DMs, how often do you fudge dice rolls?
Never.
I'm not a pussy.
Not as often as the players think I do, but more often than the players think I do.
More often than you'd think, but less often than you'd hope.
When the randomly produced result is totally nonsensical and or would seriously reduce the amount of fun going on at the table, by presenting an unreasonable and uncalled for detriment.
>>43842930
>pussy detected
when it kills a player in a dumb way.
You should only die when it's narritively cool to do so, or when you brought shit down on your own head by doing something monumentally stupid.
Never.
I don't. If a player dies because they rolled badly then they just had bad luck. Bad luck kills people in combat situations. Oh well.
>>43842858
When I realized one of my tables or creatures is retarded.
>>43842951
casuals
>>43842942
>That DM detected
I don't.
If there is a situation like this >>43842930 where a random result COULD have produced something that wasn't interesting or something that wouldn't make sense in the fiction. I wouldn't have rolled dice in the first place.
I always roll out in the open and let the dice fall where they may.
Some days I am hot and the challenge for the PCs is all the greater for it, some days I am cold and they get to ROFLstomp everything they come across. But the chance of either happening is why we roll dice in the first place.
>>43842858
since we're all here to enjoy a good story (not railroading) sometimes death is not appropriate... we play it to escape life not to have a "life-simulator" so yes i fudge them often enough!
>>43843007
Sometimes characters die. I'm not going to lie to players because their feelings will get hurt if their character dies. Hell, I'm just glad I don't play with people who would get pissy about that.
>>43843007
>literally never killed anyone through bullshit
>had parties get owned through shit rolls
>everyone had fun
Nah, you're just an unimagitive faggot that can't get a workaround when shit doesn't go the "right" way.
>all these fudgers
Disgusting. Why even use dice if you're going ignore them? Just play a game that doesn't rely on dice rolls. Doing it this way is lying to yourself and your players.
>>43843030
Remember! Freeform is best form!
I don't. But when shit gets bad as a result I've tweaked rules a little.
When the party went exploring without their healer because that player didn't show up that week, they were all low HP and the party leader ended up getting gored by a random triceratops and died the following round. I ruled that if the party mage could teleport onto the dinosaur's back by beating its cmd with a concentration check, grab the ranger and get him to the fallen player, and have the ranger blow all his heals for the day and succeed a heal check within one round it could function as breath of life, and they managed to pull it off.
>>43842858
As much as I can to keep the game fun
>>43842858
Sometimes.
If I miscalculated an encounter and made it too hard while giving the party no clue of such hardness, and this is going to cause more mayhem that I consider appropriate on the party, I might decide to fudge a bit. Better than celestials ex machina or such shit.
>>43843073
...what is going on in this gif?
>>43843016
Pretty much this. I don't like one hit kill rolls,and I don't like not being in control of what challenges my party face. That way it's more fair when shit does go tits up.
If we're in combat and the enemy gets a crit on a player, I won't save them.
>>43842858
All the time because my players like to have fun and aren't autistic.
I only fudge rolls if the outcome is extremly stupid. Everything else just gets a better narrative, like a guard who is pc-level of good or traps made so well that noone could disarm them.
>>43843030
Sometimes I'm more interested in getting a good story and a certain player just described something amazingly or its leading up to something cool, but the dice disagree.
I never ignore critical successes/failures though. EVER.
>>43842858
Never, only the most enormous of gigantic fucking faggots fudges dice rolls instead of rolling with them.
>>43842858
More often than the players think. I've cultivated the idea that I'm actively trying to kill them, but I always feel bad and fudge it. They think they're lucky/good.
>>43845883
>I run a no risk campaign
>>43842858
I don't fudge rolls, but I mostly play systems where I'm not obligated to reveal the DC/TN beforehand, so I rarely fudge that from time to time. Mostly for minor shit or if I want to infodump a little for setting purposes.
I did it a few times when I started to DM because I didn't want to make my new players struggle so early. For some odd reason I'm the best roller in my group. I'm like some enigma. My players were up against a lot of enemies and I rolled 2 crit in a row. They were awestruck as they were losing tk a small group so I showed my rolls and got another 2 natty 20s. I almost wiped out my group on there second session.
Not only that but my average for rolls is 14. Very rarely do I roll single digits.
>>43845903
As long as the players never find out, what's the issue?
>>43845917
That it's lame. Nothing interesting will ever happen, because you're too afraid to let some limbs fly off and some characters die.
You, my friend, are running a pokemon game.
Nothing really matters, because their is only one designated winner.
I don't fudge rolls. That's how you cross the line from RPG to circlejerk.
If you need to fudge rolls to prevent stupid shit from happening, you've fucked up as a DM. If you don't want your PCs to randomly die, don't include things in your game that can randomly kill them.
>>43845940
All I'm really avoiding is player death. I suppose that player death can make for some interesting stories. I don't trust myself to know when though.
I'll probably experiment with more lethality in my next campaign though.
>>43845940
>their
*there
Also, fuck it, I'm going to bed.
Never. I'm not a particularly lethal DM or anything, but I really dislike the idea of take back or fudged rolls.
This also goes for when I'm a player. It drives me up the walls when the DM fudges rolls to keep a player alive or retcons a character's death. The game part of a roleplaying game feels cheap and hollow if I know nothing can hurt me. It feels like cheating.
As an aside though I'm actually on board with games that have reroll mechanics or are supposed to be nonlethal like Golden Sky Stories, since that's their whole shtick. As long as I'm playing within the rules of the game instead of around them I'm totally happy.
>>43845917
If your players did find out, how would they react?
It's like cheating on your wife. Even if she never finds out, it's still cheating.
>>43845982
Try it. Your players might actually like the bump in lethality.
I finally convinced my group to let me run Dark Heresy for them and several of the players told me outside the game they really dig the feeling of danger.
>>43846075
Apparently I'm giving them the feeling of danger though, cause they constantly say they resent all the shit I throw at them.
>>43846062
I guess it depends on what they want. I'm not sure they want danger. Most of them are unforgivable munchkins, who want me to run a sandbox physics and spell simulator for them to play god in I think.
Rolled 3, 1, 3 + 7 = 14 (3d6 + 7)
Enough to keep things moving rather than bog stuff down in pointless trivia or dice rolling minutiea. Some systems have too many inbuilt rolls that aren't strictly speaking neccessary / interesting or dramatic.
And if they aren't any of those, I just wing it and give a number.
A lot. But if you asked my players, the answer would be never.
I like players being subject to the whim of the rolls, it allows them to have those ups and downs of failure and success. But as a DM, a string of failures in a scene or encounter that should be high in tension or challenge will just kill any sense of accomplishment and ruin the point of the story.
If I need an enemy to seem intimidating, he can't do that when he misses every attack. If the enemy fails at being intimidating, then the scene loses it's impact, and the players get nothing from it.
Sometimes a monster takes a few more hits than it has HP so it can stick around for an extra round or two to get a chance to use it's cool powers. Sometimes I'll "fake" a roll and make an attack I want hit a player so that someone actually takes damage in a combat where no one is getting hit. Sometimes a hit that would normally take a player out of the game just happens to roll really low on the damage so that the players can collectively feel that sigh of relief.
Without that tool, I think games would be significantly less enjoyable.
>>43842858
>注意安全
>注意
Attention/Caution
>安全
(Use)Safety/(Be)Secure
It's not something that has a literal English translation.
If you stick to numbers no matter what and make the dice your personal god then you are a fucking casual-ass roleplayer too afraid to figure out how to engage in a good group storytelling session and you need to get off this board.
>>43846451
>The only way to have a good collaborative story is when the GM is entirely in charge of everything that happens.
k
All my GMs roll on the open.
>>43846204
>>43846451
>person who fudges dice
>calling others casual
>>43846451
If your games can't stand up to a little chance then you should just write a book.
>>43842858
Never. That invalidates the choices and tactics of the players. They won't care if they know that their success or failure is already decided.
>>43846912
"A little chance" is not the same as "every scene is dictated by the rolls".
You are either required to admit you don't give a single fuck about atmosphere, drama, or any sort of tone for your game if you're willing to, for example, let players fail 10 rolls in a row to open a door, in the middle of a scene that's supposed to be serious. Or if you're prepared to let the big, scary BBEG that you've been working to make the players afraid of, whiff every single attack he rolls.
You CAN do it, but you have to admit that you, as a DM, don't give a fuck about your game, and you don't expect anyone else to either, because you equate "fun" with "wacky hijinks".
>>43846947
>They won't care if they know that their success or failure is already decided.
How exactly would a player ever know that unless you announce that you are, in fact, about to fudge this roll you're making?
Like, why are you acting like players would ever know the difference?
>>43846983
So I should roll all the dice in secret and lie to my players about the results, and make them think they are being clever when in fact I am making sure they succeed no matter how dumb or smart they are.
>>43847065
>So I should roll all the dice in secret
For most things, yes. There is literally no reason for players to see the results of things like Perception rolls, unless you cannot comprehend how a game works without everyone at the table jumping over eachother to metagame fucking everything.
>and lie to my players about the results
If it makes the scenario better, yes. No one advocated that if you're rolling in secret, you HAVE TO fudge EVERY result.
>and make them think they are being clever when in fact I am making sure they succeed no matter how dumb or smart they are.
Players being dumb should always fail. Period.
But again, asking DMs like you to care about your campaigns is probably too much.
>>43846316
>It's not something that has a literal English translation.
Be Cautious. Done.
>>43847122
>If it makes the scenario better, yes.
I never see people advocate to fudge to kill players, only fudge to save them. I never liked this as an idea as I find it dishonest. This is just my taste, and the taste of those I play with that the dice should be able to kill the unceremoniously. Mostly because people do not live lives where they only die dramatically and they want the game to reflect that.
>>43843411
Captain Falcon turning into a swastika, apparently.
>>43842858
Very rarely, I consider it a personal failing and I regret it almost immediately.
>>43847157
>and the taste of those I play with that the dice should be able to kill the unceremoniously.
You're being intentionally dishonest if you think any player will actually remember this when it comes time for the die to actually kill them. They WILL throw a temper tantrum, and they WILL demand the DM stop being "unfair". Because that's how players work.
i never fudge rolls but i rather disfigure PC or cut off arm and leg than just kill. I tend to be more casual in high fantasy, but my nwod mortals/second sight/immortals campaign is like graveyard.
>>43847190
No really, I'm sorry if this has happened to you, but that just means you play with immature people, or people conditioned with a "never can lose" attitude that participation sports and video games pound into them. I'm really glad my players aren't like that.
I run a Dungeon and Dragons club on a college campus, and one of the first things I try and instill in new players is the idea that character death is a big deal, and can happen to anyone, and to try their best to not die, but that ultimately bad luck can kill you.
>>43846968
>if you're willing to, for example, let players fail 10 rolls in a row to open a door, in the middle of a scene that's supposed to be serious
Why the fuck are you calling for a dice roll for opening that door in the first place? More importantly, why are you allowing a SECOND die roll?
What's at stake for this? Are the guards about to catch up to them? Is it that they need to get into this place and failing means they can't? Are they trying to catch whomever is inside by surprise?
If they fail their first roll than the bad stuff happens. The guards catch up to them, the door is stuck and they need to find another way in, the person inside is altered to their presence and gets a head start. Rolling again doesn't help them.
If there is nothing at stake, and they are in a position to be ABLE to try 10 times then you just don't call for a dice roll there. Fuck, even D&D has the "take 10/20" rules. It's basic GMing to know when to call for a dice roll, say yes, or even say "no, that physically does not work."
>>43847233
>Character death is a big deal, and can happen at any time
>"lol whatever just rolling a new character." whenever anything bad happens.
This isn't how you make good games.
>>43847122
I do roll perception rolls in secret, and other things the player characters should be unaware of. But every roll for things that they are aware of (like getting attacked) is in the open. Hit rolls, damage rolls, etc. When the PCs make attacks or skill checks I tell them the target number before they roll.
>Players being dumb should always fail. Period.
Well gee genius, then just roll the dice and you'll see that the dumb players do fail. I don't have to make them.
>asking DMs like you to care about your campaigns is probably too much.
Why would my players care about the game if their choices don't matter?
Say there are some orcs. If they are a genuine threat then the players will start thinking about what to do. Ambush them? Sneak past them? Try to negotiate?
If there's no threat, then they can just rush the orcs and mindlessly hit them with swords. Why bother with tactics? It's not like there's any danger.
>>43847190
>They WILL throw a temper tantrum, and they WILL demand the DM stop being "unfair". Because that's how players work.
I'm sorry about your players. My players don't work like that. They'd be more likely to throw a temper tantrum if they suspected I was fudging the dice to keep them alive.
>>43847263
You're being purposefully reductionist and inflammatory.
Am I on a headhunt to kill characters? No.
Am I going to change dice rolls to save one? No.
Death has meaning to the story, even an unexpected death. I don't know why you can't wrap your head around it. Do you really think someone can't enjoy a game that doesn't have a safety net? I've played with GMs that fudged dice. After a while you realize that they are simply because no one ever dies unless it's "high drama", or that a monster's AC will change with seemingly no reason. I don't enjoy playing under those conditions.
>>43847190
Play with adults.
>>43847297
>If there's no threat, then they can just rush the orcs and mindlessly hit them with swords. Why bother with tactics? It's not like there's any danger.
Serious question here, because I can't comprehend your retardation:
How do your players determine that there is "no danger"? Is it because they've never experienced losing a fight in the campaign? Or is it because you for some reason told them that there is no danger of death?
If you tell players "You could die at any minute", and then fudge every single roll, how the fuck would players know the difference?
I'm legitimately not sure how you imagine these scenarios going that your players can come to the conclusion on their own that they are somehow invincible.
>>43845914
>loaded dice detected
>>43847344
>If you tell players "You could die at any minute", and then fudge every single roll, how the fuck would players know the difference?
The fact that no one dies.
>>43842858
I don't.
I avoid stupid situations where a roll of 1 or the like ruins a moment by not requiring a roll. If a player gives an inspiring as fuck speech or makes an inescapable trap, I let them have it because chances are they need it.
>>43847297
>Why would my players care about the game if their choices don't matter?
Cause I am never going to get caught and players are too stupid and entitled to notice how they always happen to mysteriously scrape by despite low probability of such.
Duh.
I adjust absolutely everything I can to make things work better.
>>43847319
>After a while you realize that they are simply because no one ever dies unless it's "high drama",
Did you "realize they are", or did you just decide that is the case because you've never seen the group fail?
>>43847359
So, by that logic, you are immortal, because you haven't died yet?
See, a lot of what this thread seems to boil down to is one or more of the following:
>Players will throw tantrums if they don't always win
>Players will never notice how they always barely scrape by
>Players never realize a dice roll changed
Who do you people play with? Retards? Because seriously, it sounds like all of your groups are just garbage.
>>43847344
Did you misread my post? My players know there's always danger in a fight, because I never fudge dice rolls.
-If- I fudged dice rolls to keep characters alive, and the players knew that, they would also know there was no danger to the fight.
>>43847370
>So, by that logic, you are immortal, because you haven't died yet?
If a GM tells me "you can die at any time", then for 10 or 15 sessions no one dies, even when making bad decisions, then I will begin to suspect.
>Did you "realize they are", or did you just decide that is the case because you've never seen the group fail?
After a point in a six month campaign I had enough points of data to extrapolate it. That and the fact I sit next to the GM and could see his dice half the time.
Depends on the situation. Enemies who would insta-gib a player just knock them into the negatives, for example. I lie about boss saving throws against save-or-loses, though if the boss should be dead it becomes unlikely to kill anyone.
>>43847405
Yeah, ok.
And how exactly would they know that?
I fudge rolls all the time. Fuck, I have an API script that let's me fudge rolls right in the open, since I can set exactly what I want the die roll to be. Players don't have a clue, nor would they ever consider that occasionally I've prevented one of them from dying at low level, because much more often I'm fudging things so combats are MORE challenging.
So again, how exactly would they know if you're doing it? That's what I don't get.
>>43843021
>>43843020
If you can't see any situation at all ever warranting a bit of fudging for the sake of a better story, you're probably a shit GM.
>inb4 lol pussy players day
that's not what I'm saying you projecting cancercrabs
The only thing I wonder is, why play a game where outcomes are determined by dice roll if you don't want them to determine outcomes? Why not play a game with a built in safety net (like FATE) or a game without dice as an end all?
This just seems like the wrong attitude to take to D&D.
>>43847457
I think that's my issue here.
A campaign should primarily be able delivering a great story experience to players. If you cannot comprehend how sometimes things being left completely to chance has the potential to fuck a story to hell, then it means you're not DMing a story at all, you're playing a hack-and-slash monster-of-the-week fuckfest and no one is having fun.
Yes. Those games are bad and wrong and not fun. Deal with it.
>>43847426
>I sit next to the GM and could see his dice half the time.
>no DM Screen
Shit DM detected.
>>43847457
>If you can't see any situation at all ever warranting a bit of fudging for the sake of a better story, you're probably a shit GM.
I'm being perfectly honest with you. I can see what you mean here. Sometimes a character dying in the middle of his story can be jarring, and might have had a better conclusion if he had lived. However, even so I do not want to fudge dice and neither would my players want me to. It's about the tone of the game, you clearly want a different tone than me. You seem to want the PCs to be as if they were out of a fantasy novel, and the story to follow the correct three act form of drama so as to negate premature endings. I do not.
Honestly, neither us of are wrong, we just feel differently about the game. I would say yours is a bad attitude to bring to D&D, and belongs in more narritavist systems, but it's your campaign and players, not mine.
I'm in a group that enjoys my way of doing things, and you're obviously in a group that enjoys yours. Neither of us are going to convince the other, it's just gonna be reduced to shit flinging.
>>43847498
A character dying doesn't automatically make it a terrible story, even a death in an unceremonious way. It's a differing in tone, not quality. I've both GM'd and played in game where people died to things and had a fantastic story. One of my favorite was as a group of smugglers.
>>43847447
Maybe they wouldn't know. But the game would still get screwed in the long run, because players would not learn from their mistakes, if the mistakes had no consequences. Sure you can fudge things to make it more challenging, but then why bother with it? Random probability will even things out by itself.
I roll in the open in front of everyone. If bad shit happens, it happens.
>>43847538
>A character dying doesn't automatically make it a terrible story
No one is implying this. In fact, I would happily agree that a character dying can make it a better story in some circumstances.
The problem, which should be obvious if you have ever given a fuck about the narrative of your game, is that player death, whether "ceremonious" or not, ONLY has any impact if the player (and the party) -actually has connection to that character and cares-.
If you play a game titled "high lethality" and then proceed to smash players into paste at level 1, you will literally never have any player giving a fuck about their character. They're just going to be waiting in the wings with back-ups for when they eventually die to a bad roll.
A player death only has impact when it comes as some sort of shock to the group. When it's just "Oh, James died this week. We'll bring in his new guy next time", no one gives a fuck.
>>43847581
I don't see why fudging dice is required to get someone to care about their character. I've never fudged dice and I've had plenty of people care about their characters.
>>43847567
>But the game would still get screwed in the long run, because players would not learn from their mistakes
Death is not a consequence for mistakes. Death is just a temporary penalty that takes the player out of the session until you bring in their new character.
>Sure you can fudge things to make it more challenging, but then why bother with it?
Lolwhat? I bother with it because when players are fighting an enemy that they should feel scared of, the only way to do that is a demonstration of power, and that means sometimes when that enemy uses a special or flashy attack that shows that they're a threat, I don't want the chance of that attack whiffing and the enemy looking retarded. I want it to hit so players know they're not fucking around. Sometimes a fight is going down too easily and I don't like the feel of that narrative-wise, so I add some challenge to it.
There's a million reasons to "bother" with fudging challenge in both directions. Sometimes an enemy will go down one round early because a fight is dragging. Sometimes he will go down a round or two later because a fight is over too quickly. How is this complicated?
>Random probability will even things out by itself.
I'm not interested in the aggregate of rolls over the entire game. I'm interested in the scene the players are playing having an impact on them and keeping them involved in the story.
I do have a question for people who fudge dice.
Why do you act as a safety net outside of rules rather than play a game with a built in one? It seems much more conducive for the kind of game you're trying to run.
>>43847390
>Players will never notice how they always barely scrape by
>Players never realize a dice roll changed
These two particular assumptions really confuse me because it's not really hard to tell that a DM is fudging things behind the scenes. As a player I've seen it happen plenty of times, and it's usually pretty easy to tell what's going on.
Usually it's due to some sort of facial tell, a pause, or some flipping through stat pages or notes that gives it away. Other times it's easy to realize that enemies tend to miss or do less damage when the PCs are more injured.
I fudge my rolls all the time!I'm a player. Not a DM.
>>43847672
>It seems much more conducive for the kind of game you're trying to run.
Why is "sometimes fudging dice to make sure something happens" the only part of a system you think is important? Why would you want to waste time on a system where this is, for some reason, a "rule", without taking into account the fact that maybe the system around it isn't worth the time?
>>43847693
The d20 is the core resolution mechanic of say... D&D. Fudging it isn't a small thing, it changes nearly all aspects of the system.
And FATE is worth people's time, so is Savage Worlds. There are good systems with Bennies.
>>43847690
100% of the people in this thread pretending that DMs who fudge are the devil, are completely in favor of players faking rolls as long as they get away with it.
>>43847690
Seems fine to me.
Most GMs will never notice, and you end up making what you personally consider a better story.
>>43847710
What? No I'm not.
it does bring up a point though. Dice Fudgers, what if a player does it to "increase drama" or "for a better story". Is it ok for them to fudge rolls?
>>43847520
That's a fair answer, thanks for the actual quality post and not resorting to shittery.
>>43847726
The GM's fudge, the players fudge, everyone changes their dice when the outcome is something they don't like. Why even have dice? If everything is for the story why use a system rather than have a collaborative writing project?
Why use the core resolution mechanic of a system when it can be changed arbitrarily by both GM and player?
This all just seems like a game of lies.
>>43847727
>what if a player does it to "increase drama" or "for a better story". Is it ok for them to fudge rolls?
No, because that's not the player's job. The player has one single job: Stay in character and react to the world, and when the DM asks for it, they roll a die to determine their success or failure of certain things.
Players do not decide when and what to roll. Players do not roll behind a screen. Players do not decide how much HP an enemy has. Players do not veto the narrative of the campaign. That is not part of their job description. If they think it is, they should not be a player.
>>43847761
No. I should be allowed to fudge to make my story better. Stop being a shit head and stopping my story.
I don't fudge rolls, if something needs to be a specific way to make any sense I either make it like that or I make the top roll and bottom roll both within the right frame.
Example being a WH40k cleric who is travelling the imperium trying to found schools because he was too shocked at the level of ignorance in many of the other worlds. It wouldn't make any fucking sense if he came from a feral world so I'd take that option out of the dice rolls assuming I even roll at all.
>>43847780
I know this is sarcasm, but I think it's important, because a lot of players do see the game as "their" game. They expect the right to control what happens to and with their character, and that's just not true.
I'm sure those same players would also demand the right to say "No, fuck you" when I DM says their character ends up mind-controlled or something. Fuck, I've seen whole threads about "<Game Mechanic> is something only bad DMs do because it takes agency away from the players".
Players are participants in the game, they are not architects of it.
>>43847821
>I'm sure those same players would also demand the right to say "No, fuck you" when I DM says their character ends up mind-controlled or something.
Why would I?
I did roll a 20 on my save :^)
>solo campaign
>DM requires detailed backstory
>highly trained assassin
>get really into character
>session one
>crit fail a few flavor rolls that shouldn't even be an issue
>cockatrice out of the gate
>fail sneak, initiative
>peck crits
>fail petrification save
>twice
>campaign over in minutes
This is why fudging it's needed.
>>43848006
It's a DC 12 save. How fucking low lever were you?
>>43847761
>>43847821
Aw come on now you make me want to rant about player agency.
>The player has one single job: Stay in character and react to the world
The player has one single job: Stay in character and act upon the world
>Players do not veto the narrative of the campaign.
Players shape the narrative of the campaign (through the actions of their characters).
The GM has control of the narrative until the moment the game begins. After that, the GM controls NPCs that follow their own interests and plans as best they can, which the actions of the PCs may help or hinder. The GM can plan for outcomes of a scenario that seem likely, but ultimately must be ready to improvise, because there is no telling what the players (and non-fudged dice rolls) will come up with.
But of course that's just how I do things and if your players enjoy your way then you shouldn't change your way
Never
If it's something where failing wouldn't make sense I don't roll in the first place.
If a PC wants to do some dumb shit that could easily result in their death they can always succeed or survive with a good enough roll but failure can be deadly. Campaigns get stale if the PCs never die.
>>43848056
>It's a DC 12 save. How fucking low lever were you?
What the fuck does the DC matter? If he failed, he failed.
>>43848130
The thing is, cockatrice do dex damage till petrification. He was a "highly trained assassin" with less 8 dex (if it rolled max twice). Also, someone petrified by a cockatrice gets a new save every day to turn back into flesh.
He doesn't seem very highly trained if his save is low enough that this occurred, unless he literally rolled double ones.
BUT even then he could have just passed the save the next day and returned to normal.
>>43848006
Or you could use a system that doesn't have those issues in the first place.
>>43848165
>He doesn't seem very highly trained if his save is low enough that this occurred
Fun Fact: Just because your backstory says "highly trained" doesn't mean your character will ACT "highly trained" when you are required to roll.
In fact, that's a major issue. If your gripe is with the fact that, according to the rolls, the character was not "highly trained", then you have a problem with players describing their characters outside of mechanics. If your gripe is with the fact that the player couldn't represent his "highly trained" status by auto-succeeding rolls, your issue is with the game system having mechanics at all.
>unless he literally rolled double ones.
And why are you assuming that's not the case?
>>43848237
>And why are you assuming that's not the case?
Even then, the thing is to actually die to cockatrice petrification required 3 failed saves in a row minimum. So he's lying to start out.
Then it would mean he would have had to have very low dex. Super low dex as an assassin? His story reeks of being made up.
And finally. If by freak chance he was a highly trained assassin with 8 dex who rolled 5 ones in a row then he is an outlier and shouldn't be used to justify dice fudging.
>>43842858
Never, it defeats the point of dice. If the whims of fate scare you then use a less swingy form of randomization or a system that heavily mitigates the outcome of the occasional extreme roll. Don't just use dice because "that's what people do" and then decide you don't really like it when things don't go your way.
Also it's nice to be surprised as the DM. The planned encounter going off the rails because of a one in a million series of events is exciting, like hitting a twist in a movie and realizing the plot isn't going to unfold exactly as you had thought it would.
>>43848165
I don't think rolling 1 on a save is an automatic failure in D&D anyway.
>>43848575
It is. 1 autofails on saves and attacks (but not skill checks).
>>43848575
Yes, it is. That is in fact literally the ONLY time a 1's an automatic failure (or a 20 an automatic success) other than attack rolls.
Skill rolls do not have this rule, or any other check in the system.
>>43848595
>>43848604
Oh okay. Yet another reason D&D is shit.
I don't, other than for something like an opposed Perception vs. Stealth check I roll my dice in front of the screen.
Fudging dice either for or against the PCs is saying that you, the DM, have complete control over whether the characters succeed or fail, no matter how good or poor the decisions they make are. It's baffling how many DMs will go on and on about how railroading players is the worst thing you can do yet have no issue with fudging dice "for the sake of the story".
>>43848595
>>43848604
Not in 5e it isn't. Though with bounded accuracy it's usually low enough that you will fail anyway.
>>43848677
>saying that you, the DM, have complete control over whether the characters succeed or fail
I have no problem saying this. I also have no problem saying that every single time a player has ever thought that he or they "derailed" the campaign, they were always taking the exact course of action I expected and/or directed them to without them realizing it.
The game is not always random, nor should it be. Players do not always have free will, nor should they. But the important thing is, they don't know that.
>It's baffling how many DMs will go on and on about how railroading players is the worst thing you can do
The only players and DMs that say this are the ones who have no concept of what the term means or what is required to create a coherent and well-constructed narrative.
Railroading is ALWAYS going to be necessary, unless like I said, you don't give a fuck about your game. Which most DMs don't.
>>43848750
Railroading means different things to different people
>>43848750
Why is railroading always necessary? Why can't players construct their own narrative without the GM handholding them to a particular outcome?
>>43848847
Because players are fucking retards, that's why.
>>43848877
Maybe, just maybe, it's that your players are retarded and not that all players are retarded. Some people can actually interact with sandboxes.
>>43848894
Even if you think your players aren't retarded, they actually are. You've just grown used to it.
>>43848847
Because that guy is an arrogant douchebag, duh.
>>43848932
You've probably played before. Are you retarded when playing?
>>43848932
I take great entertainment from my players being chucklefucks
>>43848979
Probably. I wouldn't know, because I'm too busy being retarded.
>>43848750
You seem to be mistakenly thinking that I don't know what the term railroading means and appear to be mistaken about what the term means yourself. So let me explain it to you.
Starting the players off locked in a cell without their equipment with no recollection of how they got there isn't railroading. Having an NPC that loathes the party refuse to help them out even though they rolled a NAT FUCKING TWENTY isn't railroading. Designing an adventure with a specific or a few likely endings in mind isn't railroading. Doing absolutely anything but running an open sandbox game and telling your players to do whatever the fuck they want isn't railroading.
Railroading is when you completely disregard a player's decisions because it messes with what you wanted to happen. Giving your boss monster a few extra hit points because a player rolled a crit and you wanted the boss to escape and come back to fight them again later on is railroading. Fudging rolls to have your monsters hit more often against the sword and shield fighter in full plate who specifically built his character to be tanky is railroading. Saying "no, you can't do that" when a player has their character do something viable yet unexpected that messes with the precious story you had in your head is railroading.
Railroading is making it so that the game goes exactly the way you want it to go, no matter what the players do. Players shouldn't be saved when they make stupid decisions, and shouldn't be punished when they make good decisions. Which is why fudging dice is one of the worst forms of railroading.
Part of the problem with this is that there don't seem to be a lot of good systems that use more certain methods for resolving things, so people who don't like leaving everything to the dice/random chance don't have a lot of options. If they exists, people don't know about them.
>>43849049
Anything that uses bell-curve probability distributions (GURPS, FATE, etc.) gives much more consistent results.
>>43849074
Still random chance. Personally, yeah, games like that are preferable, but for those who prefer something more certain, there ain't a whole lot.
>>43849115
Amber Diceless?
>>43842858
I rarely fuck with my rolls, and in my recent dungeon I've made sure to keep it faithful. The only time I was lenient was when the group had a full party wipe, rolled new characters, and walked immediately into another party wipe. In that case, since it was unclear who was and was not in the trap, I simply rolled for damage for whoever was inside rather than straight instant kill like it was supposed to be.
>>43849049
If you know what the outcome is going to be before you even start, that's pretty fucking dull.
>>43849137
That's one. And it does a lot of things weird it seems, like the bidding.
>>43849209
If you have sufficient complexity it works fine, it just becomes more of a resource management game.
>>43849209
In chess you always know that the piece you are moving now will kill what you move it onto. Pretty fuckin' bad game, right?
Actually just to pre-empt potential "Chess is boring." Take your pick of any board/video game that doesn't rely on random for literally everything. It shifts to burden of deciding the results onto the participants and not a dice roll.
Not as often as I should. Nor when I should.
I'm still fairly new at this, so whenever I roll on behalf of NPCs, I feel obliged to keep that roll, and the resultant action. To rectify this, I've gotten a hold of a cube, about the same size as a d6. I'll "roll" that, if I need dice-noise.
I'm also not challenging them enough, I don't think. They tend to steamroll whatever I send their way.
I suspect I shall make their enemies stronger now.
>>43842858
Only once when an encounter was going to practically kill everyone in the first turn. It was meant to be a challenging encounter not 'rocks fall everyone dies'.
>>43847233
"I run a Dungeon and Dragons club on a college campus, and one of the first things I try and instill in new players is the idea that character death is a big deal, and can happen to anyone, and to try their best to not die, but that ultimately bad luck can kill you."
Bad Luck is a BIG DEAL, doesn't suit my taste for fantasy adventure. I also find it hard to equate "my character is important and he could randomly die". Especially when the result is roll a new character to replace him, get shoehorned into the group, and continue play. sounds exactly like a BIG DEAL.
>>43846451
>you are a bad roleplayer if you have to deal with unaccountable scenarios instead of a predetermined set of events dictated by a film director gm
Right
>>43849621
That's not how you quote, use greentext.
Rolled 2 (1d6)
if i roll below a 3 im going to take my glock 17 from my night stand and blow my brains out in bed
>>43849645
>You are a bad roleplayer if you actually have any measure of control and don't just roll dice for everything.
Two can play at this game!
>>43842858
Often when I started, never anymore. Things have been much better.
There are two times I ever even roll dice in a usual game.
1: To determine something cosmetic and flight of fancy that doesn't matter in any important way.
2: When I basically have to during something at the core rules like d&d's combat.
If you fudge in any of the listed situations, you shouldn't have used dice. That isn't an insult, it's advice. There are systems out there that put you at the reigns more, and situations in others where not rolling wouldn't be weird. Otherwise it's like calling the number you roll each time, and when it doesn't come up what you said, you reroll it until it does. That's a waste of time compared to doing it your way. You're the boss as GM, so why pretend to follow the rules when you can literally ignore them at your leisure? I like dice sometimes, some like them more, some less. All these ways can be fun, but only if you stick to whatever promise you make to players.
>>43849663
see ya space cowboy
>>43846451
>not being able to build up a story even when a character dies
casuls , i always have improvised the story around shitty dice rolls
>>43850171
what i wanted to add: not being able to tell a good story even when things are going apeshit doesnt exactly make a good DM
Unpopular opinion(?) ahead. I don't even roll. All my players like gamey, crunchy systems and tactical combat, and I don't like it at all. I just like making/telling stories. So I throw some lights and smoke and razzle-dazzle and they seem to like it.
>>43849621
Important people can randomly die, even in fantasy (depending on the work, sometimes especially in fantasy).
>>43848165
"Creatures hit by a cockatrice’s bite attack must succeed on a DC 12 Fortitude save or instantly turn to stone. The save DC is Constitution-based. Cockatrices have immunity to the petrification ability of other cockatrices, but other petrification attacks affect them normally"
I had 18 Dex actually; not that it mattered since the save is con. My DM even let me roll the save twice, and it just didn't matter.
>>43842858
never, i dont actually roll dice, i have the players roll any dice i would, keeps them active in the game even if they aren't actively playing at that moment and it keeps play honest.
>>43848604
In 5e, there's no automatic success/fail for saving throws.
>>43853388
I think a lot of people still treat 1/20 as automatic. After all there is the Golden Rule: Do whatever the fuck you want.
>>43851725
What system were you playing? Because to my knowledge cockatrice do dex damage until they turn you to stone. Also it might have been your GM's fault for running a solo game where the first enemy had a save or die.
>>43848006
>>43851725
>>43855113
Wouldn't a highly trained assassin know that a cockatrice can fucking kill you super easily? This is what happens when you play like >>43849621, you assume you're allowed to get yourself into potentially lethal situations without dying because something something plot armor. What you're forgetting is that the fellowship didn't fight to balrog, they fucking ran. That's what an actually intelligent and skilled protagonist looks like.
>>43842858
when I'm certain it will make the game better
>>43843001
>playing a GURPS game
>a player once slipped in a pool of blood and accidentally shot himself in the head
>rolled max damage
>after skull DR and modifiers he dealt more than 20 damage to himself
>rolled 18 against his health
It was the best character death.
