Current background running TTRPG process as I run errands today.
At what point do you go from "this Negative Status is unfun" to "the player is complaining because something negative happened to them".
- He/him
Tabletop, video games, sports and maybe someday some other things if I get the ambition to learn.
You must log in to comment.
in reply to @Jama's post:
I try to evaluate it along the lines of “What does removing that status look like?” If the status doesn’t have a way to clear it then I’m sympathetic but if the consequence was communicated beforehand and the player is getting cold feet, I’m less sympathetic.
I'm also thinking like the levels of Harm in a Forged in the Dark game and stuff like that too.
Stun sucks, sure, but sometimes I wonder if every negative condition, even something like Disadvantage, gets that treatment.
That also turns into, "Is this providing a challenge or just creating mindless busywork?"
Gonna second having a clear way to remove a condition goes a long way toward mitigating complaints.
Some of it feels like it boils down to knowing the player. Are they complaining about a lot of stuff but still showing up, saying they're having fun, etc.? Are they pretty clearly upset but possibly afraid to say anything? You know, all that difficult to do "Read the mood" stuff that is attendant to running a game.
Might be the sort of thing to add to a session zero or end-of-adventure debrief document. "What sort of things ruin a game night for you?" If they complain about one or two things, like stun, you can address that. If they complain about everything, maybe that's a signal to figure out if they really want to play the game.
Players tend to have fun when conditions don't lobotomize their gameplan. They tend to not have fun when it does.
This is why I like grappled states where not breaking free right away is sometimes optimal. Disadvantage can be fun and tense too since it changes the "what should I do" calculus.
It does obv depend on the player. My players are absolute freaks who mainline the hardest weirdo challenge modes in Risk of Rain 2 and enjoy watching characters die tragically, so "bad for character" and "bad for player" aren't as attached and they're used to bullshit
Like, true grapples/stuns suck because they remove all actual agency from the player while stuff moves on. But throw in a 5e-ass Charm (can't directly damage target until target hits them first) and suddenly you're providing an opportunity for engaging out-of-the-box gameplay
Lancer grapple is cool because it's just "immobilized that you have to break free of", so if you want to fire your gun you can, taking the penalty for firing when next to someone, or you can bash with melee or hack or whatever with no penalty. It's not a total "removed from the equation" maneuver, but great for disrupting movement plans.
We're running this into our Lancer game, and I think the unilateral consensus is "the worst Status is the one that makes you lose a turn" or gets close enough to that. When its something you can wrestle against - Poison or Burn, Slow or Freeze, Dizzy or Jammed - you still feel somewhat in control, still got options. But losing your turn is more of "you don't get to play for ~20 minutes".
And then there's the corollary: One of the players is specifically going into a Talent build that let's her attack without using an "Attack". As in, with a Quick Action that's not explicitly Skirmish/Barrage and the action is not designed as an "Attack". That means the only way to stop her from using it is with the Negative Status "Stunned", which explicitly fits the above conditions of "you lose your turn"
Of course we all talked about this, and she agrees that it is fair for enemies to have is, especially considering how its not easily applied. I've also motioned to the GM that I want to face enemies that can apply Shredded to melt down my Armor and Resistances, so we are a party that wants to face some challenges to begin with.