I've since chilled out about lose-a-turn effects. As long as I'm allowed to strategize with other players without someone crying "YOU CAN'T TALK WHILE PETRIFIED THAT'S METAGAMING!" then it's not a big deal.
As a player and a DM, it sucks to lose control over a character. But I think it's a healthy part of the game, not a problem in need of a solution.
Difficult monsters are supposed to be difficult. Imagine taking away the medusa's ability to petrify, or the ghoul's ability paralyze. They are no longer the challenge they were designed to be. Those abilities are what make those creatures unique and pose a significant challenge.
PCs are powerful and are designed to survive most if not every encounter. They have all sorts of tools in their toolbox to improve their chances of surviving any given save. Casters can remove effects, buff allies, and support the team. You can invest in feats or craft magic items to improve your saves, too. You can always try to mitigate bad things happening, but the dice will ultimately have their say.
Players need to be a good sport. Sometimes you have to sit out a turn or two. Sometimes your DM's well-crafted combat encounter is over in minutes. Things can get frustrating when they don't go your way. That's ok, it's how you handle it that counts.
As a player and a DM, it sucks to lose control over a character. But I think it's a healthy part of the game, not a problem in need of a solution.
Difficult monsters are supposed to be difficult. Imagine taking away the medusa's ability to petrify, or the ghoul's ability paralyze. They are no longer the challenge they were designed to be. Those abilities are what make those creatures unique and pose a significant challenge.
I don't disagree with your premise, but I question whether it inevitably leads to your conclusion. Phrased another way: If a battle against a zombie is a question of "shall I be eaten by a zombie," then why can a battle against a medusa not be a question of "shall I be turned to stone?" We know that fire giants will often enslave you if they win, and that vampires will often turn you into a vampire, but they don't have to perform these actions inside of the turn order. Why does the medusa's stone gaze need to be a combat action, rather than a consequence of failure, or a narrative power?
The mere fact that it "makes them unique" means nothing if it makes them worse.
Furthermore: The medusa's stone gaze has been nerfed from previous versions. More often than not, it doesn't take a player out right away -- it limits their options, like the OP's examples of good control effects.
I don't disagree with your advice, either. Saying "get over it" or "have good sportsmanship" is all well and good, and it really is, but a game designer (and when a DM alters rules, this is the role they assume) has dominion not over what the players feel or how they react, but rather over what the players are instructed to do, or, in this case, not to do. Within the confines of this forum, none of us have the power to be the voice of reason to an angry or entitled player. (Barring the unlikely event that the player in question remains angry as they navigate to this forum and read what you've written here.) What we have the power to do is discuss rules and write rules. (Could one write a rule to the effect of, "if something annoying happens to your character, be cool about it?" Sure! If 5e has such a rule, I can't easily find it. Maybe it should!)
As a player and a DM, it sucks to lose control over a character. But I think it's a healthy part of the game, not a problem in need of a solution.
Difficult monsters are supposed to be difficult. Imagine taking away the medusa's ability to petrify, or the ghoul's ability paralyze. They are no longer the challenge they were designed to be. Those abilities are what make those creatures unique and pose a significant challenge.
I don't disagree with your premise, but I question whether it inevitably leads to your conclusion. Phrased another way: If a battle against a zombie is a question of "shall I be eaten by a zombie," then why can a battle against a medusa not be a question of "shall I be turned to stone?" We know that fire giants will often enslave you if they win, and that vampires will often turn you into a vampire, but they don't have to perform these actions inside of the turn order. Why does the medusa's stone gaze need to be a combat action, rather than a consequence of failure, or a narrative power?
The mere fact that it "makes them unique" means nothing if it makes them worse.
Furthermore: The medusa's stone gaze has been nerfed from previous versions. More often than not, it doesn't take a player out right away -- it limits their options, like the OP's examples of good control effects.
I don't disagree with your advice, either. Saying "get over it" or "have good sportsmanship" is all well and good, and it really is, but a game designer (and when a DM alters rules, this is the role they assume) has dominion not over what the players feel or how they react, but rather over what the players are instructed to do, or, in this case, not to do. Within the confines of this forum, none of us have the power to be the voice of reason to an angry or entitled player. (Barring the unlikely event that the player in question remains angry as they navigate to this forum and read what you've written here.) What we have the power to do is discuss rules and write rules. (Could one write a rule to the effect of, "if something annoying happens to your character, be cool about it?" Sure! If 5e has such a rule, I can't easily find it. Maybe it should!)
The stone gaze is there for two reasons: it's flavorful and captures the essence of a medusa, and it's literally the one thing that makes her dangerous. A medusa without the ability to turn creatures to stone is not the dangerous creature of myth and legend, it's just a crazy lady with bad hair that poses much less threat to the players.
I disagree that challenging players by turning them to stone makes them worse. In fact, I'd say that's the sort of unexpected plot twist it makes D&D such a great game. Joe's character turned to stone? Awesome, now we have to find a way to haul him out and turn him back into a real boy. That's plot.
As for your last paragraph, that's just called being an adult. It doesn't matter what game you play, whether it's Monopoly or D&D, a certain level of emotional intelligence and sportsmanship is required to play games with friends. The game shouldn't cater to people who don't come to the table with that basic expectation.
Nonetheless, the game is rated 12+ on the starter set. 12-year-olds aren't adults. If we assume WotC isn't likely to reduce the age range for their product, which I think we might as well assume, then that's a moot point -- the game *does* cater to people who don't come to the table with that basic assumption (called being an adult). ;)
If a DM has a problem with 12 year olds unable to handle sitting out for a few turns, that's a problem with the 12 year olds, not the game. Call it acting mature, acting like an adult, whatever. It's a basic level of emotional intelligence.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
FYI, if you don't Quote the comment, nobody can tell which comment you're responding to.
I've since chilled out about lose-a-turn effects. As long as I'm allowed to strategize with other players without someone crying "YOU CAN'T TALK WHILE PETRIFIED THAT'S METAGAMING!" then it's not a big deal.
As a player and a DM, it sucks to lose control over a character. But I think it's a healthy part of the game, not a problem in need of a solution.
I don't disagree with your premise, but I question whether it inevitably leads to your conclusion. Phrased another way: If a battle against a zombie is a question of "shall I be eaten by a zombie," then why can a battle against a medusa not be a question of "shall I be turned to stone?" We know that fire giants will often enslave you if they win, and that vampires will often turn you into a vampire, but they don't have to perform these actions inside of the turn order. Why does the medusa's stone gaze need to be a combat action, rather than a consequence of failure, or a narrative power?
The mere fact that it "makes them unique" means nothing if it makes them worse.
Furthermore: The medusa's stone gaze has been nerfed from previous versions. More often than not, it doesn't take a player out right away -- it limits their options, like the OP's examples of good control effects.
I don't disagree with your advice, either. Saying "get over it" or "have good sportsmanship" is all well and good, and it really is, but a game designer (and when a DM alters rules, this is the role they assume) has dominion not over what the players feel or how they react, but rather over what the players are instructed to do, or, in this case, not to do. Within the confines of this forum, none of us have the power to be the voice of reason to an angry or entitled player. (Barring the unlikely event that the player in question remains angry as they navigate to this forum and read what you've written here.) What we have the power to do is discuss rules and write rules. (Could one write a rule to the effect of, "if something annoying happens to your character, be cool about it?" Sure! If 5e has such a rule, I can't easily find it. Maybe it should!)
The stone gaze is there for two reasons: it's flavorful and captures the essence of a medusa, and it's literally the one thing that makes her dangerous. A medusa without the ability to turn creatures to stone is not the dangerous creature of myth and legend, it's just a crazy lady with bad hair that poses much less threat to the players.
I disagree that challenging players by turning them to stone makes them worse. In fact, I'd say that's the sort of unexpected plot twist it makes D&D such a great game. Joe's character turned to stone? Awesome, now we have to find a way to haul him out and turn him back into a real boy. That's plot.
As for your last paragraph, that's just called being an adult. It doesn't matter what game you play, whether it's Monopoly or D&D, a certain level of emotional intelligence and sportsmanship is required to play games with friends. The game shouldn't cater to people who don't come to the table with that basic expectation.
Nonetheless, the game is rated 12+ on the starter set. 12-year-olds aren't adults. If we assume WotC isn't likely to reduce the age range for their product, which I think we might as well assume, then that's a moot point -- the game *does* cater to people who don't come to the table with that basic assumption (called being an adult). ;)
If a DM has a problem with 12 year olds unable to handle sitting out for a few turns, that's a problem with the 12 year olds, not the game. Call it acting mature, acting like an adult, whatever. It's a basic level of emotional intelligence.