Having fun vs. Sense of entitlement


Gamer Life General Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

When running a game, where is the line drawn between things not going the way a player expects/wants, and the game not being fun anymore?

I ask because I've seen a lot of threads lately where the same sentiment seems to come up over and over: that if serious or long-term penalties afflict a PC, then (unless the GM has gone out of his way to avoid and the player still blunders into it regardless) the GM is violating the main reason the players are playing the game to begin with - to have fun.

I personally think that such major downturns are in the game for a reason - you can fall from paladinhood, your spellbook gets destroyed, (some of) your followers abandon you, etc. - and that's part of the game, and should be treated in the same manner as rolling a natural 1; you deal with it as best you can and move on. These things are not the GM's indictment of you as a player.

Moreover, there's a wide range of opinions regarding how much the GM should try to course-correct for these things happening to the PC. I'm not talking about fudging dice rolls so much as people seem to expect the GM to give the player out-of-character warnings that their PC is about to do something that will have serious consequences. This, I'm very iffy towards. Again, no one likes feeling punished, but to what degree is this a case of in-game consequences versus the commandment of "thou shalt preserve thy players' fun"?

It seems that a lot of the "save my fun" sentiment is used to justify player entitlement. Obviously, communication is key here - ideally before the campaign begins - but what do you do when people have ideas on this that are incompatible, don't want to compromise, but still want to game together?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Alzrius, I don't think there is any consistent answer to the question you're asking. And there is no doubt whatsoever that players today have totally different expectations than players of 30 years ago. That's in part just due to the evolution of the game, but it is also in part due to the explosion of video games that are similar in some ways to the tabletop games.

When I started playing this game, dying was easy. Real easy. My first wizard was rolled up with a single hit point at a time when reaching zero hit points was instant death and a rat bite could do 1 damage. So my first wizard could literally have been killed outright by a rat. However, because the entire PC team was aware of the fragility of wizards, but was also aware of the value of wizards when they reached level five or so, the entire focus of the party for the first several sessions became "keep the wizard alive!" One of our fighters died in that effort, but that was an acceptable loss, even when rolling up a new fighter meant starting at level 1 again.

However, many of the changes in the game since then have been in the area of making the game more fun for players by making their characters less fragile. From my old-school perspective I admit that this seems to me to engender a bit of "entitlement" mentality. Players no longer expect their characters to die outside of some major blunder on their part. And even with major blunders many players expect their characters to receive some divine intervention when they would otherwise be lost.

But I dunno if that's a problem or not. The game is, quite truthfully, intended to be "fun" for everyone. And having a character you spent a week building die because they missed a pit trap is not "fun".

Every group has to find out what the right balance is for themselves. My group of older grognardish players is more understanding of the potential for death than younger players might be. But even then, if I'm killing off their PCs indiscriminately, I'm not making the game fun for them either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a matter of expectations.

Some people want to show up, roll some dice and slay some monsters. To them, dealing with tons of negative consequences feels dull and boring. It isn't what they're looking for.

Other people want a gritty game that feels 'realistic'. They want to have struggles, walk thin lines, battle their way back from the brink, etc.

I play in both styles of games and can have fun in each. But if I sit down with the wrong expectations, sometimes I don't have as much fun until I recalibrate myself or have a talk with the GM about what I'm looking for in a game.

Players are entitled to have fun at a game. So is the GM. As a GM, I find I usually have the most fun when I can solicit interesting actions and reactions from the players and that is most likely to happen when I engage them with a game that interests them, instead of trying to get them to conform to the game I like.


There main reason anyone, not just players, play the game is to have fun. If someone, including the GM isn't having fun, something has gone wrong and needs to be addressed. Everyone is entitled to have fun.

This means, since ideas of how to make the game the most fun can and will vary greatly, compromising to make the game fun for everyone is generally a requirement to play.

IMO, it also means some players just shouldn't play with each other. If I only enjoy games where my character can wade through through fields of bad guys, pulverizing scores at a time without suffering a scratch, and my friend only enjoys gritty, realistic games where every battle is life or death, we probably shouldn't play with each other.


Irontruth wrote:
Players are entitled to have fun at a game. So is the GM. As a GM, I find I usually have the most fun when I can solicit interesting actions and reactions from the players and that is most likely to happen when I engage them with a game that interests them, instead of trying to get them to conform to the game I like.

Basically this.

As a DM and player both, I hate character death. Have I ever allowed a character to die? A few times. Most of the time I try to find a clever way around it; failing that, I shamelessly pull them back from death, deus ex and whatnot. I try to spend as much time making awesome things for my players' characters as they spend building them and fawning over them. In fact, my goal is make their characters seem even cooler than THEY imagined. It's just as gut wrenching for me then, when a PC gets offed in their moment of glory, or in the room just before the boss fight, or in some random throw away encounter that's only there to keep everyone's attention on the game.

I have three regulars in my group, and two of them are completely opposed on every aspect of the game, with the third being very vague and claiming he likes every aspect the best. One throws her dice out when her character gets hit too heavy too often (and is certain her character will die), while another thinks that handling her temperament with kid gloves robs the game of integrity (even though HE does it when he DMs). One likes role playing infinitely more than combat, and another only cares about leveling up and loot. I just roll with it and try to have as much fun as I can.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Finding that line is far more art than science, and depends on lots of factors. My probably-not-very-helpful comments would be:

(1) What's fun for any given group lies somewhere along the spectrum of "No PC death, good always wins over evil" and "Suck it up, adventuring is dangerous, don't expect every encounter to be balanced, let the dice fall where they may, and if you fall, roll up another one."

So if your group is bored, shift right; if the group feels persecuted, shift left.

(2) No one likes the same thing all the time. People like to be scared for short periods, hence roller coasters and horror movies. People don't like to like in constant terror. If every fight is a Seriously Life-Threatening Event, or every game session is a full on crisis, or players feel they just can't get a break because for every benefit gained there's that burned spellbook, deserting follower, etc. then the game may actually be less fun than Real Life. Cut back on the frequency of the bad stuff a little, or on the length of time the character is affected by it, and see what happens.


Foghammer wrote:
As a DM and player both, I hate character death.

Don't you see benefit in real risk, rather than the illusion of risk?

Trying something dangerous knowing the DM is there acting as a cosmic safety net must remove some of the satisfaction in defeating a really harsh encounter.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Alzrius, I don't think there is any consistent answer to the question you're asking. And there is no doubt whatsoever that players today have totally different expectations than players of 30 years ago. That's in part just due to the evolution of the game, but it is also in part due to the explosion of video games that are similar in some ways to the tabletop games.

When I started playing this game, dying was easy. Real easy. My first wizard was rolled up with a single hit point at a time when reaching zero hit points was instant death and a rat bite could do 1 damage. So my first wizard could literally have been killed outright by a rat. However, because the entire PC team was aware of the fragility of wizards, but was also aware of the value of wizards when they reached level five or so, the entire focus of the party for the first several sessions became "keep the wizard alive!" One of our fighters died in that effort, but that was an acceptable loss, even when rolling up a new fighter meant starting at level 1 again.

However, many of the changes in the game since then have been in the area of making the game more fun for players by making their characters less fragile. From my old-school perspective I admit that this seems to me to engender a bit of "entitlement" mentality. Players no longer expect their characters to die outside of some major blunder on their part. And even with major blunders many players expect their characters to receive some divine intervention when they would otherwise be lost.

But I dunno if that's a problem or not. The game is, quite truthfully, intended to be "fun" for everyone. And having a character you spent a week building die because they missed a pit trap is not "fun".

Every group has to find out what the right balance is for themselves. My group of older grognardish players is more understanding of the potential for death than younger players might be. But even then, if I'm killing off their PCs indiscriminately, I'm not making the game fun for them either.

I've probably been playing about as long as you have. I've never played the style of game you describe: characters dying at every turn, struggling to keep the wizard alive because he'll be useful at high levels, etc.

There are plenty of gamers now, many of them on these boards, who love the hardcore, death around every corner style of game.
This isn't an old-school vs new-school thing. It's a play style thing.
People of all ages and any experience can prefer any style.


Irontruth wrote:

It's a matter of expectations.

Some people want to show up, roll some dice and slay some monsters. To them, dealing with tons of negative consequences feels dull and boring. It isn't what they're looking for.

Other people want a gritty game that feels 'realistic'. They want to have struggles, walk thin lines, battle their way back from the brink, etc.

And others are more concerned with characterization and story. Losing characters with motivations and connections to the campaign can break the game. The actual fighting part is fun, but not the focus.


thejeff wrote:
I've probably been playing about as long as you have. I've never played the style of game you describe: characters dying at every turn, struggling to keep the wizard alive because he'll be useful at high levels, etc.

Hmm... I don't think I described play as "dying at every turn". In fact the only death I think I mentioned was a fighter who died by leaping in front of a giant scorpion that was after my wizard.

However, keeping the wizard alive was very much the main goal of the party for several sessions. Of that there is no doubt.

If it hadn't been fun, I wouldn't still be playing. Regardless of how you played jeff, I can assure you that back in 1980 or so, in the groups I played with, getting a wizard to level five was absolutely something to celebrate.


Xenh wrote:
Foghammer wrote:
As a DM and player both, I hate character death.

Don't you see benefit in real risk, rather than the illusion of risk?

Trying something dangerous knowing the DM is there acting as a cosmic safety net must remove some of the satisfaction in defeating a really harsh encounter.

There is no real risk. It's a game. The worst that happens is you throw away one sheet of paper and break out a new one. :)

But actually, the "illusion of risk" is an important point. If it's a good illusion, there's no difference to my enjoyment. If it's a good illusion, I don't know the "DM is there acting as a cosmic safety net".

In many ways that's the best case. A GM who provides that illusion without actually needing to kill off many characters.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I've probably been playing about as long as you have. I've never played the style of game you describe: characters dying at every turn, struggling to keep the wizard alive because he'll be useful at high levels, etc.

Hmm... I don't think I described play as "dying at every turn". In fact the only death I think I mentioned was a fighter who died by leaping in front of a giant scorpion that was after my wizard.

However, keeping the wizard alive was very much the main goal of the party for several sessions. Of that there is no doubt.

If it hadn't been fun, I wouldn't still be playing. Regardless of how you played jeff, I can assure you that back in 1980 or so, in the groups I played with, getting a wizard to level five was absolutely something to celebrate.

I'm not saying that's not how you played. I'm just saying it wasn't universal back then and it's not unheard of now. (Well, keeping the wizard alive isn't so much of a big deal, but there are still groups that play hardcore games.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I've probably been playing about as long as you have. I've never played the style of game you describe: characters dying at every turn, struggling to keep the wizard alive because he'll be useful at high levels, etc.

Hmm... I don't think I described play as "dying at every turn". In fact the only death I think I mentioned was a fighter who died by leaping in front of a giant scorpion that was after my wizard.

However, keeping the wizard alive was very much the main goal of the party for several sessions. Of that there is no doubt.

If it hadn't been fun, I wouldn't still be playing. Regardless of how you played jeff, I can assure you that back in 1980 or so, in the groups I played with, getting a wizard to level five was absolutely something to celebrate.

I'm not saying that's not how you played. I'm just saying it wasn't universal back then and it's not unheard of now. (Well, keeping the wizard alive isn't so much of a big deal, but there are still groups that play hardcore games.)

I remember getting my first wizard ever to level 5... I felt so badass after getting Fireball spell I thought I could take on a Big Red Dragon (along with a Dragon slaying Paladin)...

We both died horribly.

Liberty's Edge

I've found that the key is finding out what your players want and not what they say they want.


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

It's a matter of expectations.

Some people want to show up, roll some dice and slay some monsters. To them, dealing with tons of negative consequences feels dull and boring. It isn't what they're looking for.

Other people want a gritty game that feels 'realistic'. They want to have struggles, walk thin lines, battle their way back from the brink, etc.

And others are more concerned with characterization and story. Losing characters with motivations and connections to the campaign can break the game. The actual fighting part is fun, but not the focus.

Not the point I was trying to convey at all.


Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

It's a matter of expectations.

Some people want to show up, roll some dice and slay some monsters. To them, dealing with tons of negative consequences feels dull and boring. It isn't what they're looking for.

Other people want a gritty game that feels 'realistic'. They want to have struggles, walk thin lines, battle their way back from the brink, etc.

And others are more concerned with characterization and story. Losing characters with motivations and connections to the campaign can break the game. The actual fighting part is fun, but not the focus.

Not the point I was trying to convey at all.

Just an extension of it, prompted largely by not feeling like I fit in either category you mention.

There are many play styles. Not being the one you like (or one of the ones you like) doesn't make it "player entitlement".


As a player I expepect that things will go against me once in a while. Dice will roll bad, I will not see the trap, the monster will get a crit, etc. I don't want the GM to stop all of those. It is the bad times that help define the great times when I crit the monster etc.

The key to fun, for me, is more about how I am interacting with the GM. If we have worked to trust each other and build an interesting world/game then I am having fun even when the monster crits my character. If the GM and I are not working together then the game can be less then fun even if I roll well.

So I guess I am agreeing with Irontruth - It's a matter of expectations.


danielc wrote:

As a player I expepect that things will go against me once in a while. Dice will roll bad, I will not see the trap, the monster will get a crit, etc. I don't want the GM to stop all of those. It is the bad times that help define the great times when I crit the monster etc.

The key to fun, for me, is more about how I am interacting with the GM. If we have worked to trust each other and build an interesting world/game then I am having fun even when the monster crits my character. If the GM and I are not working together then the game can be less then fun even if I roll well.

So I guess I am agreeing with Irontruth - It's a matter of expectations.

Well said. Like most things that involve interacting with other people, it seems to me that it comes down to communication and trust.


Trust between the GM and the players? Ah sweet role playing games.

Teaching interpersonal skills since 1974 (or thereabouts)...


tennengar wrote:
Trust between the GM and the players?

It's a crazy idea, I know. Don't hate me for suggesting it.


Honestly, I would say that my group probably shouldn't be playing together, but we're all we have and we make it work. The play styles are so different that it's impossible to fully satisfy more than one person, MAYBE two at a time, but again, we're all we have as far as this game goes.

There are times when the game comes to a grinding halt as we laugh ourselves blue in the face over something that happens, and those times are great. There are crowning moments of awesome, and there are times when everyone looks at a part of an adventure and says "WTF?!" and chucks it (like the vorpal thorn bush of NPC death in a certain Pathfinder AP).

Concessions are made and we try to ignore the damage to our own egos in the interest of keeping the game a group activity.


If the GM and all the players aren't on the same page then there are going to be issues. I don't like the cosmic safety net idea. I get really attached to my characters but I get extremely annoyed when things are made easy for me or there are no consequences for my actions. I really, REALLY like my current character. I would not want him to miraculously survive being killed (resurrecting within rules is fine).

But that's off on a tangent really, let's get back on track.

It really all comes down to two things really.

GM/Player expectations and Fairness.

The GM needs to communicate what his game is going to be like from the get-go. If the GM likes the safety net and I don't, that needs to be made clear at the beginning so that I can either deal with it or back out of the game. Kinda connected to the second part, Fairness. Why would I need to deal with it or back out? Because it wouldn't be fair to have some people get resurrected because they want it that way and some not to be. It's all or nothing on something like this because lopsided treatment breeds problems. In ANY group, not just a gaming group.

And I could (and have) write an actual essay on this but I think I'll stop before I actually get my thoughts in order so I'm not here all night.


Rynjin wrote:
communicate

If you don't stop using words like that, I'm going to have to flag your post.

Foghammer wrote:
Honestly, I would say that my group probably shouldn't be playing together, but we're all we have and we make it work.

If you're making it work, then in my opinion you're doing it right.

Sovereign Court

Interesting dilemma. On the one hand I do think the occasional setback makes victory sweeter when it finally comes. If a villain has defeated or stymied you before, it feels so much better when you nail him. Winning a fight that feels unusually dangerous is a thrill.

Notice that word "unusually" though. Like people said before, if it's like you can never just get a break, if every fight is on the edge, then the whole things blunts off - if I get stopped every time I try something, I won't really care to try another time. So to really make danger and setbacks work, you also need some victories and some easy fights. If you face a tough enemy, but you made a good plan, and that makes the combat a lot easier than you're used to against that enemy, that feels good too.

Some kinds of setback are just totally not fun. Once one of my PCs really botched a so-so important roll, accidentally killed someone, and was punished by getting paralyzed until I could heal off all the damage. That took over two game sessions, in which I was forced to lie in the cart. That wasn't fun. If I'd known I'd be stuck there, I might have stayed home those game sessions. I think that the lesson here is: setbacks that put a PC out of the game for long periods of time are just un-fun no matter how you try to pitch it. Attacks on spellbooks risk falling in this category, depending on how long it takes to rewrite/recapture.

Notice the emphasis on the time it takes to recover from a setback. Losing a spellbook as the start of a race to recover it can be okay - but it's probably best if the spellbook is recovered that game session or the one immediately following it; spending an entire game session unable to recover spells is a drag.

Some setbacks you may never recover from - losing a limb, scars - or at least not until you get access to high-level cures - but that doesn't have to ruin the fun. That would depend on the nature of the setback. A melee fighter losing an eye might not be that bad - makes him look badass. An archer losing an eye, and depth perception, would be a showstopper.

Another thing to consider is how to time setbacks in a game session. If a setback happens midway, and by the end of the session the players have also achieved some sort of victory, the whole thing feels bittersweet. If the end of the game session is a black defeat, that's more of a downer.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel entitled to have fun.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Xenh wrote:
Don't you see benefit in real risk, rather than the illusion of risk?

Death is not the only real risk.

Assistant Software Developer

I removed a post. That kind of drama isn't necessary.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I greatly prefer roleplaying. The game features combat. I am aware of that fact, although it's not really the focus for me. I also play wargames, so when I want to scratch the tactical itch, I go there. Character death is very, very bad for a RP-oriented player, especially a senseless death. Does ANYBODY like how Tasha Yar died in TNG?


I've run into incredibly entitled players, some that want it really easy, one that refused to play after they were cursed; but my latest group are pretty tough.

The most recent dungeon we are on, I did explain it is dangerous, it has been dropped from pathfinder society for being too hard and a bit of a deathtrap. What did they do? Nodded, got stuck in. Really hitting it hard. No complaining. Killing barb rogue grimlocks, bashing xorns and xerans to death with their kicks, working together, dodging traps.

The stakes are high and they are committed, they are on a witch-hunt.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Quote:
Does ANYBODY like how Tasha Yar died in TNG?

Why did you have to remind me? ;_;


Netopalis wrote:
Personally, I greatly prefer roleplaying. The game features combat. I am aware of that fact, although it's not really the focus for me. I also play wargames, so when I want to scratch the tactical itch, I go there. Character death is very, very bad for a RP-oriented player, especially a senseless death. Does ANYBODY like how Tasha Yar died in TNG?

Shogun and warband for me. I like dnd combat though and it does feature, but we can go beyond this, do more, say and act differently to computer games.

What is sad is entitlement syndrome, WES especially (wizard entitlement syndrome). That can ruin the whole mood of the game (I've seen whinging players not get with the program and want to b%&~& until they receive).


Ross Byers wrote:
I removed a post. That kind of drama isn't necessary.

Okay, so just saying, I wasn't doing anything dramatic. I was surprised Shallow hadn't shown up, because he, like, say, Irontruth, tends to get involved in these debates.

I realize my post might have seemed a bit snide, and I apologize. But it really wasn't aiming to criticize anyone.


Netopalis wrote:
Does ANYBODY like how Tasha Yar died in TNG?

Yes.

Introduction of a character you've barely known for half an episode who then dies does next to nothing to show how dangerous a situation is and how the crew can, and will, be affected by the death of a comrade - so it was nice that someone other than a "red shirt" died.

As for the exact method of the death - it was a lot more dramatic than her being disintegrated by a phaser, and made perfect sense in the context that the world of Star Trek is full of weapons that can kill you in a glancing shot (or completely obliterate your whole body if turned up).

...and then there is my opinion of what her character added to the show... which wasn't much at all until that one episode where time/dimension travel resulted in her being alive, know that she is "supposed" to be dead, and then to make a choice as to what to do about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Netopalis wrote:
Character death is very, very bad for a RP-oriented player, especially a senseless death.

I disagree. A dramatic/noble/heroic character death is often a highlight for many RP focused players. Hell, I've had RPers request tragic and gripping storylines filled with loss, heartache, and betrayal. Don't assume what you like as a 'RP-oriented player' represents every other RP-heavy player out there.

Netopalis wrote:
Does ANYBODY like how Tasha Yar died in TNG?

I did. I thought Tasha Yar was almost as annoying a character as Wesley Crusher.


stormraven wrote:
I did. I thought Tasha Yar was almost as annoying a character as Wesley Crusher.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Let's not be saying things we can't take back! ;-)

It is interesting that Tasha yar's death is brought up as a very similar thing happened in my game. A PC was killed senselessly through a lucky die roll on my part. Since that session we have had 2 murder trials, an execution and some of the most pathos filled RP I have ever witnessed at my game table. Having the telepath reading the mind of the condemned prisoner as his sentence is read out (by my wife who is generally fairly shy and retiring) left her shiny eyed as the man was thinking about his homeland and the people he left behind there.

The PCs have also actually started making laws for their fledgling kingdom and even have an axe that has been renamed 'Justice' that was used not only to put the prisoner to death but was also the murder weapon used on the Baron of the kingdom!

Death...is only the beginning!


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Quote:
Does ANYBODY like how Tasha Yar died in TNG?
Why did you have to remind me? ;_;

Yes and if they killed off Data and got rid of Wesley early on it would have been a much better show.

Both of those characters made all of the other characters obsolete.

That is why B5 was much better show... not afraid to kill off major characters.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Yes and if they killed off Data

Woah.

Woaaaah.

Hey now.

That's going too far.


Rynjin wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Yes and if they killed off Data

Woah.

Woaaaah.

Hey now.

That's going too far.

Data ruined the show for me - if they scaled him back a bit maybe.

Fire fight or hand to hand... do you choose Worf the warrior nope.. Data is stronger faster and more accurate.

Navigation or Science.... Data or Wesley both are magnitudes smarter than the rest of the Crew.

Engineering... Data and Wesley again - no point in having Jordi on the ship.

There was one episode where Data ran the ship all by himself...


I like Data.

More to the point, I like Data's actor. He is ironically very, VERY good at expressing emotion in his roles.


I don't have a problem with the actor, he is an excellent actor and his charm and comic timing managed to disguise the fact his character was one massive get out of plot hole free card....


Damon Griffin wrote:

Finding that line is far more art than science, and depends on lots of factors. My probably-not-very-helpful comments would be:

(1) What's fun for any given group lies somewhere along the spectrum of "No PC death, good always wins over evil" and "Suck it up, adventuring is dangerous, don't expect every encounter to be balanced, let the dice fall where they may, and if you fall, roll up another one."

So if your group is bored, shift right; if the group feels persecuted, shift left.

(2) No one likes the same thing all the time. People like to be scared for short periods, hence roller coasters and horror movies. People don't like to like in constant terror. If every fight is a Seriously Life-Threatening Event, or every game session is a full on crisis, or players feel they just can't get a break because for every benefit gained there's that burned spellbook, deserting follower, etc. then the game may actually be less fun than Real Life. Cut back on the frequency of the bad stuff a little, or on the length of time the character is affected by it, and see what happens.

That is some darn good advice right there. And really, it's much more important in story flow terms than mechanical stuff. I mean, sudden tragic character deaths (in my experience personal, and on the condition that we're talking about maybe 2 or 3 spread over the length of a campaign) are actually pretty darn great. Someone gets a chance to bring a new character in, which can be nice if you need a change of pace, and they really motivate the heck out of everyone else and make for big dramatic moments.

On the other side of the coin, I'm in a game right now where the GM is really careful to avoid ever killing any PCs or otherwise causing any long-term harm, but he never really lets the party chalk up any real wins. Villains always escape. Cities always burn. Refugees are never safely evacuated. Friendly NPCs are constantly killed or abducted... meanwhile XP comes in shockingly quick, but that just adds to the oppressive atmosphere as greater and grander efforts to secure any sort of minor victory keep coming up short.

And of course, for the too-easy version of things, ever find yourself declaring a character's retirement because all their personal goals have been fulfilled and there aren't any fires to put out? It's a pretty weird experience.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:
I don't have a problem with the actor, he is an excellent actor and his charm and comic timing managed to disguise the fact his character was one massive get out of plot hole free card....

Maybe so, but if Data hadn't been there somebody else would've technobabbled them out of all their problems the same way I'm sure.

Shadow Lodge

LaForge was the character most hurt by Data constantly taking over his niche. Ironic, considering that Burton was easily the actor with the most star power and clout going into the series.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is a forum for media discussions, gentlemen; this thread isn't it.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

Egad, didn't mean to start a derail like that.

It's great that some people find it to be an opportunity when a senseless death like that occurs. However, in my limited experience, that is rarely the case. Normally, there is very, very little thought given to the downed character and how that affects the party.

Also, Stormraven, I don't discount that. My example was a senseless character death. The sort of character death that happens when stupid things work together at the table to cause death. One example which I heard on a podcast (which I respect otherwise) involved the PCs having to choose between taking cover in one of two bushes, one of which was infested with killer bees. Everybody chosing the bee bush pretty much died. That is NOT fun.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Having fun vs. Sense of entitlement All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion