Things that are NOT FUN

[shirak]

Dear Amra,

Will you fix the damn quotes in your post so the thread is displayed properly? Man, it's a good thing you are still an Apprentice. Mada mada dane, grasshopper!

[tzor]

First of all, I think it is important to remember that Social Interaction is badly understood in d20 and the "diplomacy" skill is the most abused skill in the game. By the SRD RAW, "You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check."

The second most important skill is Bluff, which might be best described as the P.T. Barnum social attack, "A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe. Bluff, however, is not a suggestion spell."

The former is often bashed because it doesn't get a "save." But the save really isn't important. The notion that you can make the king friendly to you does not mean that he's going to give you the kingdom. Likewise the notion that you can get someone to do something for ... what is that ... 6 seconds or less isn't going to help in a non combat situation most of the time.

In both cases the DM really has to step in and run the social situation by the seat of his or her pants. What happens a few rounds later when "these are not the droids you're looking for" wears off? Just because I really like you am I going to risk my own career for you? Once again solving the problem with a single roll is no fun. Trying to play please the DM is also not always fun. The solution must be a happy medium that in d20 doesn't exist.

[Judging__Eagle]

1183398770[/unixtime]]

1183391654[/unixtime]]

You're a kind DM.

I suspect my group would be surprised to hear you say so!

1183391654[/unixtime]]Usually in my group, we tend to offer extremely good compormises with NPCs; and roll high diplomacy checks.

Well it's all situational. If you're talking about convincing a fanatic out of doing something their fanaticism would otherwise drive them to do, you'd be talking about near-supernatural abilities on the Diplomacy check and a roll would definitely be required.

There are circumstances under which a player can say all the right things and still not be anywhere near convincing enough; fanatics clearly don't work under the principle of enlightened self-interest so an enormous Diplomacy check would be needed to alter their course of action.

I give players a chance to be convincing the vast majority of the time, and if they're just plain not then they either fail or it goes to the dice. When it comes to NPC's that are very hostile or out-and-out crazy, the dice sort of have to get involved. When dealing with sane senient creatures, the situation can often be resolved without resorting to a check.

1183391654[/unixtime]]Only to have the un-fanatic NPC decide to commit suicide.

Unless there was a *very* good reason for that to happen, it strikes me as bonkers but there you go.

Actually, you try to use "good reason" as a means to explain why something happens. Not "I don't want the PCs convincing the Hill Giant that they're powerful adventurers; after beatign him up and then telling him that he's now part of their 'tribe'. So I'll have him go kill himself in the slowest and most painful way possible."


The above happened, the giant 'decided' to walk out and away from cover during the middle of a meteorite shower.

He was then convinced to return to safety and stuck with us some more. When the heroes had cleared the enemy-held Storm Giant Observatory-Temple we brought him back home and had him join the city of Sharn's 'militia' (which is really a small army for policing and defending the metropolis).

[RandomCasualty]

Well a lot of times the DM really doesn't want the PCs turning from a band of adventurers into a small army. It just bogs combat down too much, as a bunch of followers have to all take actions.

[Sajber]

One things that's Not Fun is when you, the player, has done quite an elaborate (more or less) plan to get you out of a difficult situation or somesuch, only to get it squashed by the DM for some reason or the other.

Example: our party was in the "Manliest Man In The World"-contest in our last campaign. The contest was pretty obviously a set-up to get the last three years' champion (who, by the way, was based of Gaston from "The Beauty and the Beast". Annoying as hell, but fun as well) to win yet again. The party was at the time pretty pissed at Gaston because he had previously taken credit for clearing a haunted house WE actually cleared (he just ran off in the first room). The party has just learned the truth about the contest from one of the arrangers, who doesn't like what he's forced to do for the fourth year in a row. "The people need their heroes" and all that, you know. Yet he was unhappy, since he himself had been an honorable champion back in his own days.

So, my character devices a plan to get Gaston away from the seat of honour he doesn't deserve. My character, who had come in second in the last part of the contest (Gaston first, of course) gave up his spot for the Fighter in the group, so that we'd have a better chance at the 1v1 fight against Gaston coming up in the finale. We were to buff him up to the point of ridicule (magic was against the rules in this competition), and the wizard charged with making sure nobody used magic would look the other way. My character would also stand ready to use a hold person spell on Gaston, so he could be "frozen by fear" and the like, getting our Fighter to do some taunts to make the audience see what a prick Gaston really was, etc, etc...

It took quite a long while to sort out and discuss the plan with the arrangers, and there was some persuation needed. When the fight came, Gaston didn't even use a weapon, just his bare hands. Even though our Fighter got an AoO each time he attacked due to Gaston not having Imp. Unarmed Attack, Gaston had the upper hand all the time. He resisted my hold person attempt, and even though he didn't wear any armour at all, our Fighter lost. Apparently, Gaston was some level 10+ figher/awesome with 18 in all stats and ridiculous saves, and the DM just played him according to the rules. We weren't even supposed to have come to the finale. Bah

Point being, when a player comes up with a plan that he or she obviously took his time and dedication to get working, and even gets a sort of "this-will-work" answers from the NPCs, it's not fun having it all squashed up his face because the DM have made uber characters that he plays "according to the rules" or that the plan is not what the DM originally had thought. Now, our DM is a really good DM, and that one time was about the only time that I got seriously pissed at him. I even told him so, and he explained him as he went according to the rules. Well, whatever. Gaston won, and we went on our way. Not Fun.

[Judging__Eagle]

1183473814[/unixtime]]Well a lot of times the DM really doesn't want the PCs turning from a band of adventurers into a small army. It just bogs combat down too much, as a bunch of followers have to all take actions.

8 PCs already bog down actions as it stands.

[tzor]

It really is somewhat easy to handle followers if you make them simple. No advanced tactics and they tend to function as a group (ie at the same initative). You can even roll the attacks at the same time. Still this only provides a limited benefit and if you already have 8 PCs you are pushing the limit anyway.

One problem is not the number of combatents but the number of players. When you have 8 players that means that each player has to wait for the actions of 7 other player and the DM. If you had, on the other hand, 4 players, then each could handle one PC and one small group of NPC without too much annoyance because they would get just as many times to do something in a given minute. Sure the battle would be twice as slow but they would not be twice as bored as a result.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I just tell my players that their followers are their staff. They guard the campsite, they keep their armor and weapons in good order, they keep their pack animals from running off while they're in the dungeon, and so forth.

I do give people full benefit of a cohort though.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

heh, "Alright Jim, your job is to take care of the horse. If there's a fight, make sure it doesn't run off. Got it? Don't save the day, don't kill the evil trolls, don't throw rocks at the enemy. Guard. The Horse. If it runs away, you'd better run off after it, and don't come back unless you have it with you. Thanks for insisting on coming along, we really need your help on this one."

[tzor]

Actually, although I've never played a game this way (in hindsight oh had I wish we thought of it) it would be more like this.

"OK, guys, this is the 'base camp' and your job is to man the base camp while we go explore the ruins below. Take care of the horses and try not to get into trouble. Remember treasure doesn't come to you, you have to go to treasure so anyone who attacks you is thinking you have the treasure. If they had it they wouldn't be attacking you in the first place. Remember that we're going to be coming out with a lot of treasure and we're going to have to cart it all back to town. And that's where the fun and profit will begin."

Trust me, when you are in a 2E party with two paladins horse sitters were exceptionally important. Dismiss-able paladin mounts made that problem go away. (Literally.)

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1183897573[/unixtime]]heh, "Alright Jim, your job is to take care of the horse. If there's a fight, make sure it doesn't run off. Got it? Don't save the day, don't kill the evil trolls, don't throw rocks at the enemy. Guard. The Horse. If it runs away, you'd better run off after it, and don't come back unless you have it with you. Thanks for insisting on coming along, we really need your help on this one."

Dio you have a better use for a first level warrior? Other than to get eaten when the party gets snowed in somewhere?

[MrWaeseL]

If the horse really wanted to get away it could probably even kill Jim.

[tzor]

1183956418[/unixtime]]Dio you have a better use for a first level warrior? Other than to get eaten when the party gets snowed in somewhere?

Sure plenty of things. Remember that first level warriors are a lot like penny stocks. They are cheeper by the dozen and some will be an investment loss. But they do have growth potential. They can beome second level warriors. And the best joke is that they are the one class that gets two attacks per round at the lowest CR. (But only because they get a -1 CR penalty because otherwise their class sucks.)

Charismatic warriors are not only good for holding the horses (handle animal) but they are good at corraling the prisioners (intimidate). You can use them in an archer brigade, shooting at a safe distance.

[bitnine]

You know something that's not fun? Being treated like a munchkin because you actually know the damn rules. Or for no reason at all. I have a particular example of this. In fact, I'll probably digress and start talking about the game itself. There was a mixed d20 game in which I was playing a soldier/sniper type. Now, I had been on co-op the first quarter of the game so the character had already been introduced and on-and-on traveled with the party so I could just hop in.

Getting to the point, my character was the top damage dealer of the party by a long shot (and usually with a long shot). Nothing fancy, just specialization with a very large rifle and a couple of pistols for when it was unwieldy. Aces in spot/listen as well as respectable repair/demolition skills. It also didn't hurt that in the first few sessions I was in I got lucky with the rolls where it counted and unlucky where it didn't matter.

In one particular battle, we fought some huge otherworldly creatures with a few flashy abilities surrounded by a cadre of smaller minions. Literally flashy, as one of them blinded my character right off the bat. Now, I sort of figured that the DM was trying to bring the other party members to the forefront, which was fine, I suppose. However, the DM looked at me dumbfounded when I went ahead and said I was going to continue firing at the huge creature. He informed me that I was blind. Sure, I replied, that meant that I needed to locate creatures by sound, had a 50% miss chance, as well as a penalty to attack.

But in this case, I wasn't exactly playing Agent Sands. The creature was frigging huge, making a ton of noise, and not really moving from its original spot. And I was a level 10 soldier who was a dedicated sniper with max listen ranks and a positive wisdom. Easy enough to maintain aim high above the other character's heads and fire away (not too hard to picture, considering I was even on an elevated position). The DM seemed galled that I would attempt such a thing. He sort of went along with it, but he rolled each 50% miss chance and I failed them all, if I remember correctly. What the hell? He cooked up a creature to blind me without actually knowing or looking up the blindness rules, and then acts perturbed when I don't just sit the battle out? Seriously, that wouldn't make much sense either mechanically or in character.

Eventually, my luck with rolls did wear out in that game. In the final session, which was more or less a combat marathon, I hit characters of consequence all of twice. Out of dozens upon dozens of attack rolls. Granted they were nat 20 auto-crits (due to the soldier capstone ability, I believe), but aside from some action-point boosted bomb disarming and tech skill rolls I was more or less useless that whole session.

You know what I found out later on? That due to my character's "overpoweredness" the DM had given most of the key opponents special tech armbands that allowed them to turbo-dodge one selected opponent, and they always selected me. I mean, it sort of makes sense that there was a problem since the difference between my attack bonus and the crappiest character in the party's was a better part of the RNG, but still... Even during that whole end session where I spent round after round missing they didn't waiver.

And here's the kicker. Since the character existed before I actually was in the game, I didn't design the character. Personality and history-wise he was roughly based off of a character I had played in a one-shot, so it wasn't exactly being assigned a character. However, the DM selected the classes and feats of the initial character. The most I did was select the latter feats and skill ranks and finish off the advanced class. And for those latter feats I just continued with the sniper theme from the core book. It's one thing to be chafed at me for "powergaming" in picking up a large rifle and tossing feats and levels to specialize in its use. It's another to be chafed at me when you were the one who made that selection. And it's seriously NOT FUN when instead of dealing with a problem in power disparity (that you created) you passive aggressively nerf my character to the point of having hour-long stretches of minimal impact. Erm, and that's the generic "you," as no one here is, in fact, that DM.

So, to bring that back to simplicity:

-Being treated as a powergamer for making basic and obvious selects (OMG power attack!)
-Being treated as a powergamer for choices you didn't even make
-Being treated as a muchkin for knowing and referencing the rules
-Being passive aggressively nerfed in a punitive fashion

[rapanui]

Again, I find that the problem there is:
1. Faulty rules.
2. Rule 0 being used arbitrarily to make up for faulty rules.

Solution: boycott d20 product, and play something else.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Right.

Here's a simple fact, guys: A good DM with a good crew can make crappy rules lots of fun. A crappy DM with uncooprative or otherwise disfunctional players will make even the best adventure played in the mythical Perfect System come out as boring and frustrating.

Sure, balance helps, but let's not even start blaming the game for the shortfall of the people playing it.

-Desdan

[tzor]

To address one point that bitnine indirectly made. I'm an old fashioned type of DM, but I've always seen the DM as being impartial. The role of the DM is first and foremost to ensure that the players (and of course the DM himself)have fun and as a result the deliberate attack of one player's character over another (unless there really is a in game reason why a particular PC should be targeted) is outright NO FUN.

There comes a point when you realize that players have levels too. And there comes a point when you realize that some players are more experienced than others. The solution is never to penalize the better player. The solution is to get the better player to raise the bar of the other players around him.

(And there comes a point when you ralize that you are way in over your head and your players are far better than you are. The only solution is clear, get one of them to DM and then start taking lots of notes.)

[Maj]

The solution is never to penalize the better player. The solution is to get the better player to raise the bar of the other players around him.

Quoted for truth.

[RandomCasualty]

1184076325[/unixtime]] The solution is never to penalize the better player. The solution is to get the better player to raise the bar of the other players around him.

I've always felt like it depends on averages. IF most of your group are newbies, then you should nerf the power player, simply because it's easier.

If most of your group are power players, then you should buff up the newbie.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

I always felt like people pick up the slack once they see what they are supposed to do. Once you see another player recognize the situation and save another player you start to realize the reward of teamwork.

One of the turning moments for me was seeing a dedicated blaster-sorceror notice that the warrior was 2 rounds from death, then, instead of blasting (by far was he was better at) he used a Tashas Hideous Laughter. Instead of taking out 50% of the enemy by himself (probably would have taken 2 rounds of blasting), they took it out quicker while taking less damage with teamwork. The inexperienced player (the fighter) quickly realized that he had been saved and saved the sorceror (by readying an action to stop a charge at the sorc) at next opportunity.

[Prak]

losing levels, being put in the corner because my necromancer wants to make a ghoul outta the paladin we just killed(though as I was party leader, I shoulda suggested we rest a few hours while I did so... )

[cthulhu]

I read raising the bar of the over players as 'skilling up' the other players OOCly to the requisite level - which might be explaining more effective character design or whatever.

[Captain_Bleach]

You know something that's not fun? Being treated like a munchkin because you actually know the damn rules. Or for no reason at all. I have a particular example of this. In fact, I'll probably digress and start talking about the game itself. There was a mixed d20 game in which I was playing a soldier/sniper type. Now, I had been on co-op the first quarter of the game so the character had already been introduced and on-and-on traveled with the party so I could just hop in.

I feel your pain, Bitnine.

[rapanui]

Desdan said:
"Here's a simple fact, guys: A good DM with a good crew can make crappy rules lots of fun."

That is not a universal fact. I have a friend that is a SUPERB DM, but because he's a 'fudger' I have a hard time playing the game (he's run a D&D campaign and a old WoD campaign). If he even set about specific guidelines about when or how he will fudge, I would have more fun, but as it stands I often find myself wondering " How exactly is this a game?", the outcome is slated in favor of whatever the DM thinks should happen.

This is often NECESSARY, because if you went by the book, things would end up in TPK or something equally bad, thanks to lame rules. It doesn't mean I like it though. (The rest of the players don't seem to mind and they just like getting into the jist of whatever the DM is doing.)

Yeah, I know, I sound like a bit of anal retentive dweeb; that's 'cause I am.

[Judging__Eagle]

Actually, I prefer a bit of the the random myself. Since life is essentially random.

I find that most people often try for shortcuts and that's why they fudge the dice. Since they're lazy and uncreative.