Things that are NOT FUN

[Brobdingnagian]

I'm also well in favour of the one-level-lower-than-average rule. It actually makes there a penalty of some sort for dying. If you're dropping more than that, though, it just gets stupid.

[ckafrica]

Hate insta-kills. Put me to -1 Fvck me up any other way but dead one on a single roll blows in my books

[tzor]

1181945452[/unixtime]]Grapple-fights. Grapple-fights are NOT FUN (tm).

Having avoided the most vile non weapon combat rules of 1st edition AD&D I can say that compared to them, 3E Grapple fights are ... less painfully stressful. In fact almost fun.

[Amra]

If grapple fights are not fun, then grapple fights when both combatants have Robilar's Gambit and high Dex are even less fun. Or a trip-monkey character with Robilar's Gambit. Or, in fact, any of the many contrived situations that characters with Robilar's Gambit can get themselves into that take the rest of the night to resolve whilst everyone else has to spend the evening seeing how far they can stuff d4's up their nose just in order to stay awake.

More generally, "anything players do to be smartarses that takes a very long time to resolve but doesn't actually achieve very much". As a DM I hate that; nearly as much as I hate *other* players telling me it's all my fault when that happens despite the fact that they'd go out of their gourds if I tried to restrict their own characters' actions on the basis of it not being fun for anyone else in the room...

Although I haven't played for a long time, I used to hate it when DM's would house-rule out something they had previously agreed to because my character was using it to help the party run rings around their adventure. That was Not Fun. It was also Not Fun when they then pulled exactly the same trick themselves but hand-waved away any explanations as to how it was different from what I had been doing.

By and large, I think I can stand the Not Fun things that happen to you as a DM a whole lot more than I can put up with the Not Fun things that can happen to you as a player.

[RandomCasualty]

1182349562[/unixtime]]
Although I haven't played for a long time, I used to hate it when DM's would house-rule out something they had previously agreed to because my character was using it to help the party run rings around their adventure. That was Not Fun.

Well, speaking as a DM, this is sometimes necessary. Sometimes you agree on something without fully understanding the ramifications or the possible combos and it turns out it was broken. You generally try to avoid doing this, but sometimes it's just not avoidable without calling the entire campaign a wash, especially if the PC does something unexpected with a given spell or ability.

[Crissa]

I still made my DM arbitrate out the combat between a familiar and an orc.

...If I hadn't, he wouldn't have let the familiar win.

-Crissa

[rapanui]

That just plain sucks. Rule 0 at it's worst.

[Amra]

1182361100[/unixtime]]

Well, speaking as a DM, this is sometimes necessary. Sometimes you agree on something without fully understanding the ramifications or the possible combos and it turns out it was broken. You generally try to avoid doing this, but sometimes it's just not avoidable without calling the entire campaign a wash, especially if the PC does something unexpected with a given spell or ability.

Well I could understand that if I hadn't told him precisely what I was going to do and how it was going to work! It wasn't in the least bit unexpected; I'd even pointed out chapter and verse on how the tactic might be countered... he just decided after the fact that he didn't like it, which rather screwed my character concept.

Then he had the bad guys do it.

I haven't had to do a volte-face on anything I'd previously allowed, although I could imagine circumstances in which it could happen. Adversarial DM's bite the big one.

[RandomCasualty]

1182409618[/unixtime]]
Well I could understand that if I hadn't told him precisely what I was going to do and how it was going to work! It wasn't in the least bit unexpected; I'd even pointed out chapter and verse on how the tactic might be countered... he just decided after the fact that he didn't like it, which rather screwed my character concept.

Then he had the bad guys do it.

Yeah, the fact that he had the bad guys do it, after he strictly forbid you from doing it, is bad DMing.

As far as tactics go, it's possible that the DM may not have known exactly how good or effective it would be. I tend to give DMs the benefit of the doubt, especially relatively inexperienced ones, because the people here on these boards tend to have a better rules understanding than most DMs and really can run circles around them.

[cthulhu]

I've had to veto something post facto before because with hindsight I had a much better grasp on exactly what I'd agreed. Conversely if you do that you really have to sit down the player and work something out, and avoid what you just did (Ie rebranding it for the bad guys)

[Amra]

1182410452[/unixtime]]I've had to veto something post facto before because with hindsight I had a much better grasp on exactly what I'd agreed. Conversely if you do that you really have to sit down the player and work something out, and avoid what you just did (Ie rebranding it for the bad guys)

I think the only reason I *haven't* had to veto post-facto is because I have a somewhat atypical approach. On the grounds that we're all grown-ups, I make the players police the game to a significant extent. Nobody goes out of their way to hog the limelight or "win" the game because it's their responsibility not to, and because everyone else will tell them to go jump in a lake if they do anything too outrageous.

Just coming up with something clever and far-more-effective-than-I'd-imagined isn't a problem: if the players are having fun, I'm having fun, and even if my encounters for a session or two dissolve faster than an Alka-Seltzer in boiling water I am usually happier for the players than I am annoyed for myself.

If someone were to do something *actually* game-breaking then I'd certainly consider flexing my Rule 0 muscles, but because I've made a habit over the years of constantly giving out the message that the players' fun is as much the responsibility of the other players as it is my own, they've not actually p*ssed on my bonfire for a long, long time.

"Game-breaking" isn't the reason I started doing it, funnily enough. I started doing it because I was fed up of being held to account for players making the game Not Fun for others when the people doing the whining would have objected strenuously if I'd interfered with *their* plans. At that point, I had a long talk with my group and made the responsibility for Fun as much everyone else's as it is mine.

If I suspect that a player is thinking of laying on some serious cheese I'll gently remind them of their responsibility to the other players without telling them *not* to do anything. New players get introduced to this idea very quickly, and quite often without me having to say a word.

Like - I suspect - a lot of DM's here, I'm all in favour of the players coming up with clever ways to shaft my adventures, provided that:

1) They don't actually ruin the game for everyone else
2) They don't actually render the game unplayable due to their exploits

Those things are Not Fun!

[shirak]

First Rule of Gaming in my tables is: Don't be a dick.


Worked wonderfully so far.

[Amra]

Yeah, I guess that would be a reasonable capsule summary of my policies!

[shirak]

1182421492[/unixtime]]Yeah, I guess that would be a reasonable capsule summary of my policies!

The Second Rule of Gaming is: Keep It Simple Stupid!

[User3]

-GMs who make a custom prestige class for their buddies and only their buddies.
-Said custom prestige class being broken to the level of making epic spellcasting look sane.
-Multiple sessions of the GM refusing to do anything about it, even though the character with it is wiping out the boss in 2 rounds while the other characters sit around with dumb looks on their face 'cause they can't penetrate its SR or DR.

[RandomCasualty]

I personally find the whole idea of reducing social interaction to just a single diplomacy or bluff roll or whatever to be very not fun.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Sure, but that doesn't automatically make social skills bunk.

-Des

[Crissa]

...And unfair GMs aren't fun. I don't think specifity in this matter changes anything, it's still a crappy GM.

-Crissa

[tzor]

1183225881[/unixtime]]I personally find the whole idea of reducing social interaction to just a single diplomacy or bluff roll or whatever to be very not fun.

I tend to agree, but the emphaisis, for me, is on the "single." I like to compare social interaction with combat. Would the idea of resolving combat with a single roll sound "fun?" ("Fighter, you encounter a dragon, make a roll ... you win the dragon dies.") The ideal (for me) social interaction system would work a lot like combat, at a more atomic level. In combat you don't go about with the neuances of every sword swing, but etablish a comfortable level (the 6 second round) where you can apply tactics and come up with a result via a roll.

The same needs to be true for social interaction. It has to be done at a reasonable level. "Tactics" need to have an important part in the outcome of the result but there needs to be a random and character based function as well.

Granted with the lack of detailed social interaction rules this requires a lot of seat of the pants judgements on the part of the DM, but then again I recall in 1E we had to do a lot of that in the combat rules when someone came up with an interesting combat tactic. Some people like pure solid "role play" with regards to social interactions. But that causes two major potential problems in my opinion; it gives the potential to move the game from the social ability of the character to the social ability of the player, and it relies heavily on the whim and mood of the DM.

[shirak]

1183384922[/unixtime]]

1183225881[/unixtime]]I personally find the whole idea of reducing social interaction to just a single diplomacy or bluff roll or whatever to be very not fun.

I tend to agree, but the emphaisis, for me, is on the "single." I like to compare social interaction with combat. Would the idea of resolving combat with a single roll sound "fun?" ("Fighter, you encounter a dragon, make a roll ... you win the dragon dies.") The ideal (for me) social interaction system would work a lot like combat, at a more atomic level. In combat you don't go about with the neuances of every sword swing, but etablish a comfortable level (the 6 second round) where you can apply tactics and come up with a result via a roll.

The same needs to be true for social interaction. It has to be done at a reasonable level. "Tactics" need to have an important part in the outcome of the result but there needs to be a random and character based function as well.

Granted with the lack of detailed social interaction rules this requires a lot of seat of the pants judgements on the part of the DM, but then again I recall in 1E we had to do a lot of that in the combat rules when someone came up with an interesting combat tactic. Some people like pure solid "role play" with regards to social interactions. But that causes two major potential problems in my opinion; it gives the potential to move the game from the social ability of the character to the social ability of the player, and it relies heavily on the whim and mood of the DM.

Exalted 2 tried to do that. While the attempt was good, it had a lot of problems. The best social interaction system I have seen so far was that of WotG:

Any successful social "attack" gives you a conditional bonus or penalty. You, as a player, choose whether to act accordingly or not. If you accordingly with the bonus, you get it. If you don't act according to the penalty, you get it. They also handled Divination and magic the same way. At the same time this matches my expectations and gives a lot of leeway.

[RandomCasualty]

1183384922[/unixtime]] Some people like pure solid "role play" with regards to social interactions. But that causes two major potential problems in my opinion; it gives the potential to move the game from the social ability of the character to the social ability of the player, and it relies heavily on the whim and mood of the DM.

Yeah, it certainly does have those problems, though I still tend to find it more fun.

The part where the DM ignores everything you say and just says "Make a diplomacy check" is a real fun killer to me.

[Amra]

I tend to use Diplomacy checks when:

1) The situation is just too weird and alien for the player to deal with, although it might be meat and drink for their character; nine times out of ten I'll be asked in this situation "Can I just make a Diplomacy check, please?"

2) Occasionally when a character is intervening in a discussion between two others; whether that's two NPC's or a PC and an NPC.

3) When a player has just REALLY inserted their pedal extremity into their vocal orifice... Sometimes they just forget stuff from one session to the next and say something they absolutely weren't supposed to, at which point it's often fair to give them a Diplomacy check rather than back-and-fill five minutes' worth of conversation or have the NPC react badly. Of course, this only applies if they *meant* to be conciliatory; last Thursday the PC with the highest Diplomacy was deliberately needling a powerful NPC who was trying to keep his emotions in check, which is a use of the skill you don't see every day!

My rule of thumb is: let the player do the talking. If in my view they've just said something that's likely to produce the opposite effect of what they intended, get them to roll the dice.

[Judging__Eagle]

1183389682[/unixtime]]I tend to use Diplomacy checks when:

1) The situation is just too weird and alien for the player to deal with, although it might be meat and drink for their character; nine times out of ten I'll be asked in this situation "Can I just make a Diplomacy check, please?"

2) Occasionally when a character is intervening in a discussion between two others; whether that's two NPC's or a PC and an NPC.

3) When a player has just REALLY inserted their pedal extremity into their vocal orifice... Sometimes they just forget stuff from one session to the next and say something they absolutely weren't supposed to, at which point it's often fair to give them a Diplomacy check rather than back-and-fill five minutes' worth of conversation or have the NPC react badly. Of course, this only applies if they *meant* to be conciliatory; last Thursday the PC with the highest Diplomacy was deliberately needling a powerful NPC who was trying to keep his emotions in check, which is a use of the skill you don't see every day!

My rule of thumb is: let the player do the talking. If in my view they've just said something that's likely to produce the opposite effect of what they intended, get them to roll the dice.

You're a kind DM.

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





Only to have the un-fanatic NPC decide to commit suicide.

[Amra]

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.

[Catharz]

1183398770[/unixtime]]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.

That's why you use Bluff against fanatics. Their lack of rationality makes them incapable of distinguishing truth from fantasy, and therefore highly susceptible to irrational arguments.