termites, and barnacles.  I'm hoping that 4E will include a monster that spits out magic swords at the feet of people and then runs away.  Sort of like a squid's ink ability.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 12, 2007)

Oh yeah, that's another thing that's unfun. Too much caution on the part of the PCs. I've not enjoyed some games because everything... happened... sooo... sloooooowly. Too much caution is caused by DMs that, very simply, have too much bad  happen. Players do stuff. Bad  happens. Result? Players learn never to do stuff.

I've never ever seen a game suffer beacuse players were too incautious. Sure we might all die, but at least it's interesting.

I concede that this is purely a matter of taste. But then aren't they all?

WotC market research will determine whose taste is in the majority.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> 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.




Agreed. Doing that is boring, but it's not a problem with the DND rules.

I wasn't talking about checking doors, but being afraid to open them because of how nasty the things inside might be.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...




I think the resolution to this is fairly easy (and should be mentioned in the 4E DMG), even in 3.5.

Talk with the players and get consensus on what is done when the group sees a door. What is done when the group is heading down a hallway, etc. In real life, if there were traps on doors or hallways, I would have my friend the Rogue check them out every time.

It's boring for the game, but it would be something the characters would do.

So, the DM rolls Search rolls at every door (and every once in a while in hallways) the players decide to open (presumably behind the screen) and only tells the Rogue player if he finds something. The DM barely has to glance at the dice, especially if there are no traps there.

The group of players and the DM decide ahead of time to not have the DM bother saying "You find nothing" every single time. Instead, the DM says that "the Fighter opens the door and sees...". Every time. Unless the players decide for a given door to change the standard plan.

This takes no appreciable time.

Only when the PCs notice anything unusual does the DM tell them about it. The rest of the time, the Rogue checks for traps, the Fighter opens the door, if there wasn't a trap, gaming continues. If there was a trap, it goes off in the Fighter's face.


To speed this up even more, the DM could roll every trap and every listen at the door for a given adventure ahead of time based on the skill of the PCs. He could have the results written in his notes (note: if the Rogue is unconscious for a given door, just roll it again for real with the lesser skill of the PC actually doing it).

But, this is a prime example of where the rules do not need changing.

Rolling at every door is a bad habit that gaming groups get into, it's not a bad rule. It's a habit easy to fix.

The DMG should list simple DM 101 ways to avoid common problems like this. It's not a fault of the rule system, it's a fault of the DM not recognizing the problem and fixing it.


----------



## GreatLemur (Sep 12, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Ah.
> 
> Well, it seemed to me that you had missed
> 
> ...



I could be wrong, but claims of players crying for "a Teifling paladin in Conan's Hyboria" strike me as an obvious straw man.  I've got no problem with most of his actual points, but he's so bad at expressing and defending them that I find myself _wanting_ to disagree with him.


----------



## psionotic (Sep 12, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I'm hoping that 4E will include a monster that spits out magic swords at the feet of people and then runs away.  Sort of like a squid's ink ability.




Whoa, dude!  That would be awesome!  Can I sign up now?!!!1111


----------



## Grog (Sep 12, 2007)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> I for one have seen a dozen or so comments that would back up what you so demandingly want proven!



Okay. Show them to me.



			
				Gallo22 said:
			
		

> If it's so important to you, why don't you prove me wrong!!!



You can't prove a negative. That's one of the most basic tenets of logic.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 12, 2007)

psionotic said:
			
		

> Whoa, dude!  That would be awesome!  Can I sign up now?!!!1111




  Think about it though, who would stand a better chance of surviving an encounter with a high level party, an ancient red dragon that tries to keep magic items away from the party, or a monster that spits them at the party?  Just seems like a logical evolutionary niche to me.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 12, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> So, in your opinion, being well organized is a requirement for playing D&D?




Nope. Being well organized is a requirement for playing DND efficiently.

It doesn't matter if it is the DM, or another player. Having your materials together, knowing the abilities of your PC without looking them up, etc. is the hallmark of a prepared player.

Keeping track of arrows is so insignificant that I cannot believe that so many people have posted comments on it. If this is one of the *important areas* that WotC can improve with a new rule in 4E, then there is no need for a 4E. 3.5 is already wonderful beyond belief.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Sep 12, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> 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.



"It's totally true! On this other site, they're talking about an anime whose name I recognize! Some people say it's ridiculous!" What does that even have to do with your point that players don't want risk again?



> 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.



This is a complete fabrication and I think you're smart enough to know that. If you're not being intentionally dishonest, produce *one single link* that expresses the spirit of "risk free adventuring". Just ONE. You've had all these conversations on these boards over the weeks since 4e was announced, so surely you can find ONE.


----------



## psionotic (Sep 12, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Think about it though, who would stand a better chance of surviving an encounter with a high level party, an ancient red dragon that tries to keep magic items away from the party, or a monster that spits them at the party?  Just seems like a logical evolutionary niche to me.




That's a good point... You always come across the all powerful creature who demands that you give up a magic item to let you pass (give you the map, release his prisoner, etc).  Where are the cowardly, weakish monsters who give YOU magic items to not kill THEM?


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 12, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> You can't prove that something doesn't exist. That's one of the most basic tenets of logic.




This is an often quoted and completely inaccurate statement.  I see this all of the time on the internet (though I can't prove it.)

You *can* in fact prove things don't exist, especially in a logical system where an element's existence would contradict a basic axiom of the system.  For example, to use a famous problem - a construction of a square with the same area as a circle using only a straight-edge and compass does not exist.  The technique has been proven to not exist.

However, saying that you haven't found something isn't proof that it doesn't exist, if that's what you mean.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 12, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Keeping track of arrows is so insignificant that I cannot believe that so many people have posted comments on it. If this is one of the *important areas* that WotC can improve with a new rule in 4E, then there is no need for a 4E. 3.5 is already wonderful beyond belief.




I don't believe that "keeping track of arrows" is anything other than an example.  People aren't concerned about arrows, they either keep track of it or don't.  No one is going to avoid 4E or buy into 4E because of how it deals with tracking arrows.  

Dealing with bookkeeping is an issue.  I wouldn't say it's a key issue, but it's not insignificant.  The amount of bookkeeping in the game is an issue that some are concerned with.  The amount of bookkeeping insignificant things in D&D is something I've seen keep people from trying the game.  They don't want to deal with the hassle.  They'll sit down and play _Scrabble_ where they have 7 tiles to track, and someone has to keep score.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 12, 2007)

psionotic said:
			
		

> That's a good point... You always come across the all powerful creature who demands that you give up a magic item to let you pass (give you the map, release his prisoner, etc).  Where are the cowardly, weakish monsters who give YOU magic items to not kill THEM?




We've had that in campaigns before. Not often and not for real powerful magic, but once in a blue moon. It's a cute change of pace.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> I could be wrong, but claims of players crying for "a Teifling paladin in Conan's Hyboria" strike me as an obvious straw man.  I've got no problem with most of his actual points, but he's so bad at expressing and defending them that I find myself _wanting_ to disagree with him.




Well this should help you get over that. Its a thread called DM Power to Disallow  and it is a perfect representation of egregious player entitlement. It was a fun thread to participate in but pissed me off to no end.

I am not exaggerating much about the Tiefling in Hyboria, just read and see.

Also, I find it interesting that you have the energy to write about how my argument doesn't quite meet your standards but so far no points of your own _other_ than how bad mine is.



Sundragon


----------



## Grog (Sep 12, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> This is an often quoted and completely inaccurate statement.  I see this all of the time on the internet (though I can't prove it.)
> 
> You *can* in fact prove things don't exist, especially in a logical system where an element's existence would contradict a basic axiom of the system.  For example, to use a famous problem - a construction of a square with the same area as a circle using only a straight-edge and compass does not exist.  The technique has been proven to not exist.
> 
> However, saying that you haven't found something isn't proof that it doesn't exist, if that's what you mean.



Yes, I was using it as a shorthand. Claiming that X is true because X has not been proven false is a well-known logical fallacy.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 12, 2007)

psionotic said:
			
		

> That's a good point... You always come across the all powerful creature who demands that you give up a magic item to let you pass (give you the map, release his prisoner, etc).  Where are the cowardly, weakish monsters who give YOU magic items to not kill THEM?




I'll tell you where they are!  They were left on the cutting room floor to make room for the friggin rust monster!   

This just occured to me too:  you have cloud giants, cloud castles, and even a bag of magic beans in DnD.  What you don't have in DnD is a goose that lays golden eggs.  Why that *one* element of the story taken away, when all others are there?


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 12, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Yes, I was using it as a shorthand. Claiming that X is true because X has not been proven false is a well-known logical fallacy.




Ok cool.  I swear, I'm not cyber stalking you - I just swore the next time I saw someone say that I was going to chime in with my two nerdly copper pieces.  Now that you say this, perhaps that's what everyone else has meant this whole time.   

(edit:  BTW - I got my eye on you "strawman".  My spidey sense tells me that you're not being used properly either most of the time.)


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Okay. Show them to me.
> 
> 
> You can't prove a negative. That's one of the most basic tenets of logic.





sar·casm      Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahr-kaz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation 
–noun 
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.  
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark:


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 12, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> DM Power to Disallow



I love how the OP banned fighters for being underpowered. That's genuinely awesome.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> That's not how this works. You made the claim - you need to back it up.





This is only true if his goal is to convince you that his claim is true.  If he doesn't care whether or not you are convinced, he doesn't need to back up his claim.

If I say "my singing sucks" and I don't care whether or not you believe me, I don't have to demonstrate.  

RC

EDIT:  BTW, claiming that something is untrue because it has not been proven to be true is a well-known logical fallacy also.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 12, 2007)

Karin's Dad- I'm glad that this works for you, but I tend to think that the fact that you  needed a full page to explain your house rules and game aids you use to speed up the resolution of door opening suggests that if a faster mechanic for trapped doors can be created, it should be implemented.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I love how the OP banned fighters for being underpowered. That's genuinely awesome.





Your bringing that up, where it has no bearing to the content of the OP, and with the tone you are using, is also a form of attack by ridicule.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 12, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If I say "my singing sucks" and I don't care whether or not you believe me, I don't have to demonstrate.




But then how do you defend the gaming habits of a group of people that don't exist?  If the OP says that 5 headed people are bad drivers, it seems like I would have to prove the existence of 5 headed people before I told him he was wrong.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 12, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Your bringing that up, where it has no bearing to the content of the OP, and with the tone you are using, is also a form of attack by ridicule.



I was being 100% serious, I do love it.

We need some sort of icon to indicate one isn't being sarcastic.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 12, 2007)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> sar·casm      Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahr-kaz-uhm]




Yea, thanks.  That pronunciation guide is so not pedantic.


----------



## SavageRobby (Sep 12, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> (edit:  BTW - I got my eye on you "strawman".  My spidey sense tells me that you're not being used properly either most of the time.)




Probably true. Also probably true that next to "unfun", it is probably the most overused word in this thread. Yeesh. This was briefly an interesting discussion.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> But then how do you defend the gaming habits of a group of people that don't exist?  If the OP says that 5 headed people are bad drivers, it seems like I would have to prove the existence of 5 headed people before I told him he was wrong.




If your goal is to convince someone that they are wrong, the onus of proof is always on you.

If you are simply stating that someone is wrong, and do not care whether they accept your statement or not, there is no burden of proof.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I was being 100% serious, I do love it.
> 
> We need some sort of icon to indicate one isn't being sarcastic.





Sorry, I thought there was a law requiring sarcasm on the Interweb.  We shall send the police around directly.....


----------



## Rolzup (Sep 12, 2007)

Let me share with you a Truth:  Different people want different things.

I was, briefly, a player in a game where the PCs were, essentially, pirates.  With an airship.  During the first session, one of the players wanted to nail down exactly how much of a percentage each member of the crew would get from the plunder that we took, to the point of (if I remember correctly) writing out a contract.

This was something that she clearly enjoyed doing.  Me, though, I found it kinda...pointless.  Tedious, even.  Every minute spent discussing bonuses and death benefits was a minute NOT spent buckling swashes and running scurvy dogs through with my rapier.  This wasn't the reason that I bowed out of the game -- that was lack of time, plain and simple -- but it made the decision a bit easier.

These days, I get to play for about four hours every other week.  I want to spend those four hours ADVENTURING, not preparing for the journey or worrying over the minutia.  We can (and do) handle those details over e-mail where and when it's really neccessary, but for the most part I don't really think that we bother any more.

And that works, because we're all of like mind on the subject.  If we did have someone in the game who insisted on playing this sort of stuff out, I suspect that we'd adapt.  Or more, likely, the other guy would.

I'd prefer for the default to be that we don't have to bother with such things.  It's easy enough to add resource management to the game if you want it, surely.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 12, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I don't believe that "keeping track of arrows" is anything other than an example.  People aren't concerned about arrows, they either keep track of it or don't.  No one is going to avoid 4E or buy into 4E because of how it deals with tracking arrows.
> 
> Dealing with bookkeeping is an issue.  I wouldn't say it's a key issue, but it's not insignificant.  The amount of bookkeeping in the game is an issue that some are concerned with.  The amount of bookkeeping insignificant things in D&D is something I've seen keep people from trying the game.  They don't want to deal with the hassle.  They'll sit down and play _Scrabble_ where they have 7 tiles to track, and someone has to keep score.




Agreed.

However, my point remains (although I might have been obscure).

Players in 3.5 (and presumably in 4E) have to keep track of a LOT of things. Not just arrows and coins and food and encumbrance, but 30+ abilities and 100+ spells and 20+ items by 20th level.

That's a lot to keep track of. Using new rules to drop the bookkeeping of arrows and coins and food and encumbrance is hardly a drop in the bucket.

The real difficulty of a level based system (just like the real difficulty in real life of growing older) is that PCs start acquiring more and more and more stuff. Be that actual physical stuff like magic items, or abilities.


This is one of the reasons that high level games are not played as often, or at least in my experience and opinion.

People are complaining about Vanican magic (or precisely, selecting spells). The reason they are complaining about this is because it does indeed take a long time to not only select spells, but to determine which spells are cast first (longer duration ones), which spells stack with which PC abilities or magic items or other spells, and even which spells are better than others, etc.

All of this stuff takes time. No doubt about it.

But, even if all spell casters become spontaneous casters and equipment / encumbrance is removed from the game, higher level play will STILL be a lot of bookkeeping / lookups, etc.

That's the very nature of the beast. When PCs gain stuff (i.e. spells, items, abilities) as they level up, it takes longer and longer to understand and coordinate it all. No matter what the designers do, 4E will not fix that. It's basic math where gaining more at higher levels typically adds to low level acquisitions, it does not replace low level acquisitions.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Sep 12, 2007)

Unfun: No longer funny but not naturally boring. Jokes that have literally be done to death, but which aren't buried as they should be, but are still used again and again and again - those are the Unfun. 

Bards can Turn Unfun. Good bards do this by inventing and telling new jokes, Evil bards use their unholy charisma to make people laugh at the joke despite its overexposure, or alternately, they bolster the joke with dark humour (like adding themes of death, destruction, misery, or perversion).


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 12, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Using new rules to drop the bookkeeping of arrows and coins and food and encumbrance is hardly a drop in the bucket.




I'm going to disagree with part of this.  Arrows and coins, drops in the bucket.  Encumbrance? A good elegant system here could cut a lot of bookkeeping. A great system could cut a huge amount of bookkeeping (mostly because it would probably extend past the encumbrance system).

Do I expect it?  Not really.  Maybe for 5th edition 8-10 years from now.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 12, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If you are simply stating that someone is wrong, and do not care whether they accept your statement or not, there is no burden of proof.




In the original situation, the post was talking about how he found a certain kind of gamer to be strange.  I wouldn't think that proof that such a gamer exists (the 5 headed person in my analogy) would be necessary for the statement to stand on it's merits.  If such a gamer doesn't exist, he would still find that type of gamer to be strange - the existence here doesn't seem to be a necessary part of the logic.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> "It's totally true! On this other site, they're talking about an anime whose name I recognize! Some people say it's ridiculous!" What does that even have to do with your point that players don't want risk again?
> 
> This is a complete fabrication and I think you're smart enough to know that. If you're not being intentionally dishonest, produce *one single link* that expresses the spirit of "risk free adventuring". Just ONE. You've had all these conversations on these boards over the weeks since 4e was announced, so surely you can find ONE.




Post #144 below is the only link I am providing. I have a life outside of this. I am speaking from experience and discussion or reading and lurking. You expect me to prove that these kinds of gamers exist? Now who is being disingenuous? The link will demonstrate at the very least the player entitlement issues I am referring to and that is all the proof you need and certainly more than I have to give.

You haven't made one salient point toward the argument presented, unless I missed it amongst all your thread crapping about logic and proof. Do you disagree, agree, what?

Quit derailing the thread and offer an opinion of your own.



Sundragon


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Yea, thanks.  That pronunciation guide is so not pedantic.





pe·dan·tic      Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[puh-dan-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation 
–adjective 
1. ostentatious in one's learning.  
2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching.  


Sorry, I just couldn't resist.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 12, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If you are simply stating that someone is wrong, and do not care whether they accept your statement or not, there is no burden of proof.




Technically true, but a good term to describe that kind of behavior is "annoying."


----------



## Grog (Sep 12, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Ok cool.  I swear, I'm not cyber stalking you - I just swore the next time I saw someone say that I was going to chime in with my two nerdly copper pieces.  Now that you say this, perhaps that's what everyone else has meant this whole time.



No, it's cool. I just hear so much about players who want risk-free games around here that just for once, I'd like to see some evidence that these players _actually exist_ in any significant numbers. I'm starting to think that the mythical player who wants everything handed to him on a silver platter is the EN World equivalent of the bogeyman.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Karin's Dad- I'm glad that this works for you, but I tend to think that the fact that you  needed a full page to explain your house rules and game aids you use to speed up the resolution of door opening suggests that if a faster mechanic for trapped doors can be created, it should be implemented.




No, I'm just verbose by nature.

Your conclusion here is a logical fallacy. The length of the explanation is irrelevant to whether a rule needs changing or not. Speeding up games by doing reasonable things makes sense. 

For example, we use 3x5 cards for initiative. That makes sense for a circular initiative system. Asking "Who rolled the 18?" after the first round of a circular initiative system does not make sense.

That doesn't mean that a better system for searching for traps cannot be added to 4E, it just means that handling traps in 3.5 is low on the priority list for some groups who do have an organized system for handling them. It's a no brainer compared to actually running the boring "Ok, I search for traps." at every single door.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 12, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Jokes that have literally be done to death,




I'm going to take my eye off of "strawman" for a second to point out that jokes can't be literally done to death.  However, you are describing most of my posts on this board so I'll try to cut it back.


----------



## GreatLemur (Sep 12, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> 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.



I suspect you're using the word "paraphase" incorrectly.  I wholly believe that you intend to convey the _spirit_ of the things you've read (although you've colored it heavily to support your argument), but I don't think you're actually reproducing the _information_.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Well this should help you get over that. Its a thread called DM Power to Disallow  and it is a perfect representation of egregious player entitlement. It was a fun thread to participate in but pissed me off to no end.
> 
> I am not exaggerating much about the Tiefling in Hyboria, just read and see.
> 
> Also, I find it interesting that you have the energy to write about how my argument doesn't quite meet your standards but so far no points of your own _other_ than how bad mine is.



That's because _I don't disagree with you_.  I certainly agree that there are people out there who don't care about the internal consistency of a campaign setting, and that theirs is a brand of RPG I don't want to play.

My point here is that exaggerating or misrepresenting someone else's position to support your own is a bad tactic, and the rate at which this thread devolved seems like pretty decent evidence of that.  And even if there _actually is a post_ in this 37-page horrorshow of Gleemax retardation that says "Why can't I play a tiefling paladin in Hyboria? That's unfun!", it still woulda been a good idea to quote it, and thus avoid the staw man accusations.

Other than the fact that I wish you'd use some more commas and apostrophes, that's about all I've got to say on the matter.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Sep 12, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> But then how do you defend the gaming habits of a group of people that don't exist?  If the OP says that 5 headed people are bad drivers, it seems like I would have to prove the existence of 5 headed people before I told him he was wrong.



Assuming this is meant to have bearing on the thread rather than a rather successful exercise in surrealist posting, the issue is not insulting people who don't exist. The issue is insulting people who do exist through strawman arguments.

"5 Headed people are bad drivers."

"What's up with people who don't want driver's licenses given out based on looks? They think I can't tell that a 5 headed person isn't gonna make a good driver? Gee, maybe we should give eyeless parapalegics drivers licenses too, huh?"

The problem is not people in this thread inventing gaming habits and insulting them, it's ascribing invented gaming habits to people who dare to discuss aspects of the game that are more or less fun for what they add, and insulting the real people *using* the imaginary gaming habits.


----------



## Grog (Sep 12, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Post #144 below is the only link I am providing. I have a life outside of this. I am speaking from experience and discussion or reading and lurking. You expect me to prove that these kinds of gamers exist?



Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


----------



## IanB (Sep 12, 2007)

My personal #1 choice for "unfun" is a permanent, unalterable change to the numbers on my character sheet.

That means level drain, xp drain, permanent hp drain (hello, Shape of Fire ), things of that nature.

Things that make my character strictly worse, unfixably, without killing me. You can blow my stuff up, that's fine, I can get new stuff. Level drain is just a stupid punitive mechanic that doesn't make any sense in-character.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Sep 12, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I'm going to take my eye off of "strawman" for a second to point out that jokes can't be literally done to death.  However, you are describing most of my posts on this board so I'll try to cut it back.




You kill jokes? And then raise them? Don't cut back! Get the extra turning feat and do it more! Haven't you heard that bards won't be in 4e, at least not at first?


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 12, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> My personal #1 choice for "unfun" is a permanent, unalterable change to the numbers on my character sheet.




Gaining levels?



> Things that make my character strictly worse, unfixably, without killing me. You can blow my stuff up, that's fine, I can get new stuff. Level drain is just a stupid punitive mechanic that doesn't make any sense in-character.




Ah, negative things.  I'm sort of with you here.  I will make an exception for curses, although they strictly aren't permanent, they can last for extended times.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 12, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.




Prove it!


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> No, it's cool. I just hear so much about players who want risk-free games around here that just for once, I'd like to see some evidence that these players _actually exist_ in any significant numbers. I'm starting to think that the mythical player who wants everything handed to him on a silver platter is the EN World equivalent of the bogeyman.





Ok, ok, I'll say it, just so Groggy here can feel better about himself/herself.  Groggy....your right!  There is not a single thread of evidence here on EN World ,or other worlds for that matter, that prove..., beyond a shadow of a dounut..., that there are gamers who want risk-free games.

However, (hehehehe) there does seem to be alot of you crying about things that happen to your character when they don't go your way!!!  So for that reason...and that reason alone... is why Habro is creating 4th Edition. At least that's what I heard.  Ut-oh.  I hope I don't have to prove this?    

Boy, this the most fun I've had in a long time.  No really.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Sep 12, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Gaining levels?




Level caps! After all, that level is going to be altered again and again - right until it isn't, any more.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 12, 2007)

> Your conclusion here is a logical fallacy. The length of the explanation is irrelevant to whether a rule needs changing or not. Speeding up games by doing reasonable things makes sense.




We need a moratorium on the use of the word "fallacy" by people who don't know how to use it.  Perhaps we can call it the Fallacy Ad Fallacium.  The fallacy of calling something a fallacy as a means of deriding it when in fact it is not a fallacy.  Then we could have excellent meta discussions on whether my use of your full page of house rules and game aids as an indicator of rule complexity that should be investigated for simplification is a fallacy (its not, unless you deny the existence of inductive reasoning) more or less so than your claim that my argument is a fallacy.  Wouldn't that be fun?

Sometimes I hate the internet.


----------



## The Human Target (Sep 12, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Funny a threacrapper calling me a troll. Amusing.
> 
> I am in support of 4e and like much of what I'm hearing about it. My criticism is of an attitude amongst some who feel that the fun of playing the game with a well designed, interesting character, isn't enough anymore. For decades it has been, but not anymore it seems. IMO there is the attitude of being entitled to anything one desires as a fulfillment of the D&D experience when this has never been the case.
> 
> ...




You know what?

I apologize.

I was on the board too long yesterday, and some of the negative pants attitude on here was getting to me.


----------



## IanB (Sep 12, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Gaining levels?




I think I made it perfectly clear what I meant, what with the whole second sentence and all.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2007)

Ok, now that I am tired coming off of a 12 1/2 hour shift and growing even more tired of an interesting thread turning into a crapfest, I'm going.

Thank you to those with constructive comments, criticism, insights, etc. Shame on you villians who would bring my sweet, sweet thread to a screeching halt. 

Ye know who ye are and I curse ye from the depths of me bowls. May your mommy chase you out of her basement and into the light of day where no darkness can exist and may all your D&D books turn grim, gritty and low magic with a focus on resource management.   



Sundragon


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 12, 2007)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> OThere is not a single thread of evidence <snip>..., that there are gamers who want risk-free games.




So, this is what this whole argument was about.

I submit they exist, but they are pretty rare and not worth mentioning.  The real issue here is that people have different things they are willing to risk.

To take an example I've been discussing a lot lately...

Death.  As I pointed out in another thread, death is not a necessary element in D&D to provide risk to the player characters.  A game could be structured so that the PCs will never die unless they choose to die.  When they fight they are risking things other than their life.

However, what is also clear from those discussions is that there are a large number of D&D players who feel that isn't playing D&D "right."  Without the risk of death there is no risk, in their opinion.  They wouldn't want to play D&D if there was no risk of death.

I think that's what this whole discussion comes down to.  It's not that the players don't want a "risk-free game" (not most of them, anyway).  However, they don't want to risk what the OP (and others) feel they should be required to risk.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 12, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> No, it's cool. I just hear so much about players who want risk-free games around here that just for once, I'd like to see some evidence that these players _actually exist_ in any significant numbers. I'm starting to think that the mythical player who wants everything handed to him on a silver platter is the EN World equivalent of the bogeyman.




I think it's a spectrum, and one that lends itself fairly easily to exaggeration I guess.  I am startled sometimes with things people say that seem to equate adversity with unfun.  There's a glimmer of something that Sundragon is describing that I recognize.  I think, however, that some of this is a misunderstanding.  To be fair those misunderstanding though, sometimes people can be pretty evasive about their philosophy underlying a particular opinion.  

Also, sometimes it's a matter of priorities - someone might not think any sort of adverisity is fun, but they don't realize they think that because how it is in their mind is that they just find other things more fun.  I myself might not like Diminutive sized monsters, but have subconsciously been avoiding them and would take umbrage to someone else pointing this out without really spending time considering that perhaps the other person noticed something about my tendencies that I hadn't. 

One of my players once told me he didn't want to keep track of rations because he was "an adventurer, not an accountant".  Such a statement made on the internet might lead some folks to believe that he doesn't like adverisity in any form, but that can't be the case if he's been playing in my campaign for the last 15 years.


----------



## GreatLemur (Sep 12, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Ok, now that I am tired coming off of a 12 1/2 hour shift and growing even more tired of an interesting thread turning into a crapfest, I'm going.
> 
> Thank you to those with constructive comments, criticism, insights, etc. Shame on you villians who would bring my sweet, sweet thread to a screeching halt.
> 
> Ye know who ye are and I curse ye from the depths of me bowls. May your mommy chase you out of her basement and into the light of day where no darkness can exist and may all your D&D books turn grim, gritty and low magic with a focus on resource management.



Right, now _that_ was a good post.


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> So, this is what this whole argument was about.
> 
> I submit they exist, but they are pretty rare and not worth mentioning.  The real issue here is that people have different things they are willing to risk.
> 
> ...




Very well said and I think this is exactly what many of us are getting at.  I know that my group hates it when a DM "cheats" to keep a character alive just for the sake of keeping that character alive.  FOR OUR GROUP....with out the risk of death or other bad things, the game is not fun to us...


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 12, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> The issue is insulting people who do exist through strawman arguments.




Aha, "strawman", gotcha!



			
				Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> The problem is not people in this thread inventing gaming habits and insulting them, it's ascribing invented gaming habits to people who dare to discuss aspects of the game that are more or less fun for what they add, and insulting the real people *using* the imaginary gaming habits.




So someone is calling someone else 5-headed? (using my analogy).  I would think it was simply easier to prove that you don't have five heads, rather than demand that the person making the statement go and find a five headed person first.  Because in the case that they prove such a person exists, they're *still* not talking about me and I could have made things a whole lot easier by establishing that.  

IOW:  Why ask for proof for the existence of something that you don't care about that doesn't have a bearing on the issue anyway?  Asking for this kind of proof is relevant to the first part of your quoted statement above, which is the part you say isn't an issue.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 12, 2007)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> Sorry, I just couldn't resist.




No problem.  Ironically I have always found the use of the word pedantic to be pedantic in itself.  The inventor of that word was a genius.


----------



## sidonunspa (Sep 12, 2007)

Unfun for me - save or die

I had a character once, we where hit with a curse in a temple of some kind (cant remember to what god now)... once we finished the adventure, and where on our way out of the temple we where asked to make saves... 

I rolled a 1 and died on the spot... no idea why, nothing.. just dead

That was no fun.. you kill me in melee, or have a caster fireball me to death.. good! bring it on! 

it ruined my night and like the next 5 games after that.


----------



## Thanin (Sep 12, 2007)

Sundragon2012 I completely and wholeheartedly agree with you.

Sometimes you're not going to be amazing and badass in a fight.  Sometimes you're useless in a combat.  Sometimes you have to run to survive.  Sometimes you lose.  And the best adventures have just enough of all these to make the wins, the revenge, the drama and tension memorable and talked about by your friends for years/decades.


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> No problem.  Ironically I have always found the use of the word pedantic to be pedantic in itself.  The inventor of that word was a genius.




I like this word.  Never heard of it before today actually.  Well used my friend!!!  Personally my favorite word is "factious".  Best word ever invented.  Now I hope I don't have to prove it! hehehehehe


----------



## Grog (Sep 12, 2007)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> Ok, ok, I'll say it, just so Groggy here can feel better about himself/herself.  Groggy....your right!  There is not a single thread of evidence here on EN World ,or other worlds for that matter, that prove..., beyond a shadow of a dounut..., that there are gamers who want risk-free games.
> 
> However, (hehehehe) there does seem to be alot of you crying about things that happen to your character when they don't go your way!!!  So for that reason...and that reason alone... is why Habro is creating 4th Edition. At least that's what I heard.  Ut-oh.  I hope I don't have to prove this?
> 
> Boy, this the most fun I've had in a long time.  No really.



EDIT: Actually, never mind. Ignore list it is.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Sep 12, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Aha, "strawman", gotcha!



the fact that a word may or may not be overused does not make it automaticly a "bad word", I'm afraid. Yes, "strawman." 




> So someone is calling someone else 5-headed? (using my analogy).  I would think it was simply easier to prove that you don't have five heads, rather than demand that the person making the statement go and find a five headed person first.  Because in the case that they prove such a person exists, they're *still* not talking about me and I could have made things a whole lot easier by establishing that.



"People who complain about parts of the game being unfun" exist. When someone makes rhetorical responses to that group of people that then add on a fictional level of baggage to them, yes, it is worthwhile to say "demonstrate that this fictional level of baggage is actually a significant component of the group you are complaining about, or address the actual people you are talking about". 

Similarly, I am a person who prefers a lower lethality game. When people respond directly to such a statement of preference with "Well, if you don't want to have any risk of losing, maybe you should be reading a novel / I don't like to play games on God Mode / winning is meaningless if you can't lose" I'm not going to say "Gee, this person inexplicably started talking about something else, oh well, not my problem." Because they are not talking about something else, they are talking inaccurately about a group I am a part of.

(I could come up with a few political and religious examples, but then it would all go pear shaped....)


----------



## Tewligan (Sep 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Do your players generally only carry enough arrows for 5 rounds at level 16?
> 
> More likely, they have a bow which creates infinite arrows magically, or they have a magical quiver with an obscene payload, which needs to be tracked.
> 
> ...



I'm still not seeing the difficulty of keeping track of arrows. Is subtracting 5 from 300 any more difficult than subtracting 5 from 25? And so what if it's not always a multiple of 5 that was fired? "Oh my god, last round I fired 5, but this round only 4?! This is a mathematician's nightmare! And what's this? I found 40 fired arrows, and half of them are reusable? Why, it'll take FOREVER to figure out half of 40 and add it back to my remaining arrows! Where's my abacus?!"


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Sep 12, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> My personal #1 choice for "unfun" is a permanent, unalterable change to the numbers on my character sheet.
> 
> That means level drain, xp drain, permanent hp drain (hello, Shape of Fire ), things of that nature.




Heh, permanent HP drain.  I suppose there's a reason that's been seen twice in one book and never again. 

It's not just annoying, it breaks the existing abstraction of the game.

Brad


----------



## The_Gneech (Sep 12, 2007)

Man, did this thread turn into all kinds of nasty!  

-The Gneech


----------



## Fobok (Sep 12, 2007)

Tewligan said:
			
		

> I'm still not seeing the difficulty of keeping track of arrows. Is subtracting 5 from 300 any more difficult than subtracting 5 from 25? And so what if it's not always a multiple of 5 that was fired? "Oh my god, last round I fired 5, but this round only 4?! This is a mathematician's nightmare! And what's this? I found 40 fired arrows, and half of them are reusable? Why, it'll take FOREVER to figure out half of 40 and add it back to my remaining arrows! Where's my abacus?!"




It's not difficulty, it's annoyance factor, plain and simple. Once you get beyond a certain level and have enough money to restock multiple quivers between adventures, it's pointless to track since nobody'll ever run out. Thus, it's time spent for no real gain.


----------



## Tewligan (Sep 12, 2007)

Fobok said:
			
		

> It's not difficulty, it's annoyance factor, plain and simple. Once you get beyond a certain level and have enough money to restock multiple quivers between adventures, it's pointless to track since nobody'll ever run out. Thus, it's time spent for no real gain.



But it's a few SECONDS worth of time spent! You can do that during another player's turn. Hell, you can do it during the time the next player is clearing his throat to announce his action!

"I fire 5 arrows at the dragon."
(On sheet labeled "Arrows fired" - "mark, mark, mark, mark, mark.")

That's just ridiculously easy.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Sep 12, 2007)

Tewligan said:
			
		

> I'm still not seeing the difficulty of keeping track of arrows. Is subtracting 5 from 300 any more difficult than subtracting 5 from 25? And so what if it's not always a multiple of 5 that was fired? "Oh my god, last round I fired 5, but this round only 4?! This is a mathematician's nightmare! And what's this? I found 40 fired arrows, and half of them are reusable? Why, it'll take FOREVER to figure out half of 40 and add it back to my remaining arrows! Where's my abacus?!"




Because it's boring, not difficult.

We're already abstracting out most spell components, specifically the ones that don't have a cash cost associated to them, by saying they're in a small pouch that the caster buys in a store or gathers along the way when feasible.  There is no rule saying the caster has to refill this pouch after so many castings, at least that I'm aware of.

The argument is that ammunition is really no different in concept.  After all, if we're not keeping track of how much bat poop a sorcerer has in his pouch, why should we bother keeping track of arrows?  I do agree with that, to a certain extent; if someone makes an effort at ensuring they have a boatload of arrows available, I wouldn't make them account for every last regular arrow.  Magic arrows and specialty ammo, yes, but not regular ones.

Of course, I'd also just use the quiver from Dragon that generated regular, silver, and cold iron arrows automatically and sidestep the entire issue.  

Brad


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 12, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Similarly, I am a person who prefers a lower lethality game. When people respond directly to such a statement of preference with "Well, if you don't want to have any risk of losing, maybe you should be reading a novel / I don't like to play games on God Mode / winning is meaningless if you can't lose" I'm not going to say "Gee, this person inexplicably started talking about something else, oh well, not my problem." Because they are not talking about something else, they are talking inaccurately about a group I am a part of.




In the first example, the use of the word "you" pretty much unambiguously applies to you and not some group.  Maybe that person should be riding a bike.  Or maybe he should stick to the topic instead of having weird opinions about what your hobbies should be.

In the second example, the person is telling you that they don't like to play games on God mode.  The statement is difficult to argue with but also logically irrelevant to your gaming style.  I think it's rude to insinuate that you play on "God mode" and not come out and say it so that you have a chance to refute it.  Proving the existence of "God mode" though would be beside the point.

"Winning is meaningless if you can't lose":  again, this statement stands on it's own, it's not about how you are or what you're doing.  If you don't agree with the statement seems easy enough to say so.  You can say "Winning is meaningful, even if you can't lose, and here's why."  Or you can challenge the premise:  "people can lose in my game, so your statement, while true, is not applicable to this coversation".  

None of these things require complicated proofs of the existence of people.  That being said, the examples you gave are examples of rudeness.  Using logic might be a waste of one's time in this case.  I'm not saying you should put up with rudeness, and that's as someone who probably disagree with you on the substance of many of these particular topics.


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> EDIT: Actually, never mind. Ignore list it is.




awww, come on that's no fun...  Someone actually gives into you and you give up?


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

I just added Grog to my buddy list!!!!


----------



## Umbran (Sep 12, 2007)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> sar·casm      Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahr-kaz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> –noun
> 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
> 2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark:





Thank you so much for the great entry line.

Folks, sarcasm does _nothing_ to help you get your point across.  The harsh, sneering, and cutting tone completely fails to endear you to the posters who disagree with you.  

If you are interested in actually exchanging information and ideas, please stop with the sarcasm - it isn't helping, and it is making the tone of this thread and the boards in general less welcoming.  If you aren't interesting in exchanging information and ideas, you're in the wrong place.  Either way, it is time to cut the sarcasm out of this thread. 

In addition, I ought to note that announcing "I've added you to my ignore list" is considered to be a fairly rude comment, as are making further jokes about it.  Folks, these boards are supposed to be a place where you respect other people, and we aren't seeing that here.  This is the last warning on tone the thread will receive.  Am I clear?

If I am not clear, please feel free to e-mail me, or any of the other mods.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Sometimes I hate the internet.




I'm not the one who said that an opinion must be wrong because someone wrote a few paragraphs in explanation.

If you consider that legal debate, fine. Personally, I think your opinion there is full of crap (as was the paragraph of yours that I snipped here).


----------



## Elf Witch (Sep 12, 2007)

After plowing through this entire thread my head hurts.

There are somethings I find Unfun I don't like save or die spells very much mainly because if you fail that's it. I also don't like weapons that can kill a PC with full hit points in one round. I don't mind a chance at death being killed in melee by being hit over and over again because I have a chance to try and do something to change the outcome.

But I do see the point of these kind of spells and they add drama and fear but I think they should be used sparingly.

When I DM I give all the players 1 fate point which can undo instant death.

Now save and don't move spells can suck if you fail but suck it up. I am sorry but I do find it to be a little whiney when I hear I had to sit out the combat because I rolled a 1 on my save. The people who want this removed from the game do you also want it removed for NPCs as well?

As a player I would hate to see that because those spells can come in handy.

As a DM if a player is taken out of the action I hand him an NPC sheet and let him run one of the NPCs so they are still playing.

As for bookkeeping I have played plenty of archers and I never had an issue of keeping track of arrows. Even at high levels. I like the aspect of the chance of running out it makes you have to think and plan. The same as I like the idea of the party running out of food or water in some situations that can really add to the drama of the game.

I will also say my favorite class to play is some kind of mage and I don't mind running out of spells and having to come up with other tactics one of the most memorable combats I was ever in we were low on resources I was playing a sorcerer and I ran out of every spell even cantrips. I was forced to draw my rapier and it was with that rapier that I took down the BBEG after he and I were the last ones standing. It was frakking awesome the entire table went nuts when I rolled a crit and down he went. 

Some of the best sessions I have ever played in were ones where we were not full strength or did not have all our goodies and had to use our wits to make it through.

I see some of the this is unfun to mean that the player wants to always be at full strength and be able to do his special abilities in every encounter and if he can't then the game is unfun. I just don't understand this attidue I guess.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 12, 2007)

Tewligan said:
			
		

> But it's a few SECONDS worth of time spent! You can do that during another player's turn. Hell, you can do it during the time the next player is clearing his throat to announce his action!
> 
> "I fire 5 arrows at the dragon."
> (On sheet labeled "Arrows fired" - "mark, mark, mark, mark, mark.")
> ...




Right, right.  Now keep doing that.  And after the fight, work out the following: all arrows which hit are destroyed.  Half of the arrows which missed are destroyed under normal circumstances.  Double check with your DM whether you are in abnormal circumstances, like shooting at a sea serpent, that would cause your arrows to become lost at a higher rate.  The remaining arrows may be salvaged.  Replace them in your quiver.  Then go to your larger backup storage of arrows and top off your quiver.  Mark down how much your backup storage has diminished.  You DO have one, right?  You didn't go adventuring into the Underdark with just 60 arrows, right?  Of course you didn't.  So mark off how many of the nearly 2000 arrows in your backup have been used.

That's what you have to do.  Its not mentally challenging, its just time consuming, and it doesn't do anything important!  It just determines whether you spend 10 gp or 12 gp the next time you get to town!  You aren't going to run out because you have a bag of holding stuffed with arrows anyways.  Of course you have this, because other than a bag of holding, the next best item in the core rules holds 60 arrows.  And that's nonviable for a lengthy trip because even at level 6 you'll use that up in 20 rounds of full rapid shooting fire.

Honestly, at higher levels I'd be happy to just pay 100 gp every time I got to town in order to avoid having to mess with the whole matter.


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.




As one who works in the legal profession, this is far from true...


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 12, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I'm not the one who said that an opinion must be wrong because someone wrote a few paragraphs in explanation.




That's not precisely what was said, now was it?  My opinion: If you need to invent your own play aids to make a rule work smoothly, then either 1) the play aids should be core, or 2) the rule should be revised.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 12, 2007)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> As one who works in the legal profession, this is far from true...




Hah!  As another who works in the legal profession, I concur.  But they SHOULD require extraordinary proof, darn it all!


----------



## Stereofm (Sep 12, 2007)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> Well, if they manage to create a Monopoly version that doesn't require any die rolls, I'd actually be quite interested in it.
> 
> I like strategy games that don't have any elements of chance. One of my favorite examples is Diplomacy. It's only problem is that the starting positions (i.e. the country you're playing) are not equally good.
> 
> Ah, now that was completely off-topic, I guess...




You should consider A Game of thrones by fantasy Flight.

There is some cjhance involved, but it's generally OK.


----------



## helium3 (Sep 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Of course you have this, because other than a bag of holding, the next best item in the core rules holds 60 arrows.




Well, actually you can't put arrows in a bag of holding. The 3.X specifically state you can't put anything in it that might pierce it. Talk about UNFUN!!


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Right, right.  Now keep doing that.  And after the fight, work out the following: all arrows which hit are destroyed.  Half of the arrows which missed are destroyed under normal circumstances.  Double check with your DM whether you are in abnormal circumstances, like shooting at a sea serpent, that would cause your arrows to become lost at a higher rate.  The remaining arrows may be salvaged.  Replace them in your quiver.  Then go to your larger backup storage of arrows and top off your quiver.  Mark down how much your backup storage has diminished.  You DO have one, right?  You didn't go adventuring into the Underdark with just 60 arrows, right?  Of course you didn't.  So mark off how many of the nearly 2000 arrows in your backup have been used.
> 
> That's what you have to do.  Its not mentally challenging, its just time consuming, and it doesn't do anything important!  It just determines whether you spend 10 gp or 12 gp the next time you get to town!  You aren't going to run out because you have a bag of holding stuffed with arrows anyways.  Of course you have this, because other than a bag of holding, the next best item in the core rules holds 60 arrows.  And that's nonviable for a lengthy trip because even at level 6 you'll use that up in 20 rounds of full rapid shooting fire.
> 
> Honestly, at higher levels I'd be happy to just pay 100 gp every time I got to town in order to avoid having to mess with the whole matter.




Time consuming for you maybe.  Here's how we do it.

Archer:  "Oh DM, I used up 13 arrows how many was I able to retrieve?"  

I (being the DM) answer "you were able to retrieve 7, 2 can be repaired (see I'm letting my character use his knowledge skill to fix arrows in the "dungeon of no-arrows") and the other 4 are completely usless.

Done!! And it only took about 18 seconds.  Now, while talking to another character about something else, the archer can add in his arrows on his sheet.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 12, 2007)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> awww, come on that's no fun...  Someone actually gives into you and you give up?




Someone gave up?  All I see are people harassing other people and those people deciding it's not worth it.  Sensible IMO.


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Hah!  As another who works in the legal profession, I concur.  But they SHOULD require extraordinary proof, darn it all!




I know a skilled word-smith when I seen one!!!!


----------



## DM_Jeff (Sep 12, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Now save and don't move spells can suck if you fail but suck it up. I am sorry but I do find it to be a little whiney when I hear I had to sit out the combat because I rolled a 1 on my save. As a player I would hate to see that because those spells can come in handy.
> 
> As for bookkeeping I have played plenty of archers and I never had an issue of keeping track of arrows. Even at high levels. I like the aspect of the chance of running out it makes you have to think and plan. The same as I like the idea of the party running out of food or water in some situations that can really add to the drama of the game.




Quoted you ElfWitch for a very well written post. I agree with all your statements. 

Use caution about using words like "think" or "plan", however. Elsewhere here on En World when I tried explaining that these problems are overcome with thinking or planning I was nearly shot as being a troll claiming people are stupid.   :\ 

-DM Jeff


----------



## Gallo22 (Sep 12, 2007)

DM_Jeff said:
			
		

> Quoted you ElfWitch for a very well written post. I agree with all your statements.
> 
> Use caution about using words like "think" or "plan", however. Elsewhere here on En World when I tried explaining that these problems are overcome with thinking or planning I was nearly shot as being a troll claiming people are stupid.   :\
> 
> -DM Jeff




Ditto, very well said Elfwitch!!!!


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 12, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> That's not precisely what was said, now was it?  My opinion: If you need to invent your own play aids to make a rule work smoothly, then either 1) the play aids should be core, or 2) the rule should be revised.




Actually if you go back and reread all of those posts, I said #1 and you said #2.

Now, you are saying either. Which is reasonable.

But, I don't need #2 in 4E if #1 works (which it does).


The problem in the case of skills like Search is that they are either rolled, or they are assumed to work. In the case that they are not assumed to work, a roll is typically required. The fact that many rolls might be required because the skill might be used many times means that at best the non-important rolls can be ignored until a different "meta-rule" is created that allows for partial success of multiple rolls over a period of time.

For example, finding the first and fifth traps, but not finding two through four with a single roll. How the designers would be able to come up with a simple system to handle that, however, is beyond me. So, I vote for #1 until a good #2 comes along (which I suspect will not happen, at least not in 4E).


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 12, 2007)

As a side note, my wife's Monk, by definition, is assumed to always be using Flurry of Blows for a full round attack unless she states otherwise. The reason for this is that on her turn, she just starts rolling without saying anything. That's her personality. As DM, I do not have to ask her every time if she is using Flurry or not, she just is. The attacks are always at -2. We just know this at our table. And if my wife wants to not take that penalty, she has to say so up front. If she misses by 1, she cannot just claim after the fact that she wasn't using flurry this time.

The reason for personalized game aid house rules like this is that it streamlines the flow of the game. Why ask questions about the same speed bump every time if it is not necessary?

Ditto for Searching for traps.

Ditto for our Druid using his Scimitar two handed (always, unless he states otherwise).

A lot of things people are claiming are annoyances and time wasters in the game system are really them not using game aids to minimize those annoyances.

I personally think the designers should list various game aids in the DMG for 4E, just to make this type of thing easier.


As an example from a different game system, Heroes has a sidebar in the book stating that a GM can knock out mooks when a solid hit is scored. So, instead of keeping the mook up, even though he has 2 Stun points remaining, the GM can just knock him over.

That works well for a cinematic super heroes game. It might not work for a particular DND game, but then again, it could.

There is nothing that states that when the Ogre is knocked down to 2 hit points with a 17 point shot, that the DM cannot just kill it.

Does it really matter whether the Ogre is at 2 hits or -2 hits? For some DMs, it does matter. For others, what's the big deal?


Any game aid that makes the game run smoother for a particular group is ok as long as it works for that group. That doesn't mean that rules need to be changed. It means that play habits should be examined for ways to improve the experience for every player. Sometimes house rules can do this, sometimes game aids can do this. Sometimes (like in the case of Turn Undead), the rule should probably be changed.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Sep 12, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> In the first example, the use of the word "you" pretty much unambiguously applies to you and not some group.  Maybe that person should be riding a bike.  Or maybe he should stick to the topic instead of having weird opinions about what your hobbies should be.
> 
> In the second example, the person is telling you that they don't like to play games on God mode.  The statement is difficult to argue with but also logically irrelevant to your gaming style.  I think it's rude to insinuate that you play on "God mode" and not come out and say it so that you have a chance to refute it.  Proving the existence of "God mode" though would be beside the point.
> 
> ...



This is getting well into the realm of arguing for it's own sake. None of your suggestions is "better" than saying "is anyone saying what you are arguing "against" here?" and I'm not going to debate preferences on how to have a discussion with you.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Sep 12, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Well, actually you can't put arrows in a bag of holding. The 3.X specifically state you can't put anything in it that might pierce it. Talk about UNFUN!!



That just means you can't stick loose arrows in there. You stick whole extra quivers in the BoH, silly.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Sep 12, 2007)

In my opinion, the OP's general characterization of several of the "unfun" opinions that have been expressed at this messageboard are largely accurate. 

Broad characterizations can fall anywhere on the inaccurate/accurate spectrum, with tendency to be towards the somewhat inaccurate side the broader the statement is.

*************************** 

I had been thinking of starting my own thread on the topic of fun/unfun, but with a different premise: the purpose of the game is not to have fun. Fun is a byproduct that can be experienced through game-play, but it is not the object of the game itself. It is far too subjective a feeling to be the actual object of the game. Without going into more detail, I will say that it is analogous to the feeling of "joy," as described by C. S. Lewis in _Surprised by Joy_. It will always elude you if you make it the object of your activity.


----------



## psionotic (Sep 13, 2007)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> Very well said and I think this is exactly what many of us are getting at.  I know that my group hates it when a DM "cheats" to keep a character alive just for the sake of keeping that character alive.  FOR OUR GROUP....with out the risk of death or other bad things, the game is not fun to us...




I totally agree.  I hate hate hate it when a DM fudges to save my character, especially when s/he is so clumsy at it as to be obvious.  The players have to feel like there's something at stake.

Actually, I think that dying *is* fun, and I'm one of those players who will rarely take a resurrection, because I also hate how easy they are to obtain in 3.x.  But while dying rocks my socks, I still think that level drain is no fun at all.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 13, 2007)

There was no reason for what this thread turned into. Some posters have added new and useful things and that's good, but the level of hostility here was really too much as were attempts to completely threadcrap this thread out of existance.

Lets keep any further conversation civil with no derailings, threadcrappings, insults, mean spiritedness, etc. I am not off the hook because I can be bullheaded about something I feel strongly about. 


*Please Read*​


*I would like to apologize to folks that I, through my posts, inadvertantly insulted, or mischaracterized in order to make my point. It was not my intention to do either if that is what I did do. I still stand behind my point because I believe it is valid. I was bothered a lot by what I have been reading online about core assumptions in the game over the past few weeks and perhaps projected some measure of my anger into posts that, in retrospect, could have been more thoughtfully written.*



If I managed to anger you....good that's part of the reality of feeling something deeply and reacting to a strongly contrary position about which you may feel passionately. Be mad at me for being so wrong and I'll feel the same way....then maybe there can be a passionate, yet civil thread about the topic of fun/unfun.


Let bygons be bygons and all that...hey at least we love the game enough to get mad.   

















And for you few who agreed with me, I want to thank you for being wise and insightful enough to see how right I am.    



Sundragon


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 13, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> In my opinion, the OP's general characterization of several of the "unfun" opinions that have been expressed at this messageboard are largely accurate.
> 
> Broad characterizations can fall anywhere on the inaccurate/accurate spectrum, with tendency to be towards the somewhat inaccurate side the broader the statement is.
> 
> ...




Not a bad idea.

I agree with your position that fun is a byproduct of the gaming experience and that the C.S. Lewis quote is spot on.

My players and I love the game (RPing games not just D&D) because it provides the opportunity for great battles, challenges, drama, engaging stories, interesting and immersive characters, occasional hilarity, etc. The fun is IMO the realizing of these things. We have always found ourselves having fun doing what we love to do and not doing what we love to provide ourselves with fun....seems a*s-backwards to me to do it any other way.



Sundragon


----------



## Nifft (Sep 13, 2007)

The Human Target said:
			
		

> negative pants



 Fort DC 24 to remove.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 13, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Troll or not, one thing is sure: D&D has not been "unfun" for 30 years, otherwise the game would have died long ago. And it has not become "unfun" all of a sudden either...




Encumbrance has always been unfun. 4e is doubleplusgood.


----------



## Tarek (Sep 13, 2007)

A lot of the things listed as "unfun" might be annoyances and obstacles to the player, but that's exactly the point; the challenge is in managing those annoyances and turning them into what you do want.

Like the halfling who can't wield the ogre's greatsword... it'll take time, but he should be able to find some NPC who'll trade. That's a roleplaying challenge.

The things I find 'unfun' are things like "the golf bag full of weapons" with different materials and magical effects needed to bypass 3e's version of DR. In 1st, we had "can only be damaged by silver OR magic." So you could get by with one blunt magic weapon, one stabbing magic weapon, and one slashing magic weapon. Since some weapons could both stab and slash, you could end up needing only two magic weapons; one blunt, one stab/slash. +3 weapons generally accounted for everything except the most powerful demons and devils.

In 3.5e, the DR entry reads "can only be damaged by magical silver". So you end up with magic silvered cold iron blunt weapons, magic silvered cold iron stabbing weapons, magic silvered cold iron slashing weapons, magic silvered adamantine holy axiomatic weapons, etc. etc. etc.

In D&D Online, Turbine listened to its players get disgusted with the situation and added a new magical enhancement: "Transmuting". i.e. the weapon turned into whatever it needed to turn into to bypass DR. I don't know if this enhancement is officially available in pen and paper, but it sounds like a damn good idea, and I'll build it into my campaign as a house rule that all magic items get "transmuting" for free.

THAT is the kind of thing I find annoying and unfun. Especially since it only matters for those characters that aren't heavily optimized. The enlarged raging barbarian warshaper spiked chain specialist does enough damage that it powers through DR anyway.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Sep 13, 2007)

Tarek said:
			
		

> In 3.5e, the DR entry reads "can only be damaged by magical silver". So you end up with magic silvered cold iron blunt weapons, magic silvered cold iron stabbing weapons, magic silvered cold iron slashing weapons, magic silvered adamantine holy axiomatic weapons, etc. etc. etc.



The point of DR is generally that it's a defense.  It's not meant to be ignored every time, so it's not expected that a fighter will have one of each or that you'll know every time what you need.  If you don't have the right weapon, most monsters should be very tough but not impossible.  If you do have the right weapon, the monster should be fairly easy.

Now, in some cases, maybe DR really is meant to be so good as to be nearly un-bypassable.  A pit fiend, for example, is the top-tier devil.  It would make great dramatic effect for the party to go up against one, get trashed, run away, research the monster's weaknesses, quest for the holy silver sword "Purifier," and then go for a rematch.  

The trouble is that 3.5 allows damage values to get way too high.  If you reduced the benefits for 2-handed weapons (maybe just +1 Str modifier and 1.5X Power Attack), you could probably get by with the common DR being 3 and 7 rather than 5 and 10.  (I'd keep the top tier at 15 or maybe even move it higher.)


----------



## Nifft (Sep 13, 2007)

@ *Tarek*: 3.5e DR did two things: The first was indeed to make DR harder to penetrate. However, at the same time they reduced the penalty for failing to penetrate.

In 3.0e, with DR 50/+3, the golem basically meant "go home, kid". You needed a weapon THIS BIG to even think about playing.

In 3.5e, with DR in the 5-15 range, even if you fail to penetrate, you are still effective. It means you are rewarded for having the right gear, but even if you don't have it, you can still contribute.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Zimri (Sep 13, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> My criticism is of an attitude amongst some who feel that the fun of playing the game with a well designed, interesting character, isn't enough anymore.
> 
> Sundragon




Right now then how many of those do you want to make in one session because of bad die rolls ?

It takes me some time to create a personality for my characters, and it would feel like I was "cheating" on my current one to have a back up ready. So when my well designed, interesting character dies 3 combat rounds into the start of a new campaign it is "unfun" for me to sit out the next 4 hours of the night and then try to force a new Well designed, interesting personality to coalesce by next weekend.


----------



## WarlockLord (Sep 13, 2007)

I think I have to speak up in defense of save or dies.

*1) The 'save or die' effects are a main part of the fantasy genre*.  Whether Circe is turning Odysseus' sailors into pigs, the White Witch turning creatures into statues, and so forth, these spells are precedented.  Remove these, and you end up with a 3.5 fighter.  For me, what isn't fun is just doing HP damage.  If you don't kill your opponent, it means nothing.

*2) Runescape Sucks*.  This is what you get when you remove the interesting spell effects.  The mages in Runescape just blast people with damage.  It is a boring combat.  No one wants to just blast away.  Battlefield control, turning bad guys into toads, killing them with hallucinations, and panicking them are all way, way cooler.

*3) This is a fight, you know.*  You guys are engaged in mortal combat with the enemy.  They are not expected to be nice.  They will try their best to kill you.  If you do not like this, go ask the DM to give the orcs wiffle bats, or, better yet, play Candyland.  This is D&D. 

However, pure chance is annoying.  I am not a hater with no positive ideas.  Therefore, I suggest giving all PCs a 1/day (maybe too much? I don't know) reroll power.  Once per day, you can reroll any roll you want.  This would allow PCs to survive Save or Dies  (and could be given to important BBEGs).  

But getting rid of Confusion, Dominate, Hold, Sleep, Baleful Polymorph, Finger of Death...bad.  These are awesome and flavorful effects, and deserve to stay.  They are useful and make combat interesting, because HP damage only _is_ unfun. 

Plus, there is always resurrection.  And if they shorten combats as a result of 4e, so much the better. 

And WoTC designer/developers? Please don't capitulate to the 'make it all ability damage' people.  It's fine as it is, and people should stop whining about it, because that is unfun.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 13, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I fail to see how this is overwhelming.
> 
> The DM has to keep track of this stuff for all of his NPCs.




You actually track arrow expenditure for archer NPCs?

I seriously doubt that.


----------



## F4NBOY (Sep 13, 2007)

When threads get heated up like this I thank god gamers are like this:





and not like this:







To me the most "unfun" thing in D&D are bad DMs. I hope WOTC can fix that in 4E, somehow...


----------



## Nifft (Sep 13, 2007)

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> To me the most "unfun" thing in D&D are bad DMs. I hope WOTC can fix that in 4E, somehow...



 Perhaps not fix, but every DM will have a "challenge rating" branded onto his forehead.

(Of course, players will be worth XP...)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Sun Knight (Sep 13, 2007)

I haven't read this enitre thread but I just want to say that what is unfun to one gamer may be completely fun to someone else.  I find playing over powered characters who have no possible threat of death as well as the thrill of danger removed from the campaign unfun.

Some people might think it is fun to have no chance of dying in an instant due to bad luck.  That is all good but for me that is very much unfun.  Maybe I am too hardcore but I think that hardcore gaming is fun.  4e is not for hardcore gamers, therefore decidedly unfun for gamers as myself.

It is unfortunate that WotC thinks that making the rules to allow more uber powers for characters who are already overpowered as fun, and forcing what they think what we gamers want as fun, totally disregarding those who do not want a bland generic easy uberpowered game and who thinks those types of campaigns as unfun.

Tomb of Horrors and Temple of Elemental Evil were fun.  The question is will 4e give us that same level of fun.  I really doubt it.


----------



## Elf Witch (Sep 13, 2007)

Zimri said:
			
		

> It takes me some time to create a personality for my characters, and it would feel like I was "cheating" on my current one to have a back up ready. So when my well designed, interesting character dies 3 combat rounds into the start of a new campaign it is "unfun" for me to sit out the next 4 hours of the night and then try to force a new Well designed, interesting personality to coalesce by next weekend.




I have some question because I am trying to understand this point of view. When is it okay for character death? Is it that you hate character death in early levels and is it okay later on?

Or is is that you hate death all together?

To me I would rather lose a lower level new character to death then one I have been playing for a long time becuse as the game goes on I get more attached to my character.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 13, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> You actually track arrow expenditure for archer NPCs?
> 
> I seriously doubt that.




It's pretty simple. 5 Archers. Give them 20 each. If they fire 3 each, there are 85 arrows left over. The PCs might find 7 more if they go look in the bushes.

And, quite frankly, I do not track them to the nth degree. But, I have a fairly decent educated guess as to how many are left over when the PCs go loot the bodies. If I'm off by two or three, no biggy.

I also know how many potions and scrolls the NPCs have left over, which spells (if they get away), money, regular items, magical items, etc.

It's not too hard to cross things off a sheet of paper.

You should try it some time.


----------



## hong (Sep 13, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It's not too hard to cross things off a sheet of paper.




... or necessary.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 13, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It's pretty simple.




Even more simple is, "You find a couple dozen unspent arrows in the enemy archers' quivers."

If the archers are not going to be around long enough to run out of arrows (and, generally speaking, they aren't), any number beyond "enough to fire at the PCs and a couple left over" is more paperwork than is strictly necessary.

It works really well.  You should try it some time. 



> And, quite frankly, I do not track them to the nth degree. But, I have a fairly decent educated guess as to how many are left over when the PCs go loot the bodies. If I'm off by two or three, no biggy.




Same here - but I do less paperwork, and my players don't seem to mind.



> I also know how many potions and scrolls the NPCs have left over,




Yep - because those generally come in 1s and 2s, rather than job lots of 40, and tend to be more important for the PCs (and tend to only be found on the more important NPCs, as well).



> money, regular items, magical items, etc.




Yep, yep, and yep.  But, again, 1s and 2s (each archer has a shortbow, a dagger, and 1d8 silver bearing the crest of Badvillainia!), rather than lots and lots.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 13, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Same here - but I do less paperwork, and my players don't seem to mind.




How do you know you do less paperwork?

How do you know that I even write it down?


----------



## Grog (Sep 13, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> It is unfortunate that WotC thinks that making the rules to allow more uber powers for characters who are already overpowered as fun, and forcing what they think what we gamers want as fun, totally disregarding those who do not want a bland generic easy uberpowered game and who thinks those types of campaigns as unfun.



And how do you know that 4E will be a "bland generic easy uberpowered game?" It seems to me that you are assuming facts not in evidence.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Sep 13, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> And how do you know that 4E will be a "bland generic easy uberpowered game?" It seems to me that you are assuming facts not in evidence.



I can't be the only person amazed that the bulk of 4e's more strident naysayers got their PHB a year early, and that the design team produced a risk-free game despite all evidence to the contrary. Damn alternate reality time machines!


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Sep 13, 2007)

Tewligan said:
			
		

> But it's a few SECONDS worth of time spent! You can do that during another player's turn. Hell, you can do it during the time the next player is clearing his throat to announce his action!
> 
> "I fire 5 arrows at the dragon."
> (On sheet labeled "Arrows fired" - "mark, mark, mark, mark, mark.")
> ...




Even a second or two can annoy if it's unnecessary. It's like having to say your name before each combat round.

Not "I fire at the dragon" but "I'm Mark. I fire at the dragon".

It takes less than a second, but it's unnecessary, and thus annoying.


----------



## Zimri (Sep 13, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I have some question because I am trying to understand this point of view. When is it okay for character death? Is it that you hate character death in early levels and is it okay later on?
> 
> Or is is that you hate death all together?
> 
> To me I would rather lose a lower level new character to death then one I have been playing for a long time becuse as the game goes on I get more attached to my character.




Elf Witch; 

First I would like to say you make me almost want to subscribe so that you could see this a sa PM and I'ld be sure it got read by you. Your posts that I have seen are usually well thought out, civil, and intelligent

As to my stance on death. Firstly no I don't hate it all together. It definately has it's place at any level.  I find the game currently skewed in such a manner that outside of DM fiat or really lucky rolls mortality from levels 1 to 3 is high. Espescially for the characters I play (rogue bab little or no armor not many hp). That said if at level 1 they were to die meaningfully or heroically I wouldn't mind at all (think " I may well die on this embankment but you filthy orcs will have to get past me to invade the village" or "the plot device must be placed in blah and it will likely kill you). 

I start off relatively attached and get more so as they grow usually by the time the math gets silly I'm more or less done telling their story. I am writing some fiction and in so doing have discovered I am what is refered to as a "character writer" I come up with the concept for the characters I am writing about but really "they" tell the story. Yes I realize this sounds like multiple personality disorder or mild schizophrenia.

Death at later levels tends to be more "heroic" simply as a matter of course. You are taking on higher level BBEGs and facing tougher encounters. "the lich turned his evil glare upon Ilyana and in a moment she was undone" sucks but by that time her story has likely been told, or her death was a decent culmination, and I am ready to try something else from the myriad of ideas kept bubbling on the back burner.

These are heroes having a story told about them they shouldn't die to a stray arrow from a common thief. Heck even Achilles got a good war in first before his trick ankle killed him.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 13, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I have some question because I am trying to understand this point of view. When is it okay for character death? Is it that you hate character death in early levels and is it okay later on?
> 
> Or is is that you hate death all together?
> 
> To me I would rather lose a lower level new character to death then one I have been playing for a long time becuse as the game goes on I get more attached to my character.



I dislike deaths that are just a freak accident. Player Characters should die in climatic combat. There should have been some kind of "interaction" with the thing that kills you.
A trap that kills you instantly i D&D 3.x is pretty stupid. At maximum, you have 3 rolls. (Search, Disable Device, Saving Throw). There is no variation in what you can do, and there is nothing you could have done differently (aside from not at all trying to get by the trap). 

In a combat, a Cleric can decide to cast Death Ward when the group notice that the enemies are level draining Vampires. Or he can try to Turn them. Or cast Holy Smite at them. He has a choice how to react and help everybody. 

But exchange the Vampires with Bodaks, and suddenly he has not time to react in any way, everybody has to make his save and if he is lucky, he keeps living, if not, it is too late.
If the Bodaks would need to concentrate for one full round before they can activate their deadly power, all players have time to react and take their pick on the defense. Some will choose poorly and possibly die. Some will choose wisely and save the party's collective asses...

I know that Save or Die effects do also contribute to the "thrill" of the game. But if they become to common that they lose their meaning and just become annoying. "Oh no, I guess 17 doesn't save." "Nope. Bye bye." "Okay guys, you know: You can sell everything except my Headband of Intellect to get the money for my resurrection..." (And if there is no chance or will for ressourection: "Okay, I'll roll up a new character. Seems like we really need a Cleric, so I guess I'll skip my Swashbuckler Experiment and roll up one, okay? Level 11 like the rest, or Level 10 for the new one? Standard Wealth?")


Death, as it is in D&D, is to common. It appears it can be so common because ressourection magic is also pretty common. But the truth is, it turns character death from something tragic and something that makes you "sad" into something that is just annoying. How did Sally (in Blink/Doctor Who) put it "Sad is happy for deep people", but annoying is just annoying.

Maybe it is an artifact of the level based hit points. They are your "protection from nastiness" - as long as you do have them, you "know" that nothing bad happens. And so you do all kinds of crazy stuff and become careless, because you know it only becomes dangerous if your hitpoints go below a certain threshold. So, monsters deal more damage per round to bring you quicker there. And some abilities just bypass your "nastyness" protection, so that you are remembered that you are still playing a mortal creature, not superman.

Other games - Shadowrun for example - give you little to fully protect yourself from harm. Troll with a Konstitution of 12 and Ballistic10/Impact9 Armor? Here's a Power 6 Manabolt for you. There is always a chance that something can fill all the boxes of your condition monitor and you're done (well, nearly done. But pretty done for this fight, and if your team can't stabilize or heal you, you are really done). But it _never_ happened to my characters. And I think I saw happen only once to a fellow runner. I always know the chance is there, and I act accordingly. But the chance is rarely realized.


----------



## Elf Witch (Sep 13, 2007)

Zimri said:
			
		

> Elf Witch;
> 
> First I would like to say you make me almost want to subscribe so that you could see this a sa PM and I'ld be sure it got read by you. Your posts that I have seen are usually well thought out, civil, and intelligent
> 
> ...



 Thank you for the nice words.

I understand what you are saying. I can understand the frustration at losing a character in the first three levels it is so easy and usually it is not from some heroic epic battle. And to make matters worse raise dead is usally out of reach for those levels.

From what I understand some of the design in 4E is going to address the issue of how fragile lower level characters are. And I think that is a good thing.

I think the spectre of death can add to the tension and drama of the game but it has to be done in a way that does not suck all the fun out of the game. And be taken out by an angry house cat as first level wizard really was not fun. Nor was playing a wizard in 2E with 1 whole hit point.

As a DM if I have NPC throw a sleep or hold spell on lower level characters I do it as  away to capture them not kill them or as a way for the NPCs to escape. Also every player starts with a fate point that can be used to cheat death once no fuss no mess, you come back at 1 hit point and no loss of level.

Later as they get stronger I take the gloves off but my goal is not to kill PC but to challange them. Which means having to save against stun like spells and sometimes not often save VS death. 

Now if I ever have players who really hate save VS death I will agree not to use it against them but they in turn lose access to them as well. So far that has not happened.


The one thing I can't stand though is the complaint that my character can't be 100% in every situation. There are times your PC will rock and shine away and other times it will be someone else's turn. So your spell caster is out of spells or is stuck in a dead magic zone then suck it up and try and give the fighters cover with your crossbow. Or throw a tanglefoot bag or how about aid another. Or if you are a rogue fighting undead okay so your sneak attack does not work and so you are not doing major damage but that does not mean you can't contribute you can still attack.

I have never seen that in any of my games that I have played in or DM but I sure have read enough posts on boards about it and it makes my teeth grind together.

A player in one of our games played a rogue and when we were fighting undead used his robe skill as a lasso to catch and trip up the undead it was great it was very cinematic and since most of us had failed will saves and were paralyzed he saved the entire party.


----------



## Elf Witch (Sep 13, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I dislike deaths that are just a freak accident. Player Characters should die in climatic combat. There should have been some kind of "interaction" with the thing that kills you.
> *Edited out a lot of other good stuff*
> .




I agree with everything you said. I hate playing in a game where every freaking door is trapped with a spell guranteed if you fail to kill your rogue. 

I use traps on important doors but not every trap is deadly I use a lot of alarms the worse that happens is that you have lost the element of suprise.

Now if you are breaking into a wizards lab you should expect to come across some magical traps. But doing research on the wizard will give you some clues as to what kind of spells he favors so you can get some protection from certain effects. 

As for save VS death spells they are most effective when used rarely the same with scary monsters who can throw them.

I have a rule in my game though what the PCs have access to so do the NPCs if players want Vorpal swords in the game to use on NPCs they may find them in the hands of the NPCs to  be used against them.

I don't like a lot of death because I have found that in high bosy count games the players stop putting any effort into their characters backgrounds or role playing because they don't see the point or just as bad they become afraid and over cautious over every decision.

I play Shadowrun and I do like the ability to try and soak the damage thrown at you. It gives you a chance to do something to stop your death. Sure you may roll all 1 and its bye bye for good for the character.


----------



## Zimri (Sep 13, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Thank you for the nice words.
> 
> I understand what you are saying. I can understand the frustration at losing a character in the first three levels it is so easy and usually it is not from some heroic epic battle. And to make matters worse raise dead is usally out of reach for those levels.
> 
> ...




All that being said about death I LOVE being mangled . My DM has that part right in her motto which is " A happy character is a mangled character" I've got 0 issue with waking up captured bound and naked in some raksasha's caravan, or waking up in some temple, or other random place owing a favor to some deity or demon. Rogues and skeletons ? pick up something to bash em with or like yours did lasso em or just do your regular attack.

One place where we differ is I think I like where they are going with "at will" attacks for the arcanically  inclined. If it works like a crossbow or whatever but is energy instead so fits the flavour and does comprable damage I really don't see the harm. If it does more damage I can see fence sitting and being hesitant, but the melee types don't run out of stuff to do till HP  runs out and if BO9S is any indication (and they've mentioned it was something they were using part of 4e in) it looks like melee types may just get closer to the arcane at end levels too so the propsed energy attack may as well scale some ... just my 2 copper.


----------



## Elf Witch (Sep 13, 2007)

Zimri said:
			
		

> All that being said about death I LOVE being mangled . My DM has that part right in her motto which is " A happy character is a mangled character" I've got 0 issue with waking up captured bound and naked in some raksasha's caravan, or waking up in some temple, or other random place owing a favor to some deity or demon. Rogues and skeletons ? pick up something to bash em with or like yours did lasso em or just do your regular attack.
> 
> One place where we differ is I think I like where they are going with "at will" attacks for the arcanically  inclined. If it works like a crossbow or whatever but is energy instead so fits the flavour and does comprable damage I really don't see the harm. If it does more damage I can see fence sitting and being hesitant, but the melee types don't run out of stuff to do till HP  runs out and if BO9S is any indication (and they've mentioned it was something they were using part of 4e in) it looks like melee types may just get closer to the arcane at end levels too so the propsed energy attack may as well scale some ... just my 2 copper.




I am waiting to see how they handle it. If it is some kind of energy attack lie a warlock's blast I would not have to much issue with as long as it not like magic missle. 


I keep hearing this complaint that fighters don't run out of stuff to do. That is not true fighters fight that is what they are good at. But have an armored fighter trying to sneak around and be stealthy they can't do it unless they strip off the armor. Or with their really lousy choice of skills they can't be diplomatic , good at gathering info, or even knowledge about anything. 

Maybe in games where the focus is combat all the time I can see it as an issue that the non meele types run out spells and what not and so they don't have as much to do in combat.

In the games I play in there is a lot of non combat encounters and this is where you see how the fighter type playes sitting around bored stacking their dice. I hope that 4E address some of this as well.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 13, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Maybe in games where the focus is combat all the time I can see it as an issue that the non meele types run out spells and what not and so they don't have as much to do in combat.
> 
> In the games I play in there is a lot of non combat encounters and this is where you see how the fighter type playes sitting around bored stacking their dice. I hope that 4E address some of this as well.



I find that in the VAST majority of games combat is about 80% of the game.  Sometimes one session will have a lot of social interaction and non-combat encounters, but it will be the rare one.

In nearly every Living Greyhawk, Xen'drik Expeditions, and other RPGA campaign mod, there are 3 combat encounters in a 4-5 hour long adventure.  Each combat encounter in 3.5e tends to take between 45 minutes to 120 minutes depending.  So, at the very minimum, it is using up over half the time in the game with combat.

The same holds true for the pacing of nearly every published adventure.

So, if you're going to sit down for a 5 hour session and spend at least 2 and a half hours of it in combat, it's nice to have something that you consider "fun" to do during that time.

Non-combat encounters don't have AS MUCH of this issue.  If the rogue is searching for traps, it should only take 5 minutes to find and disarm them.  Generally, no longer than waiting for your turn to come around in a battle.  So your "downtime" isn't the same.

The place where it could use some more "fun" rules and abilities is long social encounters where you spend an hour or so talking to NPCs, gathering information, making contacts, etc.  The fighters need to be able to get involved in the same way that everyone else does.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Sep 13, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I think the spectre of death can add to the tension and drama of the game but it has to be done in a way that does not suck all the fun out of the game.




I am fully anti-Save-or-Die and agree with this statement 100%.  I have no qualms about my PC dying from being beaten repeatedly by an oversized weapon; but I definately hate getting the ax on a roll where the only way I could fail was if I rolled a 1.

My issues with Save or Die come from the fact that in most games I have played in combat is a large portion of the session.  There have been games with little or no combat but those are the exception.  What I don't want is to go into a comabt, get killed before I get to take an action and then have to sit out for who knows how long.

If my PC is going to become a bloody smear on the ground I want it to be because of something I did in combat and not because I rolled a 1 on a die before I got to take an action.

I don't like dying from a 1 near the end of comabt either, but it's at the start of combat when it really [bleep]s me off.  I don't particularly care for hitting -10 hp at all but if it takes multiple sword hits to take me there I'm fine with it (and if there is a good heroic death to be had I'll be the first in line to offer up my PC - rolling a one because a critter looked at him funny doesn't strike me as being heroic).

I don't mind getting killed so much early on in the character's career.  In those first few sessions I have a sheet of paper with number on it but I don't have a Character.  I know their name, race and class but I don't know who they are; I don't know what their personality is yet.  But after months of play and many adventures I don't want all of the accumulated back story to be for naught because a single die roll.

My DM has said "death means the PC stops suffering".  I'm a player and I stand behind that statement.  I absolutely adore the story options that can arise when the DM threatens my PC's friends, the PC's family (or the PC's friend's family); their home, their home town or their home country; I have no qualms about my character being captured, jailed or stripped naked and left for dead in the middle of nowhere.  I would love for 4e to remove Save-or-Die so that the suffering can continue.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 13, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> In the games I play in there is a lot of non combat encounters and this is where you see how the fighter type playes sitting around bored stacking their dice. I hope that 4E address some of this as well.



I hope so, too. 
Though I wonder if there aren't sometimes just player types that will never enjoy social encounters because it doesn't involve killing people and taking their stuff. But maybe there aren't such people, and there are actually just people that want that their characters ability determine the outcome of the game, not their skills as actor or psychologist...

I probably belong a little bit to them. I like coming up with good ideas and understanding the motivation of NPCs*. But I wouldn't like it if I had to put my ideas into fine-tuned words to convince the DM. I want to use my clever idea to formulate the basic idea of what my character says to the NPC and then let the dice roll to see if my character gets my point across.

I typically dislike pure puzzles/riddles, especially when they are not related to the story of the adventure or linked somehow to NPCs or PCs. It has nothing to do with my character, and I (and the rest of my group) usually end up thinking to complicated. 


*) I am not saying I am actually good at this  I just like when it happens...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Technically true, but a good term to describe that kind of behavior is "annoying."





Another is "conversational".

Lots of times, in normal conversations, people state what they feel without expecting to meet a burden of proof.  Burden of proof is reserved for when you are trying to convince others that your view is right.  Attempting to force burden of proof into normal conversation is annoying.

Example:

Person 1:  X is Y.
Person 2:  I don't think so.

Barring Person 1 then trying to convince Person 2, there is no burden of proof.  This is a large part of normal conversation.  Indeed, in some cases Person 2 is even able to discuss Person 1's belief that X is Y without accepting it to be true, requiring proof, or ridiculing Person 1 for his belief.

Or, maybe that's just some unique quality of the people I hang out with.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.





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" whereas "extraordinary evidence" means "evidence that meets a burden of proof far greater that that which I apply to the things I currently believe."

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


RC


----------



## Elf Witch (Sep 13, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I hope so, too.
> Though I wonder if there aren't sometimes just player types that will never enjoy social encounters because it doesn't involve killing people and taking their stuff. But maybe there aren't such people, and there are actually just people that want that their characters ability determine the outcome of the game, not their skills as actor or psychologist...
> 
> I probably belong a little bit to them. I like coming up with good ideas and understanding the motivation of NPCs*. But I wouldn't like it if I had to put my ideas into fine-tuned words to convince the DM. I want to use my clever idea to formulate the basic idea of what my character says to the NPC and then let the dice roll to see if my character gets my point across.
> ...




There are players who get bored if they are not killing something and it does not matter what class they are playing.

I believe in using dice for social encounters because not everyone can be as glib and just brimming with charisma like their characters. 

I usually find fighters boring to play sure they rock in combat but oustide they get nothing sure they climb and jump but not well in the earlier levels because they have not gotten past their armor penalties. And if you are going with a standard 25-29 point buy you need to put your points in the physical stats.

The only time I found playing a fighter fun was in a Kalamar game where I rolled what would be a 44 point buy character and my DM let me use the courtier class from Rokugan so I had what I envisioned as a noble knight. I had high intellegence and high charisma so between the levels I took in courtier and a two feats from the Kalamar setting to make a fighter who was also educated and good in social settings.

Fantasy is full of charasmatic educated fighters but it is almost impossible to make one in DnD. That is something I find unfun.


----------



## hong (Sep 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Attempting to force burden of proof into normal conversation is annoying.




But character building.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> When people respond directly to such a statement of preference with "Well, if you don't want to have any risk of losing, maybe you should be reading a novel / I don't like to play games on God Mode / winning is meaningless if you can't lose" I'm not going to say "Gee, this person inexplicably started talking about something else, oh well, not my problem." Because they are not talking about something else, they are talking inaccurately about a group I am a part of.





Have you ever said, of any sort of DM, that they should be writing a novel instead, or fanfic?  Because, AFAICT, that's a pretty common charge levelled against DMs whose worlds _don't_ bend to the players' every whim........


----------



## Elf Witch (Sep 13, 2007)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I find that in the VAST majority of games combat is about 80% of the game.  Sometimes one session will have a lot of social interaction and non-combat encounters, but it will be the rare one.
> 
> In nearly every Living Greyhawk, Xen'drik Expeditions, and other RPGA campaign mod, there are 3 combat encounters in a 4-5 hour long adventure.  Each combat encounter in 3.5e tends to take between 45 minutes to 120 minutes depending.  So, at the very minimum, it is using up over half the time in the game with combat.
> 
> ...





One way to improve this as well is make combat go faster. If combat could be resolved faster then I am not sure how much an issue this would be.

In the games I have played in I would not say that combat happens every session so saying 80% for us way off. And this has become an issue with people not wanting to play fighter types. In our group getting some one to play a straight fighter is as hard as it was to get someone to play a cleric in 2 edition.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Right, right.  Now keep doing that.  And after the fight, work out the following: all arrows which hit are destroyed.  Half of the arrows which missed are destroyed under normal circumstances.  Double check with your DM whether you are in abnormal circumstances, like shooting at a sea serpent, that would cause your arrows to become lost at a higher rate.  The remaining arrows may be salvaged.  Replace them in your quiver.  Then go to your larger backup storage of arrows and top off your quiver.  Mark down how much your backup storage has diminished.  You DO have one, right?  You didn't go adventuring into the Underdark with just 60 arrows, right?  Of course you didn't.  So mark off how many of the nearly 2000 arrows in your backup have been used.
> 
> That's what you have to do.





No....All you have to do is say to the DM "I scavenge whatever arrows I can find on the battlefield.  How many do I get back?"  

RC


----------



## Sun Knight (Sep 13, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> I can't be the only person amazed that the bulk of 4e's more strident naysayers got their PHB a year early, and that the design team produced a risk-free game despite all evidence to the contrary. Damn alternate reality time machines!




Its called SWSE and reading the designer blogs.  It doesn't take much to figure out what WotC is doing.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Sep 13, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But exchange the Vampires with Bodaks, and suddenly he has not time to react in any way, everybody has to make his save and if he is lucky, he keeps living, if not, it is too late.
> If the Bodaks would need to concentrate for one full round before they can activate their deadly power, all players have time to react and take their pick on the defense. Some will choose poorly and possibly die. Some will choose wisely and save the party's collective asses...



Small nitpick. Some will also choose heroicly, probably die *and* save the party's collective asses in doing so. And those are worthy deaths, fully in character and a good ending for some adventurers.   

The idea that the safe thing to do is always the right thing to do doesn't work for me as an adventurer. To paraphrase Hong, the farmer didn't die either, he stayed home and plowed his field.


----------



## wgreen (Sep 13, 2007)

Oy.

Re: tracking arrows:  It's not that it's _hard_, it's that it's _expensive_, in that it is a small amount of effort for virtually no reward.  And it doesn't hurt verisimilitude, either.  Verisimilitude is the _appearance_ of realism.  If Legolas never ran out of arrows, would you really declare bull$#!@ on the whole situation, or would you assume he maybe refilled his quiver during downtime, "off-camera," because the reader/viewer doesn't need to be bored with such trivialities?  Hand-waving inexpensive ammunition is no more harmful to verisimilitude than any other part of D&D.

Re: save-or-die effects, paralyzation, etc., I truly don't understand why so many people are defending a mechanic that tells players to _stop playing_ for modest-to-long stretches of time during a session.  I mean, did you come to play D&D, or did you come to play Nintendo while your _friends_ play D&D?  _That_ is why so many people want to say good-bye to save-or-die; it's nothing to do with challenge.  After all, what's challenging about rolling a 1 and then going to read a book while your pals continue with the fun?

-Will


----------



## SavageRobby (Sep 13, 2007)

wgreen said:
			
		

> Re: save-or-die effects, paralyzation, etc., I truly don't understand why so many people are defending a mechanic that tells players to _stop playing_ for modest-to-long stretches of time during a session.  I mean, did you come to play D&D, or did you come to play Nintendo while your _friends_ play D&D?  _That_ is why so many people want to say good-bye to save-or-die; it's nothing to do with challenge.  After all, what's challenging about rolling a 1 and then going to read a book while your pals continue with the fun?





What seems to be missed is that the challenge isn't the die roll (thats not a challenge; thats luck). The challenge is in avoiding the need for the die roll in the first place.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Sep 13, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Its called SWSE and reading the designer blogs.  It doesn't take much to figure out what WotC is doing.



So....let me make sure I follow your position.

Fourth Edition Dungeons and Dragons will be a 







			
				Sun Knight said:
			
		

> bland generic easy uberpowered game



 because of a few vaguely worded tidbits that might or might not be finalized into the game and include no mechanical content whatsoever, plus the information contained in a d20 game written on an entirely different genre with different play conceits which has been hinted as a "good preview" of the mechanical changes to 4e. Things like skill consolidation and flipped saves.


*Removed attack on other poster*


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2007)

wgreen said:
			
		

> If Legolas never ran out of arrows, would you really declare bull$#!@ on the whole situation, or would you assume he maybe refilled his quiver during downtime, "off-camera," because the reader/viewer doesn't need to be bored with such trivialities?




As a note, in the book Legolas does run out of arrows, and you do read that he scavanges the battlefield to recover what arrows he can.  Although not explicit, it is implied that at times he takes orc arrows because it's what he can get.  When his quiver is depleted, he uses two long knives that are his only other weapons.

In the film version, Legolas has a _quiver of endless arrows_, which I have seen included in lists of magic items that the characters must have had (low vs. high magic threads) and have heard mocked on many occasions when the film came out.  It was no different than Rambo's _Wand of Automatic Missile Fire_ that cannot run out of ammo unless it is a dramatically tense moment.

Speaking of unfun, I can imagine the response to this new rule in 4.0:  "Players do not need to track ammunition.  However, the DM can have them run out of ammunition at any moment he deems suitably dramatic."  That would certainly model action movies, but I'm betting it would go over like a lead balloon.

RC


----------



## wgreen (Sep 13, 2007)

SavageRobby said:
			
		

> What seems to be missed is that the challenge isn't the die roll (thats not a challenge; thats luck). The challenge is in avoiding the need for the die roll in the first place.



I'm not sure what you mean.  Do you mean that save-or-dies are challenging because you're supposed to figure out how to avoid them?

So, I'm playing a hero.  There's a BBEG what needs killin'.  I go over to his house, just like the DM expects and hopes I do, and the BBEG slaps me with a save-or-die which I didn't, and couldn't, know he had.  What challenge did I fail to overcome?

-Will


----------



## wgreen (Sep 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In the film version, Legolas has a _quiver of endless arrows_



_Or_, they're just hand-waving the issue.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Speaking of unfun, I can imagine the response to this new rule in 4.0:  "Players do not need to track ammunition.  However, the DM can have them run out of ammunition at any moment he deems suitably dramatic."  That would certainly model action movies, but I'm betting it would go over like a lead balloon.



Give it a good mechanic, so that it's not just the DM randomly screwing with the party, and I'm down with it.

-Will


----------



## Sun Knight (Sep 13, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> _*Removed attack on other poster*_




Wow, I thought mods in this forum has rules against blatant attacks such as this.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 13, 2007)

wgreen said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you mean.  Do you mean that save-or-dies are challenging because you're supposed to figure out how to avoid them?
> 
> So, I'm playing a hero.  There's a BBEG what needs killin'.  I go over to his house, just like the DM expects and hopes I do, and the BBEG slaps me with a save-or-die which I didn't, and couldn't, know he had.  What challenge did I fail to overcome?
> 
> -Will




Gathering information on the thing you were suppose to fight.  It's funny how often not being prepared can get you killed in real life.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 13, 2007)

SavageRobby said:
			
		

> What seems to be missed is that the challenge isn't the die roll (thats not a challenge; thats luck). The challenge is in avoiding the need for the die roll in the first place.



Most of the time there IS no way to avoid the roll:

"You turn the corner and up ahead the room becomes very dark"
"Ok, I pull out my everburning torch"
"Alright, everyone make me a save or die as you all see the Bodaks in the back of the room"


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2007)

wgreen said:
			
		

> _Or_, they're just hand-waving the issue.




But the point is, this damaged the film versions verisimilitude (sp?) for many people.



> Give it a good mechanic, so that it's not just the DM randomly screwing with the party, and I'm down with it.




"Dramatically appropriate moment" isn't random, is it?  After all, handwaving in films is done to make the "mooks" easy while denying resources for the big bad.  Same here.  As soon as you face something that is CR > APL, your ammo runs out.


----------



## wgreen (Sep 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> But the point is, this damaged the film versions verisimilitude (sp?) for many people.



I can't imagine the sort of person that would be bugged by that.  So, if he'd been depicted buying arrows in town from time to time, those people wouldn't freak out?  What's the problem with just assuming it was too boring to show you?

Also, it does not damage verisimilitude.  Once the above assumption is made, it's utterly realistic and involves absolutely no suspension of disbelief.  At most, you have the archer swap quivers out every now and then during a long battle.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> "Dramatically appropriate moment" isn't random, is it?  After all, handwaving in films is done to make the "mooks" easy while denying resources for the big bad.  Same here.  As soon as you face something that is CR > APL, your ammo runs out.



It's not random, but it can be very poorly chosen.  How about, when CR > APL, I make a check after a few rounds, and if I fail, I'm out of ammo?  Or if the DM offers to give me a fate point in exchange for agreeing to this dramatic turn of events?  I'd be okay with both of those, if done well.

-Will


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Speaking of unfun, I can imagine the response to this new rule in 4.0:  "Players do not need to track ammunition.  However, the DM can have them run out of ammunition at any moment he deems suitably dramatic."  That would certainly model action movies, but I'm betting it would go over like a lead balloon.




I don't know about 'lead balloon', since that's _very_ similar to what we have done in 'cinematic' RPGs such as _Spirit of the Century, Army of Darkness _and _Firefly _.

Of course, how 'cinematic' D&D can and should be is another subject.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2007)

wgreen said:
			
		

> What's the problem with just assuming it was too boring to show you?




(1) Legolas wasn't in town from time to time during the times when his Everful Quiver made its presence felt, so that assumption doesn't crop up.  (2) Why would seeing Legolas scooping up arrows and firing them be boring?



> Also, it does not damage verisimilitude. Once the above assumption is made, it's utterly realistic and involves absolutely no suspension of disbelief.




If the viewer watching the film feels it damages verisimilitude, then it does.  I know many, many viewers for whom this is the case, as it is the case with Rambo's endless bullets.



> It's not random, but it can be very poorly chosen. How about, when CR > APL, I make a check after a few rounds, and if I fail, I'm out of ammo? Or if the DM offers to give me a fate point in exchange for agreeing to this dramatic turn of events? I'd be okay with both of those, if done well.




So, you should never simply automatically run out of ammo because you didn't bring enough, nor should you ever simply run out of ammo because its dramatic.  It has to be "dramatic + roll" or "dramatic + gimmee"?  Sorry, but that isn't a system that I am interested in.



			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> I don't know about 'lead balloon', since that's _very_ similar to what we have done in 'cinematic' RPGs such as _Spirit of the Century, Army of Darkness _and _Firefly _.




Wormwood, meet wgreen.



> Of course, how 'cinematic' D&D can and should be is another subject.




Indeed.


RC


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 13, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Well, actually you can't put arrows in a bag of holding. The 3.X specifically state you can't put anything in it that might pierce it. Talk about UNFUN!!




I suppose I should have been more specific.  You put the arrows in a box.  You basically have to do this.  If you have four fights per day, at level 16, shooting around 6 arrows per round, you can expect to fight for at least 20 rounds.  Even with salvage, you can expect to use up more arrows than you reasonably should be carrying on your back, even with a basic magical quiver.



			
				Gallo22 said:
			
		

> Time consuming for you maybe. Here's how we do it.
> 
> Archer: "Oh DM, I used up 13 arrows how many was I able to retrieve?"
> 
> I (being the DM) answer "you were able to retrieve 7, 2 can be repaired (see I'm letting my character use his knowledge skill to fix arrows in the "dungeon of no-arrows") and the other 4 are completely usless.




I'm glad you came up with a house rule to fix this flaw.  Its a pretty good house rule!  Maybe your house rule should be how the official rules work!



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No....All you have to do is say to the DM "I scavenge whatever arrows I can find on the battlefield. How many do I get back?"




Same answer as to Gallo22.

Look, I'm glad you guys agree with me that the rules in this area are unnecessarily complex, and should be altered.  I don't see why you think they should be the same in the rulebook and altered by DMs, though.  This is a new edition.  Its the perfect time to take the alterations DMs tend to make to the rules, examine them, and if they're quicker, more efficient, and accomplish largely the same thing, perhaps include them as the new official version.



			
				SavageRobby said:
			
		

> What seems to be missed is that the challenge isn't the die roll (thats not a challenge; thats luck). The challenge is in avoiding the need for the die roll in the first place.




Not always possible.

Speculation at this point in other threads seems to be that save or die effects will be tied to the condition track.  That seems an entirely adequate way of handling things.  Instead of risking instant death in the first round of combat, you risk instant death if you are unable to keep your hit points above the insta-kill threshold.  Now you have a layer of protection, and most importantly, a layer of protection that's in your control.  Now if you die, its because you accepted a risk, or you screwed up.  That's fair.

Regarding death generally,

In my games, character death happens 1) when players screw up, 2) when players choose to accept extreme risks, and 3) in climactic battles.  After every death, a player should be able to say something like the following:

1) "Uh, I guess climbing out on the slippery roof to chase the fleeing wizard wasn't such a great idea with all this armor on...  So much for Reginald."
2) "GUYS!  We totally could have taken that dragon if we'd followed through on the plan!  If you go back, maybe you can cut enough of Reginald out of the dragon's stomach to resurrect.  Guys?  Guys!"
3) "Its ok.  I held the pass long enough for the villagers to escape.  Reginald goes to the gods with pride."
4) "Woah!  That was some fight!  We barely won, and Reginald didn't make it!"

The players SHOULDN'T be saying things like this:

1) "Stupid rogues.  Stupid coup de gras while I'm asleep in my own home."
2) "Stupid petrification.  Stupid medusas disguised as peasants."
3) "Stupid random encounters.  Stupid x3 criticals that do all my hit points in one attack.  I can't believe he confirmed that!  He needed a 19!"

So how should the risk of death be maintained in ordinary encounters where the players haven't screwed up and haven't intentionally accepted unusual levels of risk?  How should the dice just rolling badly for you be handled?

Easy.  Instead of having the dice go against you all in one shot and killing your character, they go slow.  Instead of "BOOM!  HEADSHOT!" we'd have danger which _looms_ over your character, forcing you to change your tactics.  This already happens sometimes.  Suppose a fight against a bunch of orcs is going worse than expected due to a few lucky criticals.  The cleric responds by running through combat, taking some AoOs, and casting a powerful heal spell on the fighter.  The wizard uses a powerful attack spell he would have otherwise saved for later.  No one dies (unless they screw up and don't change their tactics), the risk of death is preserved, and players were forced to react to it.

But in order for players to do this sort of thing, they need tactical options.  The fighter on his own can't do much in 3.5.  Chances are he can't run away faster than his enemies can chase, and he has few tactical choices in combat that would let him alter his strategy to account for bad luck earlier in the fight.  He has to just plunge onwards and hope for the best.

This is a place where rules updates can make things better.  By giving the fighter choices, you can have the risk of death loom over him, and force him to alter his tactics out of fear.  A "second wind" mechanic usable once per day is a simple way to do this, as could any "per day" ability.  The Warblade from Tome of Battle can do this with a feat that lets him alter his maneuver choices.  I'm sure more ideas could be found.

See?  There are two ways to create the fear of death in an encounter.  The first is to have previously taught the players that any battle bears the risk of BOOM!  DEAD!  The second is to menace the players with threats that let the players know that unless they react, they will die, and then follow through if they fail to react.

I prefer the second.  I've played games that used the first, and those are ok for what they are.  I went through a lot of characters, didn't get attached to any of them, but had an ok time.  But when I want to play with a character I actually care about and develop, I need the second kind of game.

Its easy to turn the second kind of game into the first, simply by using more powerful monsters.  You can't turn the first into the second without the rules support to do so.

Regarding player's rights versus DM's nobless oblige-

No rules change will alter this issue.  I'm just willing to sympathize with both sides.  I've run games where players have wanted to change things in ways I didn't like, "Its a Heroes of Battle war campaign between a human nation and a hobgoblin nation.  Do you really have to play a gnome?  What are you gaining from this?" and in campaigns where the changes were ones I could easily encompass "Ok, I suppose that explanation works for why a druid would enlist in the army."  In both cases the decision was made based on mutual conversation, respect, strength of preference, and the availability of alternate games and players.  No rule will, or can, change that, as this issue is fundamental to the social dynamics of gaming groups, not the rulebook.


----------



## Rolzup (Sep 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Speaking of unfun, I can imagine the response to this new rule in 4.0:  "Players do not need to track ammunition.  However, the DM can have them run out of ammunition at any moment he deems suitably dramatic."  That would certainly model action movies, but I'm betting it would go over like a lead balloon.




Or, put in the player's hands.  Want an extra Action Point when you really need it?  Take a setback -- you run out of arrows, your sword breaks, your horse steps in a gopher hole, whatever fits the circumstances.

Although I'd be more willing to make it an auto-success in exchance for a setback like that.  Make it something worth thinking about.

"I really need to hit BBEG, oh Mighty DM.  Fortunately, _I've got just one arrow left_ to fire at him...."

I doubt that 4.0 will take that direction, but it would work.

Me, I think that I'll be using the "Raising The Flag" rules from the E6 thread for my next game, however 4.0 decides to handle mortality and/or action points.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Look, I'm glad you guys agree with me that the rules in this area are unnecessarily complex, and should be altered.  I don't see why you think they should be the same in the rulebook and altered by DMs, though.




There is a big difference, IMHO, between saying "PCs should not have to keep track of ammo" and saying "the ammo recovery system could be better".   If you say the first, I disagree.  If you say the second, I agree.

RC


----------



## The_Gneech (Sep 13, 2007)

How about just the first time Legolas rolls a 1 on an attack roll during the course of the session -- unless he specifically mentions keeping his quiver full?

Since we're on the tangent of Legolas' Everfull Quiver anyway (in the movies, I mean), what about all those bags, bundles, and various bits of stuff the fellowship was carrying around? There's no reason some of those couldn't have been bundles of extra arrows, with Legolas refilling his quiver from those during "downtime". I mean, just because we didn't _see_ Merry and Pippin eating constantly during the various scene wipes, we don't assume they didn't do it, right?

There wasn't that much time in the movies when the Aragorn/Gimli/Legolas trio were away from civilization ... they basically went from Rivendell to Moria, where they had two major fights (and Legolas used something like 20 arrows total), from Moria to Lothlorien (where he could refill), Lothlorien to Amon Hen (where again, he used something like 20 arrows), from Amon Hen to Edoras (where he could refill), from Edoras to the warg riders attack (20 arrows), from attack to Helm's Deep (where he could refill...), etc.

Point is, while it is amusing to point at Legolas always having six arrows in his quiver no matter how many he fires, it really isn't that big a deal. It's just petty fault-finding. Same with keeping track of ammo for PC's, _most of the time_. If the characters are stranded away from civilization long enough, the GM is certainly within their rights to say "Okay, you're starting to run low on ammo, rations, etc." But if they've just gone from town to the dungeon and back again, why waste precious time with such niggling concerns?

-The Gneech


----------



## wgreen (Sep 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (1) Legolas wasn't in town from time to time during the times when his Everful Quiver made its presence felt, so that assumption doesn't crop up.  (2) Why would seeing Legolas scooping up arrows and firing them be boring?



(1) So he had extra arrows stowed elsewhere.  Or he recovered a bunch after fights.  Or he whittled the lousy things himself before going to sleep.

(2) Ask the choreographer.  



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If the viewer watching the film feels it damages verisimilitude, then it does.  I know many, many viewers for whom this is the case, as it is the case with Rambo's endless bullets.



Can't please everyone, I guess.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, you should never simply automatically run out of ammo because you didn't bring enough, nor should you ever simply run out of ammo because its dramatic.  It has to be "dramatic + roll" or "dramatic + gimmee"?  Sorry, but that isn't a system that I am interested in.



It's a game.  You roll dice in games.  Whassamatta?  Also, I didn't say you shouldn't run out because it's dramatic, just that I'd want a fun mechanic associated with it, as well.  Not just the DM declaring that it's a dramatic time to suddenly run out.

-Will


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2007)

Rolzup said:
			
		

> Or, put in the player's hands.  Want an extra Action Point when you really need it?  Take a setback -- you run out of arrows, your sword breaks, your horse steps in a gopher hole, whatever fits the circumstances.





I do this for my Dr Who game.  Here are a couple of caveats though:

(1)  Because a player can get an AP for taking a setback does not mean that setbacks do not occur without the player declaring them.

(2)  The feel of Dr Who is very different from what I want from D&D.

In my D&D game, each player chooses a RP goal based on their character's personality.  Each game in which you meet your goal, you gain 1 AP.  This is a modification of the _Demogogues & Dynasties_ personality feat rules, and it is something that I would recommend to anyone.  The advantages are:

(a) Gaining APs is completely in the player's hands.

(b) Gives a benefit for RPing an otherwise imprudent course of action.

(c) Another dimension to party cooperation to meet goals.

(d) Decouples APs and level.

(e) Grants no more than 1 AP per session.

(f) encourages inter-party RPing.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2007)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> How about just the first time Legolas rolls a 1 on an attack roll during the course of the session -- unless he specifically mentions keeping his quiver full?




(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?    



> There's no reason some of those couldn't have been bundles of extra arrows, with Legolas refilling his quiver from those during "downtime".




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



> Point is, while it is amusing to point at Legolas always having six arrows in his quiver no matter how many he fires, it really isn't that big a deal.




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......   

I can watch the movies (particularly the extended versions) and enjoy them, but it isn't "petty fault-finding" if it damages your enjoyment. 

IMHO.  YMMV.


----------



## Vlos (Sep 13, 2007)

It's funny how people say if I roll a "1" and die that is "unfun"? If the only way you are going to die is on a "1", which means the only way your going to fail a save is on a "1" then I wonder why your playing?  As stated this game is about heroic adventurers, going out and slaying creatures and evil people! Even in the movies the hero dies! So if you take out the auto fail on a "1", and also take out the Save or die spells, why even have spells? What is the point of adventuring?

Just get a big nurf bat and hit goffers on the head? No threat of dying there?

Yes not all game players like it the same, but some of us like the Threat of being able to have our characters face potential death when a powerful demon (or wizard) points his finger at you and calls up the infernal abyss to consume your soul in a powerful strike? You had better be one lucky soul to live through that. Now should that demon  (or wizard) be able to do that every round, well maybe, but as a DM, I don't think most I know would do that even if the creature could. If it could I would have to question, why I was going up against it so ill'prepared. And if I was, then yes I would probably expect several of us to die...

But I would never classify it as unfun, that is the great adventure to slay the great demon lord!



Grappling, funny, in 1st Ed, there were few if any rules, the DM just winged it, and had you make a d20 check either based on THAC0 or a stat to see if you succeeded, now we actually have a set of rules. If you have a cheatsheet or custom character sheet rather than one of those cheap things WoTC gives you, you would have the formulas you need next to the types of attacks your characters make, thus its a non-issue. As a GM if I select a monster for an encounter that has Improved Grapple, I'm for sure going to look up the rule prior to the session and make sure it's on my cheat sheet so I don't slow down my players fun time.

If WoTC did their homework proper and created modules right, when they created a monster in the first place, they would put in the entry with a monster the rule for grapple next to the encounter area (or in a side bar).

I will admit not everything is 100% fluid, but I wouldn't call it unfun, otherwise I wouldn't be still playing, though in looking at the rulings that are coming for 4e, I am not happy, but I will hold my judgement.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Sep 13, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Wow, I thought mods in this forum has rules against blatant attacks such as this.



They also have rules saying you should report the post, and not call it out in the thread itself so as to keep it from escalating.  Back to the thread itself...

After reading through most of the bad feelings going on, I'd like to ask one question.  Why are people getting so confrontational over different styles of play?  Because that's exactly what I see happening.  Someone says they dont like this particular aspect, and then someone jumps on them for it for playing  'Wrong'. (OMG! You dont like counting arrows? What, you cant do MATH? LOL.  OMG! You hate save or die spells? WTF, I guess you dont like ANY sort of challenge at all, do you??)  Having fun is having fun and not everyone is going to agree with what parts they find fun.  Instead of immediately accusing the other guy of something, how about you try to understand their point of view, first? 

In any case, when Wizards talks about 'Unfun', I believe they are talking about mechanics that their marketing research with players, or that they themselves, found annoying or less then stellar.  Like it or not, DnD often is the entry level game for RPGs, much like Warhammer 40K is for minis games.  Even people who DONT like DND will often have the books because it's one of the few games where you're almost gaurenteed to find players.  For that reason, Wizards needs to cater to the greatest number of people they can.  You might not like that reason, I have no doubt some of you will call it 'catering to the lowest common denominator', but 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.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2007)

Vlos said:
			
		

> Grappling, funny, in 1st Ed, there were few if any rules, the DM just winged it, and had you make a d20 check either based on THAC0 or a stat to see if you succeeded, now we actually have a set of rules.




Here we have to disagree.  If you look at the 1e DMG, there was a fairly complex and granular set of rules for grappling.  It allowed for all sorts of interesting results, but it was cumbersome, not very well balanced, and not often used as a result.

The Unearthed Arcana tome included a new set of grappling rules, which had originally appeared in The Dragon.

RC


----------



## Rolzup (Sep 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In my D&D game, each player chooses a RP goal based on their character's personality.  Each game in which you meet your goal, you gain 1 AP.  This is a modification of the _Demogogues & Dynasties_ personality feat rules, and it is something that I would recommend to anyone.  The advantages are:
> 
> (a) Gaining APs is completely in the player's hands.
> 
> ...




I prefer giving the PCs more than just one action point, but everything really depends on what kind of rules you're using.  Right now, for example, I'm using a set of action cards cobbled together from a couple of different sources.  Get three per session, spend 'em where and how you want, and a collection of three cards (from any number of players) will keep a PC from dying.

My desires from such a system are twofold: Give the players a better chance to succeed when they REALLy need to do so, AND make things more interesting.  With my current players, the cards did that better than action points could.

I'm curious to see what rules 4.0 uses, as I find the Eberron APs to be rather bland in play. 

But in any case, we're diverging from the original topic somewhat.

I will once again mention the Raising the Flag rules, though, as they are entirely relevent to the original post: They allow a PLAYER to decide when something is important enough for his character to die for.  And that's exactly the kind of thing that I want to see.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2007)

Rolzup said:
			
		

> I prefer giving the PCs more than just one action point, but everything really depends on what kind of rules you're using.  Right now, for example, I'm using a set of action cards cobbled together from a couple of different sources.





Swashbuckling cards?  Those can be a lot of fun.

I made the switch to APs simply because, as with so much of the game, I was willing to rewrite what you could do with them.

Of course, in my game you can get your first Epic feat at 5th level......


----------



## F4NBOY (Sep 13, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> I have no doubt some of you will call it 'catering to the lowest common denominator', but 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.




QFT.

If you are in the 20%, it's easier for you to update yourself than waiting for the big company to realease its main product aiming at your taste.
So all this nervous and agressive stress is fruitless.


----------



## wgreen (Sep 13, 2007)

Vlos said:
			
		

> It's funny how people say if I roll a "1" and die that is "unfun"? If the only way you are going to die is on a "1",



Non sequitur.



			
				Vlos said:
			
		

> which means the only way your going to fail a save is on a "1" then I wonder why your playing?  As stated this game is about heroic adventurers, going out and slaying creatures and evil people! Even in the movies the hero dies! So if you take out the auto fail on a "1", and also take out the Save or die spells, why even have spells? What is the point of adventuring?



Non sequitur.

Look, guys, you could remove save-or-die spells from 3.x _without_ removing all hint of challenge, risk, and death.  This isn't difficult.  Is it?

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.

-Will


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2007)

wgreen said:
			
		

> Look, guys, you could remove save-or-die spells from 3.x _without_ removing all hint of challenge, risk, and death.  This isn't difficult.  Is it?





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


----------



## hong (Sep 13, 2007)

I like the rule that's been proposed by several people now: instakills remain instakills, but only have full effect below a hit point-based threshold. This is basically extending the power word spells to all instakill effects. You can combine this with hero points/fate points as well.


----------



## wgreen (Sep 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 13, 2007)

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 (Sep 13, 2007)

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 (Sep 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (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! 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 13, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 13, 2007)

wgreen said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 13, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> No. Extraordinary claims means just that. Extraordinary claims.





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


----------



## Grog (Sep 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

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



I answered that already. You snipped it.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> I answered that already. You snipped it.




"Extraordinary claims" doesn't tell you what extraordinary is, nor does "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."

So, either quote me where you answered it, that I missed, or please tell me what "extraordinary" means in this context.

RC


----------



## Henry (Sep 13, 2007)

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Wow, I thought mods in this forum has rules against blatant attacks such as this.




While it would be cool to be omniscient, we ain't.  If someone violates forum policies, just use the "report a post" button and let the mods handle it. Insulting other posters and calling out other people are definitely against the rules, so if you see someone doing it, let us know.

And *Simian*, I've removed the part of your post I had problems with. For the future, please don't take personal shots at others, please - and if you see anyone doing it to you, report 'em too.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Sep 13, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> And *Simian*, I've removed the part of your post I had problems with. For the future, please don't take personal shots at others, please - and if you see anyone doing it to you, report 'em too.



As is unquestionably your right. For my own part, I apologize for getting aggressive - that last twenty minutes of the work day just stretches on and on, you know? Makes a man a little excitable.

Also, no "n".


----------



## hong (Sep 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> "Extraordinary claims" doesn't tell you what extraordinary is, nor does "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."




D00d, he doesn't believe the sweeping statement that lots and lots of people don't want any risk. This is perfectly clear.



> So, either quote me where you answered it, that I missed, or please tell me what "extraordinary" means in this context.




The mind boggles.


----------



## Grog (Sep 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, either quote me where you answered it, that I missed, or please tell me what "extraordinary" means in this context.



Like I said, I answered the question already. I'm not going to do it again.


----------



## hong (Sep 13, 2007)

I guess it's a sense of wonder thing.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 13, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Player Characters should die in climatic combat.




Braving the element[al]s, no doubt.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 13, 2007)

Rolzup said:
			
		

> "I really need to hit BBEG, oh Mighty DM.  Fortunately, _I've got just one arrow left_ to fire at him...."




Ah, yes.  The Discworld RPG.

"What're my chances of hitting him?"

"'Bout 50/50."

"What if I've only got 1 arrow left?"

"Hm. 70/30, then."

"And I'm blindfolded?"

"300 to 1, probably."

"And jumping up and down on one leg while singing the national anthem?"

"That's about a million-to-one."

"I fire."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Like I said, I answered the question already. I'm not going to do it again.





So long as you've no interest in convincing me, that's fine.  For the record though, I'll say my definition of "extraordinary claims" is the best one I am aware of.    

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 13, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Small nitpick. Some will also choose heroicly, probably die *and* save the party's collective asses in doing so. And those are worthy deaths, fully in character and a good ending for some adventurers.



Yes, that's a good addition to the possible outcomes. Dying in on itself isn't the problem. It's when and how you do it.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Sep 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So long as you've no interest in convincing me, that's fine.  For the record though, I'll say my definition of "extraordinary claims" is the best one I am aware of.
> 
> We'll just have to agree to disagree.
> 
> RC



You're joking, right?

I mean, you're pretending not to have noticed it that he's said it several times - that you *REPEATED IT* even - just to get a rise out of him. Only possible reason, surely.

Right?


----------



## Mallus (Sep 13, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Ah, yes.  The Discworld RPG.



That's pretty much what our group is shooting for when we play D&D...


----------



## wgreen (Sep 13, 2007)

I'll be a nice guy and quote Hong, since I'm pretty sure RC has him on ignore:



			
				hong said:
			
		

> D00d, he doesn't believe the sweeping statement that lots and lots of people don't want any risk. This is perfectly clear.




-Will


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> You're joking, right?
> 
> I mean, you're pretending not to have noticed it that he's said it several times - that you *REPEATED IT* even - just to get a rise out of him. Only possible reason, surely.
> 
> Right?




No....I'm serious.

No. Extraordinary claims means just that. Extraordinary claims.​
The above doesn't tell me what "extraordinary claims" is intended to mean any more than if I defined bulgwus as

No. Bulgwus means just that.  Bulgwus.​
There is no information conveyed there at all.

Grog does say:

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.​
but this doesn't really say why the claim in "extraordinary" either.  Because something was built into the game from OD&D on, claiming that a large number of players want something else is an extaordinary claim?  If this was true, then it would require "extraordinary proof" that there are large numbers of players who want a non-Vancian magic system.  Or non per-day resources.  Etc., etc., etc.

For something like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" to be even slightly useful, both terms ("extraordinary claims" and "extraordinary proof") must be defined _*before*_ one decides which is which.  

Several good analyses of this phrase can be found on the Interweb, both from the standpoint of skepticism (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/extraproof.html) and those who are less skeptical (http://www.carm.org/evidence/extraordinary.htm).

It must surely be recognizable to anyone who examines any claim that no claim is objectively extraordinary.  A claim is only extraordinary in context of a given worldview.  If a claim contradicts that worldview, it is extraordinary to the degree that it contradicts that worldview.  The proof required is extraordinary only to the degree that not accepting that proof requires more effort than does altering one's worldview to take the logical conclusions derived from that evidence into account.

Ex., if I believe in elves (perhaps I am living in the World of Greyhawk) and you tell me that there is an elf outside that wishes to speak to me, this is not an extraordinary claim.  It may not be a true claim, but it is one which falls within the context of my worldview.

Ex., if I do not believe in elves (perhaps I am living in the real world) and you tell me that there is an elf outside that wishes to speak to me, this is an extraordinary claim because it is in contradiction to my worldview.  Even were it true, I would be liable to dismiss it.  I would certainly not accept pointy ears and a smarmy attitude as "proof" that the person on my doorstep was an elf.

Likewise, in the real world, some of the claims made re: Relativity or QM have been, so far as we know, accurate, but have required "extraordinary proof" to be accepted as so for the simple reason that they violated the until-then most popularly held scientific viewpoint.

IOW, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" is missing the phrase "to be accepted by those to whom the claim seems extraordinary", which is required for the statement to be sensible.

Hence, "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", which has little or nothing to do with whether said claims are true.  It justifies a "no amount of evidence will change my mind" attitude all too often, though perhaps not in this case.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2007)

wgreen said:
			
		

> I'll be a nice guy and quote Hong, since I'm pretty sure RC has him on ignore




If his sole purpose is to threadcrap, I will continue to ignore the accumulation of turds.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Sep 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No....I'm serious.
> (snip a whole lot of evasive chatter)



Shhhhh.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 13, 2007)

AFAICT "extraordinary claims" here means anything that the reader finds extraordinary.  Consider that many people on this board can't think of terms to use for things they agree/disagree with other than "perfectly reasonable" and "utterly ludicrous".  The result of living in hyperbole-land, therefore, is that any claim that disagrees with what you think is extraordinary.  That's ok because, by the same token, anything I say that you don't agree with then becomes "extraordinary proof".  Or IOW - you're going to have to yell pretty loud to get me to listen.

Can you imagine what these arguments are going to be like when we're all 90 years old?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> AFAICT "extraordinary claims" here means anything that the reader finds extraordinary.  Consider that many people on this board can't think of terms to use for things they agree/disagree with other than "perfectly reasonable" and "utterly ludicrous".  The result of living in hyperbole-land, therefore, is that any claim that disagrees with what you think is extraordinary.  That's ok because, by the same token, anything I say that you don't agree with then becomes "extraordinary proof".  Or IOW - you're going to have to yell pretty loud to get me to listen.
> 
> Can you imagine what these arguments are going to be like when we're all 90 years old?





I prefer to think that a more reasonable form of discussion is possible.

RC


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 13, 2007)

> It must surely be recognizable to anyone who examines any claim that no claim is objectively extraordinary. A claim is only extraordinary in context of a given worldview. If a claim contradicts that worldview, it is extraordinary to the degree that it contradicts that worldview. The proof required is extraordinary only to the degree that not accepting that proof requires more effort than does altering one's worldview to take the logical conclusions derived from that evidence into account.




Why is that a problem?  I mean, honestly, it sounds like you're agreeing with the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" thesis.

If I have 10 foundational beliefs which must be overthrown before I believe your claim, you will have to convince me of the error of all 10 foundational beliefs before I can accept your claim.  Therefore, your claim will require more evidence than a claim which does not require me to reject any foundational beliefs I may hold.

Assuming my foundational beliefs were arrived at because of some amount of evidence, the "extraordinary claims... etc" line really just says, "If I've got 100 data points which contradict your assertion, you'll have to do a lot more work to convince me to accept your assertion than if I haven't got any data points in contradiction at all."

Which is trivially true, right?


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 13, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Why is that a problem?  I mean, honestly, it sounds like you're agreeing with the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" thesis.




Originally, in simpler terms, the problem was that a poster had described a bogeyman and said that the bogeyman was bad.  Another poster, fearful of being equated with the bogeyman, undertook the complicated strategy of trying to show that the bogeyman didn't exist.  Stonewalling ensued as a group of posters decided that a comprehensive survey of everything ever written on the internet would be necessary to solve the problem.

Now we're considering the question of how extraordinary the evidence has to be for the existence of the bogeyman.  My earlier suggestion was just to simply show that you weren't the bogeyman, and then the bogeyman's existence would be largely irrelevant to the issue at hand.  My suggestion wasn't appreciated however.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Why is that a problem?  I mean, honestly, it sounds like you're agreeing with the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" thesis.
> 
> If I have 10 foundational beliefs which must be overthrown before I believe your claim, you will have to convince me of the error of all 10 foundational beliefs before I can accept your claim.  Therefore, your claim will require more evidence than a claim which does not require me to reject any foundational beliefs I may hold.





Correct.

But let us say instead that A is B, and that you wish to convince me that A is B.  I have these ten beliefs that make me believe, erroneously, that A is not B.  I could ask you "Where is your proof?" but until I have explained that I have these 10 beliefs, and told you what they are, there is no chance at all for you to accidently discover what has mistakenly made me believe that A is not B.  I am holding you to an absurd burden of proof.

Conversely, imagine the same, but A is not B, and I have 10 reasons for believing so that may or may not be correct.  Again, unless I tell you what they are, you cannot address them, and therefore you cannot decide that you are wrong on their basis, or even that I am right although the basis for my belief is wrong.

Throughout this series of posts, you'll note Gizmo33 especially saying _IF_ A, then B.  By giving us the IF, he is telling us specifically the conditions under which he draws his conclusions.  Similarly, I gave my reasoning in a point-by-point format, which some people didn't find convincing (even if they could not show me why in a way that convinced me).

By expressing the foundations that cause you to believe a thing, you open up the possibility of gaining an expanded worldview....or of aiding another to the same.  By simply demanding "extraordinary proof" without determining why a claim is extraordinary, or what sort of proof would be needed, you are doing nothing more than ensuring that your worldview can remain static....whether it is right or wrong.

That is largely, IMHO, the difference between actual discussion of a topic and simple conversation.  Simple conversation is fine, of course, but demands for extraordinary proof belong in an actual discussion, IMHO.  Attempting to use "ECREP" as a means to shut a discussion down, while believing it to be a rational response, is evidence of irrational thinking.  The phrase by itself, shorn of any context, is meaningless, and its use in an argument in this way (although extremely common) ought to be considered a fallacy.

IMHO.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Attempting to use "ECREP" as a means to shut a discussion down, while believing it to be a rational response, is evidence of irrational thinking.




So is talking about this crap.  

Can we get back to the actual Unfun discussion, or are people going to discuss about how to discuss for 4 more pages?


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 13, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So is talking about this crap.
> 
> Can we get back to the actual Unfun discussion, or are people going to discuss about how to discuss for 4 more pages?



Talk about "unfun", I think this thread crossed that line a while ago


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 13, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Can we get back to the actual Unfun discussion, or are people going to discuss about how to discuss for 4 more pages?




Where were you when this topic was being raised originally in order to stonewall the thread?  If you have an outstanding issue that you want to be addressed, just simply indicate what it is.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking-

You claim that the "extraordinary claims... etc" argument is a non rational way of avoiding actual debate by concealing baseline assumptions behind a catchy phrase.  However, what I see is that your denial of the possibility of common frames of reference coupled with your insistence that extensive baseline assumptions and world views must be fully elaborated upon before discussion can occur is actually the real non rational way of avoiding discussion, this time by obscuring the possibility of immediately beginning the conversation behind extensive obfuscation on the nature of shared perceptions of reality.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 13, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> However, what I see is that your denial of the possibility of common frames of reference coupled with your insistence that extensive baseline assumptions and world views must be fully elaborated upon before discussion can occur is actually the real non rational way of avoiding discussion, this time by obscuring the possibility of immediately beginning the conversation behind extensive obfuscation on the nature of shared perceptions of reality.



 I'd like to nominate this sentence for honorary Kantian status.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## helium3 (Sep 13, 2007)

I'm really confused now. What's this thread about?


----------



## Nifft (Sep 13, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> I'm really confused now. What's this thread about?



 The nature of shared perceptions of reality, of course.

Specifically, fun. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Sep 13, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Raven Crowking-
> 
> You claim that the "extraordinary claims... etc" argument is a non rational way of avoiding actual debate by concealing baseline assumptions behind a catchy phrase.  However, what I see is that your denial of the possibility of common frames of reference coupled with your insistence that extensive baseline assumptions and world views must be fully elaborated upon before discussion can occur is actually the real non rational way of avoiding discussion, this time by obscuring the possibility of immediately beginning the conversation behind extensive obfuscation on the nature of shared perceptions of reality.



I agree. I sometimes call this "obstructionist arguing" where you try to break down the possibility of having a discussion, rather than try to actually have it.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 13, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> I agree. I sometimes call this "obstructionist arguing" where you try to break down the possibility of having a discussion, rather than try to actually have it.




That's what asking for proof of the existence of people that don't matter to the conversation was doing in the original situation.  The "proof" being asked for was actually supporting an assertion that was not the central point of the case being made.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 13, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> I'm really confused now. What's this thread about?



At this point, absolutely nothing.


----------



## Wolv0rine (Sep 13, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> I'm holding out for the "More Fun" version of Trivial Pursuit where even if you know nothing you still win so you can still feel good about yourself.
> 
> My son was playing the "More Fun" version of football where everyone won just by stepping onto the field.....of course he was only 6 at the time. Unfortunately, he is forced to play the "unfun" version of football where one team wins and one team loses.
> 
> ...



*Falls out of his chair laughing*
You, sir, have grasped the concept fully.  Good on ya!


----------



## SavageRobby (Sep 13, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> I'm really confused now. What's this thread about?




Unfun.

Can't you tell?


----------



## Just Another User (Sep 14, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> 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.



I think that if you want them to use those effects later in the combat, those should have some kind of negative backslash, so they use them only as a last resort (i.e. after using it they get fatigued, or suffer some temporary stat damage (temporay could mean, pass in 1 day or pass with 5 minutes of rest or something between, it depend), or something like that) so using it first thing in combat is not always a good idea. This could be used even for the more powerful attack of some creature (i.e. every time a dragon use his breath weapon he get 1 point of temporary CON damage).

All IMHO, of course.


----------



## Horacio (Sep 14, 2007)

SavageRobby said:
			
		

> Unfun.
> 
> Can't you tell?



 It's the right thread for this night of insomnia...
Going back to sleep, people, I feel sleepy now.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 14, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Where were you when this topic was being raised originally in order to stonewall the thread?




Ignoring the attempts like most reasonable people should have been.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> If you have an outstanding issue that you want to be addressed, just simply indicate what it is.




I find it unfun when a DM's campaign is more important then the PCs and their goals.

I find it unfun when I spell Greyhawk Grayhawk. Doh!  

I find it unfun when as DM, I have to pull out the PHB. I don't know if I am just getting old, but I've been having to do that about 5+ times per game these days. It used to be that I would tell a player to look something up and I would tell him what page to find it on. Sigh.

I find it unfun when Gnomes disappear from the PHB. I like having a vastly inferior PC race to pick on. Ditto for Half Elves.

I find it unfun when bread and butter abilities rarely work in combat: Turn Undead, especially with a PrC.

I find it unfun when bread and butter abilities always work in combat: Tumbling and Cast Defensively.

I previously had not thought about this one before the 4E discussions started, but I am coming to the conclusion that I find it unfun when I have to keep track of how many rounds an effect will last during combat. If Durations in 4E are something like: One round, Entire Encounter, Ten Minutes, One Hour, 5 Hours, One Day, One Week, One Month, etc. I think multiples of ~4x to ~7x work reasonably well for this. Once one is at the 10 minute mark, it doesn't really matter which spell is cast first and all of those discussions about which spell gets cast before which other spell all go away.

I find it unfun when it is obvious that a game element has never ever been playtested: Darkness spell, Find Traps spell.

There are others, but many of them have already been mentioned in this thread.


----------



## Hairfoot (Sep 14, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Players want their PCs to shine. And, they also want their PC to be the best in some areas. And I think the designers of 4E understand that.
> 
> The designers of 3E understood it as well, but their solution to the problem was problematic at best. Their solution was to give the PCs more and more, better and better. More feats. More PrCs. More magic items. More capability. Part of this is pure business and marketing, but it did hurt the versimilitude of the game for some people by making the cinematic "too fantastic" and overwhelming.
> ...
> ...




I wish I'd entered this thread earlier, because this sums up almost perfectly my feelings about the direction of D&D, and so far I'm looking forward to 4E in the hope that it pulls back on some of the superhero-ish-ness of 3E.


----------



## hong (Sep 14, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> That's what asking for proof of the existence of people that don't matter to the conversation was doing in the original situation.  The "proof" being asked for was actually supporting an assertion that was not the central point of the case being made.



 The assertion, however, forms the basis on which the claim can be said to have any relationship with reality.

See, reality is kinda important. "If the flying spaghetti monster played D&D, he surely would ban wizards" is rather hard to disprove, you know?


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 14, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> See, reality is kinda important. "If the flying spaghetti monster played D&D, he surely would ban wizards" is rather hard to disprove, you know?




Though it is hard to disprove, fortunately there's also not much to be gained by doing so.  Reality would be just where you left it.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 14, 2007)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> "You win some, you lose some," is a necessary element of sustained enjoyment. "You win some, and then you win some more," is a surefire recipe for people quickly becoming tired of the game and finding something else to do with their Saturday night.





			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> D&D isn't supposed to be competitive between the DM and the players. I am 100% against an adversarial relationship between DM and players. However, where you have it wrong is that there is a distinct competition for survival between PCs and their enemies.



The PCs and their enemies are in competition. It does not follow from that that the _players_ are necessarily doing anything competitive at all, either with one another or the GM. They may be, of course, but they need not be. Depending on how the players derive their pleasure, the notion of "win some, lose some" may or may not have useful applicaiton in a roleplaying game.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> That the very real possibility of character death is unfun in an adventure game where the point is to face terrible foes and hopefully be victorious, but with absolutely no guarantees. There is NOTHING heroic about guaranteed victory.





			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Sucks to have to worry about proper provisioning for a life threatening expidition to the underworld where you are guaranteed to be attacked and likely injured and perhaps even killed.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Oh yeah, they still want to be heroes but risk nothing and have to put no thought into preparation for their undangerous, undeadly, unheroic adventures.



Again, there seems to be a confusion here between the PCs and the players. The PCs are heroic adventurers. The players may or may not want to themselves engage in the thought processes that such heroes would engage in in planning their expedition. Likewise, the players may or may not want to experience the loss that the PCs feel when they are defeated or killed.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The DM has to keep track of this stuff for all of his NPCs. Each player has to keep track of it for one PC (typically unless they have a cohort).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> if a player is incapable of keeping track of the dynamic elements of his PC, then he's doing it wrong.



The player may not want to live through the experience that her PC does, of having to scrounge and tally every piece of equipment that is essential to the success of the mission.



			
				WarlockLord said:
			
		

> I think I have to speak up in defense of save or dies.
> 
> *1) The 'save or die' effects are a main part of the fantasy genre*.
> 
> ...



The players may want to experience the adversity that the PCs do. But they may not.



			
				Vlos said:
			
		

> this game is about heroic adventurers, going out and slaying creatures and evil people! Even in the movies the hero dies! So if you take out the auto fail on a "1", and also take out the Save or die spells, why even have spells? What is the point of adventuring?



But RPGs are not movies. If the PC dies, the player has nothing to do in the game. This is a problem if the player turned up to play the game.



			
				wgreen said:
			
		

> Re: save-or-die effects, paralyzation, etc., I truly don't understand why so many people are defending a mechanic that tells players to _stop playing_ for modest-to-long stretches of time during a session.  I mean, did you come to play D&D, or did you come to play Nintendo while your _friends_ play D&D?  _That_ is why so many people want to say good-bye to save-or-die; it's nothing to do with challenge.  After all, what's challenging about rolling a 1 and then going to read a book while your pals continue with the fun?



Agreed.



			
				Glyfair said:
			
		

> As I pointed out in another thread, death is not a necessary element in D&D to provide risk to the player characters.  A game could be structured so that the PCs will never die unless they choose to die.  When they fight they are risking things other than their life.
> 
> However, what is also clear from those discussions is that there are a large number of D&D players who feel that isn't playing D&D "right."  Without the risk of death there is no risk, in their opinion.  They wouldn't want to play D&D if there was no risk of death.



Agreed.



			
				SavageRobby said:
			
		

> I see a bigger and bigger disconnect between those who want verisimilitude (or a close portrayal of reality, as close as you can get with Dragons and magic and such), and those who want cinematic action. IMO, gritty & verisimilitude come at the expense of having some of the "unfun" elements discussed. To solve those "unfun" issues, you get a more cinematic game. I see a place for both, but I think the market researchers have decided that cinematic wins out in terms of sales to the new gamer (or the WOW players).



For me, the disconnect consists more in the inability to recognise that different player preferences can be supported or hindered by different rulesets. Thus, instead of discussing the utility of different rulesets for different purposes, debate degenerates into a question of which preferences constitute "genuine D&D". Looking at the early texts of D&D will show there _always_ to have been very different approaches to play (compare Roger Musson and Lewis Pulsipher in early numbers of White Dwarf, for instance).

In my view 1st ed AD&D, with its emphasis on large parties of multiple PCs per player (whether literally, or via henchmen & hirelings), lent itself well to a play style in which the pervasive risk of character death was not an obstacle to fun - because each player would always have a character to manipulate in the gameworld - and in which the main pleasure in play was operational success (and thus it did not matter _which_ of "your guys" you ended up playing as the ingame vehicle to that success).

That is not to say that all 1st ed play was wargaming play - just that the rules offered firm support for that style of play.

Later editions have tended to emphasise a greater degree of player identification with a single PC. This style of play also attracts players who are not interested in the operational minutiae of wargaming play. Hence the complaints about tracking arrows and encumbrance.

A consequence of this widespread change in play style is that the death of that PC means the player is unable to play. Perhaps ironically, therefore, this more contemporary style of play can draw support from mechanics which actually separate the player's experience from the PC's experience - ie which do not require the players to undergo the adversities of the PCs. Mechanics which give the players control over aspects of the gameworld other than their PCs' decision-making - of which Fate Points are a common instance - are one example. With such mechanics in play, when a PC faces adversity the player does not experience that adversity him- or herself, but rather spends a Fate Point to relieve the adversity. I believe that this sort of play can be fun - but the fun will no longer consist in overcoming operational challenges.

As a trivial example, these sorst of mechanics can be used to give a satisfactory solution to the arrow problem:



			
				Rolzup said:
			
		

> Or, put in the player's hands.  Want an extra Action Point when you really need it?  Take a setback -- you run out of arrows, your sword breaks, your horse steps in a gopher hole, whatever fits the circumstances.



Of course, an equally acceptable approach for those who do not care for operational play would be simply to ignore or handwave arrows, as Cadfan has been arguing.

In any event, the game designers have to choose which sorts of mechanics to use, and thereby which style of play to support. My feeling is that operational play is losing out - this would be just a continuation of a trend which has been unidirectional since the end of 1st ed, and is pretty common across the RPG world. If this is correct, it is rational for those who enjoy operational play, and want rules to support it, to be disappointed. But I don't think there is any basis for them attacking the play preferences of others.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 14, 2007)

I think 4e is likely to continue the trend of taking for granted that players are important contributors of gameworld elements. After all, it is this approach that sells splatbooks and their ilk.

This need not be the end of D&D as we know it, however.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> I would argue that if one bastardizes a setting by trying to avoid the impression of avoiding every possible thing that can in any way be construed as "unfun" one might as well not bother with a setting at all and stick to the colorless vanilla of the unnamed core D&D world, whatever that is.



An alternative possibility is this: the players and GM jointly construct the setting. We work out whether or not the setting includes Warforged by seeing what the players want for their PCs.




			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I can imagine the response to this new rule in 4.0:  "Players do not need to track ammunition.  However, the DM can have them run out of ammunition at any moment he deems suitably dramatic."  That would certainly model action movies, but I'm betting it would go over like a lead balloon.



It would. But as you almost certainly realise there is an alternative that better balances the roles of players and GMs:



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> the DM gives you a hero point in exchange for saying you run out at a dramatically appropriate point.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 14, 2007)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> in some cases, maybe DR really is meant to be so good as to be nearly un-bypassable.  A pit fiend, for example, is the top-tier devil.  It would make great dramatic effect for the party to go up against one, get trashed, run away, research the monster's weaknesses, quest for the holy silver sword "Purifier," and then go for a rematch.



The question is: does the current DR system in D&D actually produce these sorts of events during play? I suspect it mostly does not.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 14, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In my D&D game, each player chooses a RP goal based on their character's personality.  Each game in which you meet your goal, you gain 1 AP.



This is a marked mechanical change from vanilla D&D. It certainly has nothing to do with verisimilitude - for there is no reason _within the internal logic of the gameworld_ why achieving one's goals should make one more likely to succeed at one's goals in future.

If you are happy with this mechanic, I don't understand your apparent insistence (on this and other threads) that the only (or at least principle) source of pleasure in playing D&D is operational success.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Sep 14, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> This is a marked mechanical change from vanilla D&D. It certainly has nothing to do with verisimilitude - for there is no reason _within the internal logic of the gameworld_ why achieving one's goals should make one more likely to succeed at one's goals in future.



Psychological momentum? Feeling encouraged?

I'm not sure either of those apply so much as it's a roleplaying reward, but I'm always amazed at how often my group's plans succeed for as long as they keep going.

_"A workable plan now, carried out with surprise and enthusiasm, is better than a perfect plan tomorrow."_


----------



## pemerton (Sep 14, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> This is a marked mechanical change from vanilla D&D. It certainly has nothing to do with verisimilitude - for there is no reason within the internal logic of the gameworld why achieving one's goals should make one more likely to succeed at one's goals in future.





			
				Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Psychological momentum? Feeling encouraged?
> 
> I'm not sure either of those apply so much as it's a roleplaying reward, but I'm always amazed at how often my group's plans succeed for as long as they keep going.



You're right, you can try and interpret it that way. But it then opens the possibility that Blackguards or Liches can drain Action Points with their fear or despair auras, and other in-game psychological considerations of that sort. Which I find a bit unsatisfying.

I think it's easier to just be upfront about the metagame nature of these mechanics, instead of contorting the gameworld's internal logic to fit them into it.


----------



## hong (Sep 14, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Though it is hard to disprove, fortunately there's also not much to be gained by doing so.  Reality would be just where you left it.




Unfortunately, you missed this bit:

The assertion, however, forms the basis on which the claim can be said to have any relationship with reality.​
Why do you like talking about flying spaghetti monsters?


----------



## Shadeydm (Sep 14, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If his sole purpose is to threadcrap, I will continue to ignore the accumulation of turds.




That does seem to be the case more often than not.


----------



## Shadeydm (Sep 14, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Raven Crowking-
> 
> You claim that the "extraordinary claims... etc" argument is a non rational way of avoiding actual debate by concealing baseline assumptions behind a catchy phrase.  However, what I see is that your denial of the possibility of common frames of reference coupled with your insistence that extensive baseline assumptions and world views must be fully elaborated upon before discussion can occur is actually the real non rational way of avoiding discussion, this time by obscuring the possibility of immediately beginning the conversation behind extensive obfuscation on the nature of shared perceptions of reality.




Biggest sentence ever!


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 14, 2007)

The Opening Question: What the heck is "Unfun"?

The Answer: Threadcrapping, Derailing and Threadkilling. Turning threads into courtroom proceedings filled with fascinating yet preposterously obscure and off-topic discussions of the nature of evidence and the nature of "extraordinary claims." It might be more interesting if some EXTRAORDINARY claim was actually made. Anyone who thinks my OP made such claims needs to rethink their definition of the word.

I even thought that maybe, just maybe apologizing for unintentionally offending some folks would allow things to go back to normal. Unortunately this was not the case and this has become an "Unfun" thread.

Raven Crowking, you fought the good fight. I'll discuss the implications of risk-less fantasy role-playing, the reason IMO the Great Wheel, alignments, and vancian magic need to go, why each setting needs its own planar cosmology, etc all day long but we've gone gone aground on this thread and there is no turning back. 



_"He's dead Jim."_

-Deforest Kelley​
RIP      The "What the Heck is Unfun" Thread      RIP
9/13/07​

Sundragon


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I'd like to nominate this sentence for honorary Kantian status.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Sorry, KarinsDad says we Kant.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> You claim that the "extraordinary claims... etc" argument is a non rational way of avoiding actual debate by concealing baseline assumptions behind a catchy phrase.




Unless and until some threshold of proof is defined, yes.  

"Shifting the Bar" is a catchy phrase, too.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> I agree. I sometimes call this "obstructionist arguing" where you try to break down the possibility of having a discussion, rather than try to actually have it.




Excepting, of course, that what I wrote doesn't break down the possibility of having a discussion, but instead demonstrates that rather than simply saying "ECREP" (which is obstructionist arguing) the person requiring proof needs to indicate what would be acceptable to him or her.

IOW, if you say you want someone to prove something to you, but you continually shift the bar, you are stonewalling the argument.  OTOH, if you have an open mind, and are willing to say where the bar is set, an actual discussion can take place.

I don't believe this _because....._, where there is a clear line of reasoning why one doesn't believe something, is always more conducive to discussion than "ECREP".


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> If you are happy with this mechanic, I don't understand your apparent insistence (on this and other threads) that the only (or at least principle) source of pleasure in playing D&D is operational success.




That's easy; I never said that the only, or principle, source of pleasure in playing D&D is operational success.  You are mistaken in your belief.

A is important =/= A is the only, or principle, source of pleasure in playing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> It might be more interesting if some EXTRAORDINARY claim was actually made. Anyone who thinks my OP made such claims needs to rethink their definition of the word.





That was sort of my point, yes.

RC


----------



## hong (Sep 14, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Excepting, of course, that what I wrote doesn't break down the possibility of having a discussion, but instead demonstrates that rather than simply saying "ECREP" (which is obstructionist arguing) the person requiring proof needs to indicate what would be acceptable to him or her.




Hmmm.



> IOW, if you say you want someone to prove something to you, but you continually shift the bar, you are stonewalling the argument.  OTOH, if you have an open mind, and are willing to say where the bar is set, an actual discussion can take place.




What, you mean like



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> Show me posts from these people saying the things that you claim they believe. And not just one or two people - on the internet, you can find one or two people saying anything. Show me... say, half a dozen different people saying that they want risk-free adventures. Not just people saying they don't like save-or-die effects or whatever, but people saying that they want absolutely no risk in their adventures whatsoever, as you claim.
> 
> If there are so many of these people out there, it should be a simple matter for you to find half a dozen or so. So let's see the posts.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Sep 14, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> You're right, you can try and interpret it that way. But it then opens the possibility that Blackguards or Liches can drain Action Points with their fear or despair auras, and other in-game psychological considerations of that sort. Which I find a bit unsatisfying.
> 
> I think it's easier to just be upfront about the metagame nature of these mechanics, instead of contorting the gameworld's internal logic to fit them into it.



Okay, the blackguard thing I'm with you on and I'll grant you most of the rest, but liches draining AP (assuming AP are given an explanation similar to that of Void from L5R) with an aura of fear and despair is -awesome-.


----------



## Henry (Sep 14, 2007)

*I'm closing this thread for two reasons:

1. I've received at least five reported posts from different people about it in the past 24 hours, as well as one unreported moderation to it. Rather than issue a slate of warnings or bannings, it's better to let the thread die.

2. I've been watching the last two pages fill with nothing but the same people rehashing the same things, to the frustration of most parties involved. It's usually that kind of a point when tempers start flaring for little reason or provocation.

In short, the thread has run its course. Let's give this topic a rest for a while, and let tempers cool down and let the insults one to another subside.*


----------

