Bad Wrong Fun
I know that this will come as an unpleasant shock, but there are people out there who like things. And some of those things? They’re things that you don’t like. For a dramatic presentation on the topic, I turn to ProZD [NSFW, language].
If we’re to have any kind of productive discussion though, this leaves us with a bit of a pickle. On the one hand there’s taste. When it comes to personal preference, I’m not automatically wrong for choosing strawberry instead of chocolate. This gets complicated though when I’ve never so much as tried chocolate. How can I possibly have an informed opinion if I’m ignorant of all my options?
“As far as I’m concerned, the 7.5th edition of Tunnels and Trolls is the pinnacle of gaming.”
“Have you tried 8th ed. though? I mean sure it’s only available in French, but it improves on several key elements of–”
“PINNACLE. OF. GAMING!”
*inarticulate screeching noises*
I’ve got some sympathy for both viewpoints here. It’s hard to watch somebody slice pizza with a dirty spork knowing that there’s a perfectly good Sani-Safe P177A Pizza Cutter with Polypropylene Handle in the drawer. By the same token, you’ll have to pry my favorite spork from my cold, dead hands. I’ve used it for years. It’s ergonomic. It’s multi-functional, gods dammit!
Somewhere between the strawberries, the pizza cutters, and the inarticulate screeching, we might have lost track of the point. What I’m really getting at here is that all the things we talk about one this comic (e.g. whether DMPCS are ever acceptable; if magic item shops are a good thing; how we ought to handle trap spotting, etc.) are subject to opinion. Different groups will come to different conclusions, and there is never “one true way to game.” That’s why I frame all these blog posts as questions. I know that I’ve got my opinion, but I actually want to hear yours. If we’re lucky we’ll learn something from one another in the process.
So if you happen to see a trio of dragons out in the wild, and if they’re enjoying bad-wrong-PVP shenanigans, let them have their fun. Maybe share a few stories of your own. Let them know that there are other styles in the wide world of gaming. But don’t tell them that their game is horrible and that you’d quit such a campaign and that dragon PCs are unbalanced anyway. That’s not going to win any converts. We all love our hobby, and it’s possible to love it in different ways and for different reasons.
Question of the day then. What sets off your personal “that’s bad-wrong-fun” alarm? Do you think it’s possible for a group to enjoy that kind of bad-wrong-fun despite its downsides? Let’s hear it in the comments!
EARN BONUS LOOT! Check out the The Handbook of Heroes Patreon. We’ve got a sketch feed full of Laurel’s original concept art. We’ve got early access to comics. There’s physical schwag, personalized art, and a monthly vote to see which class gets featured in the comic next. And perhaps my personal favorite, we’ve been hard at work bringing a thrice monthly NSFW Handbook of Erotic Fantasy comic to the world! So come one come all. Hurry while supplies of hot elf chicks lasts!
Discussion (61) ¬
I genuinely hate it whenever people try to describe their Goliaths as having tattoos, and other things like that. If you take all of the lore from a race and make it different, you’re not really playing that thing, you’re playing “personal-game THING(tm)” (In this case, you’re just playing a “tall human”). Especially in a game as lore-heavy as 3.5 (and to a lesser extent, Pathfinder)(and to much lesser an extent, 5E), I see no reason to just replace it with your own just for the sake of saying “my elves are different”.
And yet, I also understand that D&D can be used in a modular way, and there are other ways that people can enjoy having fun. If a group wants to play Rise of the Runelords with a Ratling, a Vanara, a Skinwalker, a Triaxian, and an Orang-Pendak (three these races would be the only of its kind in Varisia), then go ahead.
I hope I understood this prompt.
‘goliaths with tatoos’ reminds me of one game i was in (shadowrun i think) in which someone described themselves as ‘an albino black guy’ or someone who had a gargoyle that took the stigmata feat.
Erm…actually, black people can be albino. They’ll have the same facial features and hair type of someone African but the skin and hair will be incredibly light instead of the usual brown skin.
…or was the player deliberately trying to make a contradictory character?
it was the latter. he was a bit younger though so we just rolled with it. the game lasted maybe 2 sessions at any rate XD and oddly enough one of they other players was also playing an albino, so we had two.
For our Rise of the Runelords game our GM was quite clear “If you play a non-core race you will be very unusual, possibly the only one of your race that anyone in Varisia has ever seen”. On that basis I went for a Varisian human, and another player played a gnome.
Our other two players are a Hobgoblin and a Gathlain. After the intro our GM gave us I’m surprised that there’s been no real consequences for those choices, but letting it happen has lead to some really fun moments so why not?
Yeah, I had a GM suggest that we should be races more common to that region. The only two deviations were a Tengu and a Ratling, both of which were not really “extremely rare” and more just “uncommon or rare”. There really aren’t any consequences because both characters are social (in a rolling sense) enough to offset the issues.
Naw man, I think you understood perfectly. Ignoring setting lore grinds your gears. As Jarric points out though, unconventional character choices can lead to fun moments. There is a tension between an internally consistent world on the one hand and player agency on the other. I can respect either end of that continuum, but choosing one or the other in a given game might require compromise.
Myself, I do not enjoy the PvPs.
Or the GMPCs.
Or more subtle nuanced stuff like feeling as if the GM just did something unfair (I mean, this seems to irk me a bit more than other people or I’m a bit more sensitive to it as far as I can tell).
Or people being too strict about mechanical things that honestly shouldn’t matter. (For example I pretty much always ask GMs for 5e if we can houserule being able to rearrange race stats to whatever stats you want so we don’t see the same races as the same classes forever and ever and ever and yet this gets flat out rejected hard without a second thought like I had asked to start with an artifact or something unreasonable. But on a more likely relatable version of this, I don’t like it when GMs do “Core Only” games for no particular thematic reason even years after the game has come out.)
Well here’s the challenge of today’s question: Can you think of any reasons why a GM would NOT want to allow rearranging race stats?
In 5e, there isn’t to much to be done for optimisation. As such, while a gnomish wizard would be more powerful than, say, a dragonborn wizard, the power gap wouldn’t be much.
Also, there’s sub races, along with the fact that most stats have other purposes. So, you could play an elf barbarian, and the dex bonus will still be handy. You could then play one of the elf sub races that give you a wisdom bonus (to stop domination) or a constitution bonus (for health).
Finally, the DM might be worried that you’ve found a way to abuse it.
If you asked me about rearranging stats… I wouldn’t let you just choose, as that would change to feel of a race. However, I would creature a sub race of particularly (insert stat here) (insert race here) who came about because (insert backstory here).
So you would allow a player to make up their own subrace but not say that their character was an atypical member of their race… which is about the same as saying “my character is a player character”? That strikes me as odd.
I will agree there’s not a ton to be done for optimization in 5e (compared to other editions), but being able to be good at the things you want to be good at is still important enough to enough people that I barely ever see Dragonborn anything except Paladins for example.
Colin, I can think of all sorts of reasons. They’re just not ones I feel to be good reasons.
If the stats on your elf are going to wind up as Str: 8, Dex: 14, Con: 16, Int: 12, Chr: 20 or such….. does it really matter that the 14 Dex came from a roll result as is and not a roll result with a +2 modifier from the race on top? And does anyone really believe that it is impossible for there to exist a single clumsy elf with a Dex of 8 who also devoted themselves to swinging around a longsword (which elves are all proficient in even though it’s not a finesse weapon so like…. how/why are they all proficient in it if none of them are supposed to be strong rather than dexterous?) and wound up with a Str of 18? I find that hard to believe.
Or am I suppose to believe some nonsense argument that the clumsy character would have been MORE clumsy as another race?
This is my first time doing an internet rant, so I would like to apologise in advance if I offend you, I am merely stating my view point.
It’s the stat roll that makes PCs atypical. Commoners have stats around ten, however PCs typically have abilities far above ten. I do see what you mean about so people being naturally strong, or smarter, or wiser than other people, but from my point of view, that would be reflected by their stat rolls, not by the fact that are of a particular race. For instance, I once played an orc wizard. While his race wan’t particularly good at wizardry, through pure, non-racial luck, he also happened to be particularly smart (reflected by his natural 17). As such, I played a 15 intelligence wizard, earning ability score increases to overcome my natural disability.
Also, I do believe that there are elves that rolled a 6+2 for dex; however, had they been humans, it would have instead been 6+1, which means that the elf would be slightly less clumsy than the human.
I, uh, hope that I didn’t offend anyone. Were not at the same group, anyway, so it’s not likely that this conversation is going to be of any import, save for perhaps changing my or your opinions.
So if I’m hearing this correctly, it sounds like we’ve got a conflict between simulation and player agency here.
Simulation: “Some races are naturally better/worse at X than others.”
Player Agency: “That’s arbitrary! Why am I always at a handicap if I want to play an unconventional race/class combination? You’re artificially restricting my options!”
From my point of view, it sounds as if we have to weight which is more important to a good game: protecting the integrity of a game world, or permitting an individual player to realize a creative vision. That seems like exactly the sort of question that will come down to individual preference.
Don’t worry. Not offended at all. I just don’t share your viewpoint.
I don’t get the whole “integrity of the world” argument. The characters inside the world can’t see your stat numbers. In character you are unlikely to be able to tell the difference between someone with a 16 and an 18 or a 6 and an 8. The numbers really only matter for the sake of the mechanics.
And honestly, having outliers is a lot more realistic than a race being homogeneous. We’re talking about racial tendencies towards some strengths or another, unless I’m mistaken and part of the setting has ever including deities intervening in the outcome of every individual to make sure they fit within race standards.
Let’s be honest. If Wizards of the Coast released 6th edition tomorrow and their new Elves had +2 Charisma, +1 Wisdom based on the argument that elves are pretty and their long lives make them more inclined to have a more wise outlook on things or whatever… would people really argue it?
I think not. And if not, why is their arbitrary decision about an entire race more important than my not arbitrary decision about what I want for a character? The game designers aren’t the people playing with us and needing to enjoy the outcome of strict adherence to their rules. I don’t see the value in doing what they say even when doing otherwise has a positive effect on the game.
I agree with you that it makes more sense having outliers amongst a race then all members of a race being too similar. Conversely though it really annoys me that both 5e and Pathfinder, amongst other TRPGs, describe humans as being “highly varied” and are unable to just nail their colours to the mast and say “humans are good at x”.
My question however would be why would you want to play an orc wizard, or an elf barbarian, if you’re not taking their stats? If whenever you play a wizard it always has an identical stat array it seems to me that it takes something away from choosing a different race in the first place.
On the other hand if because you’re playing an orc wizard you start with a below-average (for a wizard) intelligence of 15 and an above-average (again for a wizard) strength of 13, I think that’s really interesting. Is that going to affect your choices on how you play and build the character? Will it open up decisions which you never would have considered if you had standard elf wizard stats? The character is certainly still playable with those stats, and whilst you lose raw power you’re gaining an interesting puzzle to solve with your character.
I think the varialbe human thing has to do with plot. I think it would be interesting if humans were a non-dominant species in a setting, and so gained a mono-culture while somebody else (dragonborn, say) became the ones with floating modifiers.
I would say the thing that irks me most in dnd, is when people play sterotypical chaotic evil characters. This includes characters that they say aren’t such, like people claiming to be neutral and saying that means they can do horrid stuff as long as they dont go out of their way to hurt people, or true neutral characters who say they are trying to balance the world between evil and good, law and chaos, when what that often means is that there character doesn’t actually care about anyone or anything, switches sides on a whim, and will gladly commit horrifically evil acts to counteract the good acts of others, which means they are just evil. Stupid lawful can also get a bit into this territory often. Of course, while i may hate it, if a group of people have fun just goofing off with these types of character, thats great, its wonderful that they are having fun. I just don’t want any of those in any game i’m in.
I think your thought process is valuable in this discussion. In terms of form:
I think that can lead to more productive discourse than “you guys suck and your game is dumb.”
I guess i only mind that sort of thing if it’s like, one person in a group acting like that. this is a group activity and should have some cohesiveness and similar tastes amongst everyone involved. either everyone is playing something silly together, or everyone is playing something a tad more serious.
seriousness level (and i suppose powerlevel and amount of houseruling) i think should be fit into the social contract of any given group’s game night. personally i find it hard to stay invested in the silly stuff for long periods of time so i think those are great for one-offs but i can’t imagine a campaign like that. then again i knew someone who had a monster-based campaign that was actually a bit serious and could have some REALLY WHACK stuff. it was pretty ok because it typically only took a dozen or so sessions to play out so the weirdness never got too weird and it was fun playing your fave monsters and feeling high powered (yes we had someone play a dragon in at least one of those games)
more on said campaign- a powerful world npc had a private island sanctuary for non-standard (read- good aligned) versions of various creatures that would generally be attacked on sight by ‘normal’ people but just wanted to live a chill life. this was a shorter, higher-powered campaign with starting ECL of 15 in 3.5 dnd so depending on your monster you could have character levels too. i played this campaign 3 times- first i was a celestial template wereleapord monk, secondly as a psionic alicorn (unicorn with winged template. also this guy’s world had HEAVY houserules for psionics), and last but certainly not least was my fave.
we all collaborated in char creation to make it look like there was only one guy in the party (a normal lookin guy) who talked to himself/his equipment. so the one guy played a normal lvl 15 human, one person played a will-o-wisp that stayed kind of globbed onto him (not sure if setting-specific or actual MM, but wisps fed off of emotions in this world and their bodies were kind of spongy under the ghostfire), we had a ragamoffyn bard that was his cape/family heirloom (he was a riot) and i was a imp wizard that hid in his hood and threw spells over his shoulder. myself n the wisp chucked spells with wild abandon while staying pretty safe and the cape gave us all crazy bard bonuses and i think the human was a ranger or fighter so he was pretty good at normal combat himself but mustve looked pretty epic with a cape billowing in the wind hacking down enemies whilst his breastplate chucked lightning bolts and he sort of looked like he had scorching ray eye beams.
I’m not sure I agree here. As you said, it’s not too difficult to tolerate different tastes in short-form games. For example, if you participated in organized play or convention one-shots the style demands compromise. I think it’s possible in longer campaigns as well though. Your real-life friends often dictate your fellow party members more than your tastes, and in that case you’re trading a campaign tailored to your aesthetic for social connections. Both have value. I don’t think you can have a correct solution there, only one that you personally prefer.
More importantly though, the “one guy” party sounds freaking awesome and I want to play in the campaign.
i suppose the social aspect at the time didn’t bother me too much because back then i was in several gaming groups, each with a different party dynamic based on the real people behind them. i was always more of a flexible/filler type person anyhow, so i had a lot of outlet for many different types of characters. i can play silly x on tuesday, serious biz on wednesday, and something in between on friday, and a rando on the weekend. not to mention the floating games that moved or met less often based on conflicting player schedules. i guess having an outlet for those is a tad more difficult with only one group of friends to game with.
I think this is a great example of the challenge of finding universally “correct ways to game.” We start with very different assumptions, and when we’re talking in short bursts of text online, those assumptions are almost always unspoken. In this case, the big difference is whether or not you have easy access to multiple groups with multiple styles.
During one of the discussions I was either reading or taking part in about alignment, morality, and how classes that required certain aspects of those to maintain their abilities should act, I saw someone state the belief that if you picked a Paladin, you WANTED to be repeatedly challenged with difficult moral quandaries. Stuff so borderline you’d basically be flipping a coin to figure out what solution the DM would declare you had managed to avoid falling, THIS TIME. I hated that, because it sounded like you were making the player have to fight against the GM to avoid character-implosion, instead of the character having to play against the world. But clearly either this individual liked it or had played with people who had liked it, or maybe that was just how he got his jollies as a GM.
Which maybe brings up another question we could discuss in a future episode- what do GMs consider the most fun in these types games?
I don’t think I’d want to play that type of paladin myself, but I can see how there’s an interesting parallel between player experience and character experience in that setup. If you want to go the route of morally agonized PC, forever questioning what “the right thing to do” truly is, then it’s no fun if the GM is perfectly transparent about what will cause you to fall. Uncertainty makes for a more immersive experience in that case, allowing the player to more easily crawl inside the head of her PC and figure out how they really feel.
In any case, I think that player might have been better served by saying, “When I play a paladin, I like to be challenged with difficult moral quandaries.” It’s much easier to accept “some people may find this fun” than “this is the only way to play that game.”
Could you expand on your “what do GMs consider the most fun in these types games” question? Do you mean in terms of moral quandary games or “what do GMs enjoy in general?”
Regarding GMs- either/or. You get a lot of discussion from and about players, but much less from the GM’s perspective. I think it would be interesting to hear about people’s experiences from the other side of the dice, so to speak.
I believe I made one joke early on with a voice-from-the-sky…
https://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/the-handbook-of-heroes-12
…But that style of “Charlie Brown talking to teachers” didn’t feel quite right to me. In other words, it’s hard to illustrate a GM when the comic only exists in-world.
That’s why I’m trying to groom Quest Giver as a sort of GM stand-in:
https://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/hooks
It’s a thankless job, but somebody has to do it.
Concerning Strange Races, they can really be fun, though it always pays to have at least one Token Human in the Party. I for example play an AI in Shadowrun, who is a Rigger, with a Roadsmaster turned Tank, and a small Army of humanoid kill Bots. He is sowhere between Proto and Metasapient when it comes to Intelligence.
On his last Run, he was Walking into a Bar (to meet the J) with one of his Bots. This Bot was acually a Human looking Bot, since he understood (by now) that humans are kinda creeped out by his Combat Bots. Now, of course he took the cheapest Drone. Which was a Child-Drone. Sadly with a very good Perception throw the Barkeeper saw right through him, and told him, No Bots allowd, that raises the Static/Noise.
He kept insisting that, that he needed to meet Someone here, but the Barkeeper just told him to get out, still friendly if quite a bit creeped out. He stood there for good 5 Minutes thinking about what to do, since for once he can’t shoot his way through. It was a very Strange expierence for him. In the Ende he sent the Johnsen a message, and was let in through the back door.
It was like: Obstacle Identified. Loading Kill-Codes, Preparing Combat Drones. Processes terminated. Killing/Nonlethal takedown are prohibited.
Processing,…
Processing,…
It often leads to Hilarous situations when the others Explain to him, why he can’t just Shoot his way trough. Spotted Target in a Crowd? Preparing to Fire Crime Kannon. Other Runners: NO!
The straight man can be a thankless job, but in the proper hands it’s great fun in its own right. Laurel is especially good at it. Lately she seems to specialize in neurotic characters that shout at all the weirdos, “You people are insane!” It’s much less fun being a weirdo if no one calls you on it.
Let’s be honest here: If you choose strawberry over chocolate you are automatically wrong aboot everything ever. You have to turn over your opinion license until you can prove you can have responsible opinions.
I only think “Bad Wrong Fun” comes up when someone is doing something detrimental to everyone else’s fun. PvP at a table where people weren’t down for it is a common example. As is stealing from others.
I had a Bard whose spells all corresponded to snippets of classic rock songs I sang at the table. (Feather fall: Free falling, Hold Person/Monster: Under pressure, Any healing spell: Living on a prayer, Confusion: Crazy Train/Back at the funny farm) etc. but I asked the rest of the table before I played him because not everyone wants to hear that. Thankfully I’m a pretty good singer.
Thats basicaly probably the most important golden rule of any role playing game after all. If it ruins everyone elses fun, don’t do it.
I think that the idea of bad wrong fun can extend beyond the immediate group. Telling somebody that that they’re an idiot for enjoying 1e instead of playing a modern game gets into it.
I dislike PvP and character optimisation is not something I find interesting. I’m really into the roleplay aspects of the game, so if people I’m playing with want or expect optimisation I’m not above asking them to build a character for me to play. When they expect combat to be optimised, I retreat into my shell and just ask them what they think my character should do. I’m that not into it.
I don’t like to tell them they’re wrong though, as I feel I ought to respect what they enjoy even if they don’t respect my fun as much as I’d like.
Probably worth pointing out that “enjoying the roleplay aspects” does not mean doing dumb stuff “because my character would”. I like to play sensibly but within the context of the world, my character’s place in it, and the constraints imposed by the DM. So leaping into a bandit camp I’ve just encountered would be unlikely, but leaping into battle with shadowy assassins to help a member of the town guard might not.
This line is interesting to me:
It seems like you’ve got a positive mental attitude, and are willing to game with different types. I’m curious whether you feel like it ever goes the other way though? I mean, once combat is joined, do you ever feel as if the combat monkeys at the table might silently say to themselves, “Geeze, I wish Tom was more into this part of the game. It just feels like he shuts down when combat starts. It sucks some of the fun out of the experience.”
…?
What I’m getting at is this: How would you like those combat monkeys to better demonstrate their respect for your style of gaming? Do you think you could adopt any of those strategies yourself?
I really enjoy being able to deal with the situation as a scenario rather than a tactical problem. For example, luring the orc group away by faking hobbit noises and rustling branches rather than seeing the orcs as stat blocks to defeat.
The problem with this is usually not with my friends but with the rules. My friends typically think it’s pretty cool that at least some of the orcs get spoofed and the DM typically plays along as much as possible. But it’s amazing how often that leads to “you get XP for killing orcs, you get XP for killing orcs, you didn’t kill any orcs so no XP for you”.
Or the other problem. I enjoy RPG combat in itself, rolling dice, keeping track of bonuses, HPs, ACs, cover, and the like is fun. But being told that I should stop using the frying pan that I’ve been whacking things with since Level 0 because you get more plusses with something else is sad. I find it worse when the reason – the only reason – to abandon my trusty weapon is “because otherwise you won’t be able to help with the tougher monsters that are coming up”.
It feels to me like the need for optimisation is driven by a concept that the world gets tougher at a set rate: you can fall behind that rate or creep ahead of it. In a tabletop game there is no reason for this to be the case, because the DM can literally modify every combat on the fly to keep it as lethal or otherwise as desired.
…
I have definitely felt that I might be sucking fun out of the game for my friends. That’s not at all what I want, so when I find I’m in an optimisation-heavy game I actively get their help to recommend which options to take, upgrade paths, and combat actions. A few notes and flowcharts go a long way.
Playing a different ruleset could work, but I have friends who have bought a lot of material and I respect that’s a major investment. Likewise tweaking the rules could help but that in turn leads to the concerns of effects on the game.
I think the thing I would consider “bad wrong fun” the most is “slapstick”. That is, playing dumb characters doing dumb things, or playing serious characters to which dumb things happen anyway.
Thinking about it, I see two mains reasons. The first is that I find it… tiring. Slapsticks often sees quick escalation. One minute you’re getting your cape stuck in the tavern door, loosing your balance and stepping on a rake that was there because reason, and the next you’re accidentaly tripping at a royal banquet, shoving several people aside and provoking an international accident when a forks flies off, ricochet off the king’s belt buckle (causing his pants to go down) and hits a diplomat in the eye. It never stops.
The second is that I like epic games. I like playing heroes that go on a quest to save the world (or maybe just get rich), fighting horrible monsters and braving many other terrible dangers along the way. And slapstick is basically the opposite of that.
However, I can totally see why some people like that. Heck, I like reading stories about people goofing about myself. But as a player, no thank you.
Is it slapstick you dislike, or slapstick being inserted clumsily into a game that was pitched as epic fantasy?
I enjoy humor in games (the existence of this comic might have been a clue), but I think there’s a big difference between intentional comedy games and inappropriate humor. For example, I’ve just started watching Disenchantment, and it’s activating some of that “I want to play Toon” instinct in my primitive lizard brain. Bringing Toon silliness into a Cthulhu game, however, seems like an awful idea.
You’ve probably heard of my usual rants of this sort of thing regarding races and class so I won’t go over those, but here’s something that grinds my gears though I have been guilty of it myself: cheesy tactics.
This is the bag of holding shenanigans, the “break the economy with crafting” plots, and generally the reason why commoners don’t like wizards. One example that still haunts me to this day due to the conflicts that arose was when our party of level three peeps were playing in the Lost Mines campaign. I won’t spoil too much but at some point we were going to fight a young dragon. Now of course we could always run, and we’ve already stolen his treasure so we didn’t really need to even go after it, but everyone wanted to slay it (and those who didn’t we free to stay behind).
What was wrong however was that I knew we didn’t stand a chance against the dragon in a straight up fight, so I was going to use some dirty tactics. This wasn’t going to be an epic tale of how our scrappy heroes overcame the odds and punched above their weightclass. Nay, it was just a quick and dirty assassination against a sleeping dragon.
What I did was have the party barbarian drink a potion of fly as I enlarge him. Then I had him empty an entire bag of holding’s worth of 1lbs whetstones onto the dragon from 100 feet in the air. One whey stone would only do 1d6 damage, but due to how the bag of holding works, when turned upside down EVERYTHING falls out at once. 100d6 points of bludgeoning damage to the sleeping young dragon.
My GM wasn’t sure if he should grant the full EXP for slaying the dragon due to this tactic. He knew it was a thing that could be done, in fact we both were both in the same game as players when we first witness this tactic. Other players felt rather disdapointed at how anticlimactic the fight was and how t was mostly just me and the barbarian. Even the barbarian wasn’t sure why she even had to be the one to do it (allowing her to fly while still being large was a contingency in case the Dragon was still alive, this way she could still fight it).
Even I admitted that if we were stronger I wouldn’t have used this tactic and done a more interesting fight. But we were too weak. My character was a smart man who didn’t care for honor just results. And he needed to keep his people alive and to slay a dragon. This isn’t a tale to tell in the story books but no one can deny the results. Maybe next time the dragon would find a cave to sleep in instead.
For the bag of holding thing, I feel like I’d let them get away with it exactly once. Then word might spread around evil dragon communities and other predatorial types that the cheese was happening again, and everyone would somehow acquire Protection from Arrows as they slumbered, at least until the party stopped doing it.
Yeah, it’s definateky going to be a “it only works once” sort of deal. Frankly even if my GM would allow it to happen again, the only reason I even utilized this plan was because we had a lot of advantages in our side; we knew where the dragon slept, when he slept, and had a fairly open area to do this. That and a bag of holding; if our GM didn’t give us that the. This plan would never work, or at the very least it’s be harder to pull off. Even so,I only used this plan because doing a straight fight wouldn’t be fair for us as players either, though in that case it would be our fault for punching above our weightclass.
But then again that’s the crux of this problem isn’t it? It’s like when a GM says he spent weeks planning an encounter and plot that gets trivialized in about two or three rounds of combat. Though in this instance it wasn’t just luck and a powerful move on our side, or at least I’d hope not. A little bit of prep and planning can go a long way between “we made it out like bandits” and “I was the sole survivor”.
You may recall my take on cheesy tactics back here:
https://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/wish-bound
When you’re the one perpetrating shenanigans, I think it’s all about reading the room. If folks wound up disappointed by an anticlimactic fight — and if you knew that was a risk going in — maybe a different play was in order? I don’t know what the level split between your party and the dragon’s CR looked like, but sneaking everyone into the lair to auto-crit the unconscious dragon with melee attacks could have evened the playing field dramatically without the cheese. After all, a surprise round is the strongest buff in the game.
The Bad-Wrong-Fun bar is pretty low for me, assuming that the group evolves until everyone at the table is cool with it. This naturally happens over time, where you find the group that suits you. It’s even faster with stuff like r/lfg.
But then you have F.A.T.A.L. and all the sincere worry from the people that read it over the condition of the minds of its creators. That’s a reasonable standard of “What not to allow in the community, ever.”
It’s not even the system, which is absurd but maybe some people are really about rolling for various circumferences, so if they can find a group for that, super. It’s the glorification and promotion of culturally reprehensible topics. The delineation centers more around Intent than Content.
When human rights abuses enter into the conversation, I think it’s fair to call that out.
…
Ugh. F.A.T.A.L. *shudder*
I wouldn’t be able to accept intra-party theft. However, in-game my reaction would be based off of my character.
Out of game, I would be extremely annoyed and would want to have a nice, long talk with the player.
I’ve haven’t been playing long enough to see what sets of my bad-wrong-fun alarms. Sure, I’ve gotten annoyed at my friends rulings before, but not a whole lot, and so far we’ve managed to accept and compromise. The closest that we’ve come to a table breakdown, I think, was when a player introduced his new character by kidnapping me. While I was attempting to save him. The first fight his new character had was a PvP, and when I brought him down to single digits, I was just barely convincing myself to not kill him 5 minutes in. And the thanks I got for not killing him, after he attacked me? He knocked me out and brought me to his secret lair. Then revealed himself to be a mind flayer in disguise.
Now see, I would want to watch that show. Playing in that game, however…
I dunno, man. I had a similar interaction in an Exalted 2e game. I was back from the dead to avenge a murdered noble, he was a secret police type with no knowledge of the murder. We dueled for a few rounds, both got some good licks in, and then our mutual allies intervened to break it up and explain the situation. It was a solid character meeting, but only because we both knew the trope we were going for. It’s when one player brings PVP into the game out of nowhere (and without warning) that my own hackles begin to rise.
So in a word, PVP can be a good thing. If handled poorly, it can lead to IRL PVP, and that’s how Mountain Dew stains get embedded in the carpet.
I don’t see what is the problem. I mean, if the players on a group are mature then they can talk and form a consensus about their issues, tastes and expectations. Come on people, we are reasonable adults and we can talk and respect each other.
And now live from Absalom it’s pathfinder night live!!!! 🙂
And yes, this was a really bad joke.
And now lets the flame-war about taste begin!!!!
good look and may the odds be ever in your favor.
lol. your troll face is showing
Glad you realice that, because that is what i wanted. I have a soft spot for incredible lame puns, really bad jokes and trolling, i like that things and is the kind of Bad Wrong Fun some people someone has been asking around. I try to not be too annoying, but i can help it. Alas because i like trolling i smell a troll miles away, also i can detect a internet troll without problem. I think in my prideful opinion that the bad wrong fun can be a kind of trolling among the players, and here a lo of people have been saying the kind of things the don’t like and hate. Some people talks a bout immersion breaks, you-are-playing-wrong issues and even the rpg they can’t stand. That is okay. People have right to have standards, but trolls can take that standards and use them against the players. So be careful of trolls, don’t say no to the trolls, rage, fear, negation that is the path to the troll fun, say nothing instead and have fun with a good group of people. In my first comment i made a lot of bad jokes and references to see how many people come screaming in my face, or well post against me. It is good to see that none do that, that says that people recognize a troll and can avoid it. Very well done because that is the kind of mature player with you can have a serious talk abut all this issues that annoy you can find a way to avoid it. 🙂
Personally, intra-party conflict sets me off. I can put up with a lot, in my opinion, but once the party starts fighting amongst themselves, it really kills my interest in the campaign. The PCs don’t have to like each other, but they do have to work together.
And yet, I understand a lot of people enjoy that kind of campaign. To which my response is: not in my campaign. As a player, intra-party conflict is the kind of thing that will make me leave a campaign. As a DM, it’s the kind of thing I forbid out of hand.
Do you set that up in session zero? As you say, there are some people out there that thrive on intra-party conflict, and getting ahead of that issue is almost always a good idea.
Yeah, stuff like that is usually addressed during character creation. Most of the time, I don’t have to, though, because neither of my usual gaming groups are really interested in it.
… How would you even cut pizza with a spork?
The same way you cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring.
Oh, so Greater Magic Utensil to give it an enhancement bonus and then you use Mountain Hammer to add 2d6 damage and ignore DR or hardness.
Whenever someone declares that suddenly there’s a magical forcefield and I wasted a seventh level slot to figure that out and I’m a wizard with an active Detect Magic.
In short, DM BS, but also player BS where they are against metagaming until I play an evil character and they keep on trying to kill me when I haven’t done anything yet…
I am oddly mixed. I’ve mellowed a lot as I grow in my gaming career, but I think my first time experiencing a knee-jerk reaction to how someone else played was with me at the table, getting my first experience of a GMing style I didn’t learn with.
The GM made a call that was, by all accounts, rules legal. In fact, if my memory serves, it was explicitly written in the Pathfinder core. However, up to that point I had played many RPGs (GURPS, D&D, Pathfinder, and some lesser known) and had a few GMs, BUT…. ALL those GMs across all those games knew each other. Meaning I had only experienced the “rule of cool” style GMing. When I encountered this, in my opinion, tyrannical troglodyte that hated fun, I was pretty taken aback.
Since then, I don’t think there were ever times I got so severely upset. I did get a little annoyed by a murderhobo style player who not only didn’t care for the story but, in my opinion, went out of his way to derail the story. Though, his father actually confirmed that was his play style, and thus his son learned that way. Another generation, I suppose.
The solution is simple.
Thief: steal a from party But it’s what my character would do!
Party: butchers Thief IT’S WHAT OUR CHARACTERS WOULD DO.
I don’t think Wizard would let them. ;P
Well, okay. Not -the- Thief. But -a- thief. Lower case “T” here.
Capitol T Thief is precious and must be protected.
Hear hear!
I used to have a very low barrier to bad wrong fun even if i dislike it, as long as:
– It has been agreed beforehand.
– It is not some slapstick or dumbed thing inserted clumsily on a campaign it doesn’t mesh with well.
– It doesn’t get repeated till death or it gets past a certain high level of annoyance.
– It isn’t a long campaign plus i dislike the issue a lot.
But with experience i have come to get some red lines on things i do not want to see happening even if its slightest form:
1. DM or PC bullshit: this usually is, the DM actively gearing every encounter, even twisting the rules, to kill a PC, usually after that PC steamrolls a homebrewed encounter with clever playing or because of DM errors, or a PC using off-character reasons or metagame for justifying PvP.
2. Groups where the DM and one of the players are off character a couple. I know this is like the unjust flak chaotic, lawful, evil or PvP usually get, unjust because it can be done right, but my experiences have been so bad and so many that i don’t want to see it again, ever.
3. Favouring heavily a PC for OOC reasons.
Unfortunately i have experienced things that haven’t been agreed upon beforehand or that went to the point of absurd. Some examples:
1. Character actions that do not fit the agreed tone of the setting and are clumsily and repeated ad nauseaum acting in that way, breaking immersion and annoying the players, or making hard to roleplay without doing the same.
2. DM and rest of players not telling the new guy none of their home rules and preferences even after asking, till they are being applied:
– I have joined a group where i took the Merchant background from the PhB (5e), the PC was in his home city (the campaign was all in a single city so i did it to make things simpler for the DM), and had skills to support it. I showed it to him after completing it and gives the ok, but when the DM finally gives us off-encounter time and my PC goes back to his usual business he blocks all my attempts at roleplaying or even rolling it, and after i try to talk with him the most i got was that all characters are all equal and all should earn and do the same. Haggling, which is also part of the background, is banned too. Several sessions later I heard him saying something that could be summarized as ”D&D was made to only using encounters and cannot have anything else”.
– There is also OOC agreement that stealing from the group and the typical ”exploring Rogue taking a part for himself without telling” cases were Ok and had no consequences, so in character i could only rationalize that as no one else said a thing, and i could not roleplay it either, even if my character would be against it due to the alignment, high INT and decent WIS, and PhB background, apart from the PC’s personality.
It all begun when i found OOC one of the PCs stealing and all worried to help the player prevent issues if she ever moves to another group (she was fairly new at PnPRPG) send her some links to discussions about the topic, i get as a reaction that all those people on those links are toxic. What i got from all of this after some more talks is that OOC they saw no issue about stealing, so IC it was obvious there would be no roleplaying at all, blocking anything i could do both IC and OOC.
– On the same group, i asked the DM what he thought about the whole well known issue of Investigation vs Perception and INT usually being used scarcely by PCs in 5e as the character was going to be specialized in typical Rogue skills to make it easier to understand as i was the new guy and was given the reply ”don’t worry, its fine, you can specialize your character in INT and Investigation”. We have leveled up twice and i have yet had the opportunity to roll it even once, even after i did on purpose acts that needed it or on obvious uses listed in the PhB which happened in the campaign. I found out later that what he meant is that he thinks there is no issue at all, so of course Investigation is as useful as the rest, and that he consider 5e as flawless and any mention of anything being less good is met with very defensive answers and when he changes things he considers bad is because D&D is like that already.
– To summarize, i could play only one third of my character, and did not know it till i got to the point of using each part, and i don’t know which further bans and new rules are waiting for my PC. I am planning to play till the end of the campaign and act like nothing happened because they are part and the bosses of a big club i want to be part of so i cannot allow bad blood.
3. An agreed rule change each time it is used: This happened on a Mordheim campaign, where me, using Beastmen, which have restricted selection of strategies, had to rely mostly on a type of weapon, and each time it came to me playing the group decided that it was too overpowered in the middle of the game and the rules of the weapon got completely changed. To make matters hillarious each change made the weapon even more powerful in the situations they complained about and worse in the ways i used it, and even before the changes i was not winning the game. When it happened for the third time i got angry, snapped, and at least got an agreement on allowing me to reuse the gp spent on those weapons on anything else instead, but they were still bent on changing them each game again and could not understand well my reasons to not like it.
It was horrible not being able to create tactics or strategies, or long term spending choices, because i could not know if and on which ways my available options would change, so after the discussion, i pretty much killed on purpose my Beastmen on the next game and played the rest of the campaign without any drive till it ended to avoid further discussions and bad blood.