I'm mad, /tg/.
How did the idea surface that a natural 20 means you ALWAYS succeed, no matter what ludicrous bullshit you're doing, and that a natural 1 means you spectacularly fuck up the most menial of tasks?
I was DMing a campaign earlier and a player tried to argue that his 20 on a Diplomacy check would allow him to convince the group of Sahuagin to change their minds about attacking the party. They didn't even share a language.
What weird system are you playing that says a natural 20 always succeeds regardless of anything? I've never played a system that worked this way. My DMs have always had situations where even a nat 20 isn't enough sometimes.
>>45353144
That's the thing. The system doesn't say that, it's just what players seem to believe.
not reading the rules
>>45353111
I agree this idea is fucking retarded. Case in point: https://mythjae.wordpress.com/2016/01/28/fated-3/
>>45353111
People skim over skill and combat rulings then they think rolling a 20 on a skill check or combat roll mean the same things. Retard DM encourage it and those player then teach it wrong to more people that never bother to learn the rules.
>>45353111
Probably because of nat 20 = crit (or at least auto-hit) on attacks and auto-success on saves and people simply assuming that worked with all d20 rolls in D&D.
And then it would likely spiral from there with DMs letting all kinds of "awesome" wacky stuff happen to try to be cool and because "it's totally uncommon to get a natural 20!" and now people are used to it.
>>45353203
And then they start adapting it to other systems. The worst case I've seen is someone adding a crit fail rule to Dark Heresy. D100 roll under system, so he treated a natural 100 as a crit fail. The reason it was so bad there was because Dark Heresy has fate points, letting players reroll a few rolls each session. Since we knew that a nat 100 would go really badly for us, we always used a fate point to reroll them when they came up.
NPCs do not have fate points. So they had to suffer the effects of their crit fails. Which always made things easier for us.
Actually, that whole campaign was filled with house rules that GM thought would make things harder, but really only made things easier because the GM forgot to account for fate points.
>>45353111
If it is impossible, don't let them roll. If they roll, tell them that it is tough shit, you didn't allow the roll.
I only allow rolls if I figure there is at least a 5% chance that someone could succeed at it. And then, sure, a nat 20 succeeds.
>>45353287
>you don't even need to burn the fate point to reroll
Every time, though some important NPC should have fate points via that "will of the fate" trait or something
>>45353376
There were a few NPCs important enough to have fate points. I don't know if they rerolled nat 100s or simply never had them in the first place.
It's the mooks that had the embarrassing crit fails. Like trying to dodge and knocking himself out on the nearest wall.
>critical 20
>you seduce the Lich
>critical 1
>you slip and chop your leg off
Neither of these things are in the rules.
It really does grind my gears.
There was a particular trend of D&D-posting on imgur, almost completely memeing about "lol nat1"/"lol nat 20".
It was as horrible as you might imagine. Thank fuck no one will probably pick D&D despite popularity of those posts. It is a terribly place regardless.
>>45353111
>How did the idea surface that a natural 20 means you ALWAYS succeed, no matter what ludicrous bullshit you're doing, and that a natural 1 means you spectacularly fuck up the most menial of tasks?
A lot of friendless losers who've never played RPGs before post on /tg/.
>>45353111
Whenever my party tries to do something nigh impossible like that, I tell them "fine, but roll the d100 (2d10s). You need to roll 100." Some people in my party always want to try the most stupid stuff, like seduce the succubus or talk the snow wolves out of eating them. So far, no one has ever rolled the 100, and it makes them give up on the stupid ideas since they at least got a chance. And I figure, if only 1 out of every 100 stupid ideas goes through, that's still not ruining anything.
As far as natural 1 fails, there's one house rule I like fairly well: If a ranged attack misses with a natural 1, they must reroll the attack dice to see if it hits something else important (of my choice) in the path of the projectile. Although I'd allow it to hit an enemy that way, 9/10 times there's an ally in the way that I can select. The damage is never game changing, but it makes ranged users try not to shoot from behind a wall of friends all the time.
>>45356019
I'm boring, when a ranged guy rolls a 1 his bowstring breaks, and he has to spend 1d4 turns restringingAlthough I'm just having a fun game with friends and let CUHRAYZEE stuff happen on 20s and awful stuff happen on 1s
>>45356065
if that happened to my rogue, I think they'd probably just give up and use their melee weapons for the rest of the fight.
>>45356065
That's to fucking much
Thats a 1/20 chance of a snaped bowstring I could go fore a bow and likely fire hundreds of times without a snap.
>>45353160
>it's just what people who haven't played any TTRPGs seem to believe
FTFY
>>45356323
I'm the last person to defend D&D's shitty rules, but look at it this way: when you fire a bow hundreds of times in practice, you're taking 10 every time. If you were in close-range combat with a horde of orcs, it might not be unreasonable to say you have a 5% chance of getting your bowstring fucked up
If the task is incredibly simple, you don't roll for it
If the task is basically impossible, you don't roll for it
Nat 20s should only always be successes in combat, with crits depending on the weapon.
Just don't apply the idea to skill rolls, especially not diplomacy. Anyone that tries to abuse diplomacy like that, I'd honestly kick out. I am so tired of players trying to use high diplomacy as a 'I can win anything' button, especially when I've houseruled no social skills can be used against fellow players.
>>45353172
>https://mythjae.wordpress.com/2016/01/28/fated-3/
That's the most diverse group of gamers I've ever seen.
>>45353111
People who have the system verbally explained to them, or who assume skill resolution works exactly like combat resolution and skim the section, tend assume that. You also get the rare fucktard who actively encourages it because something something "crit successes so kewl and randumb XDDDD".
Sometimes this can create feedback loops within a playgroup, where they all believe it and teach it to new players who join, and nobody thinks to question it. I see this happen alot with my FLGS' D&D Encounters, which tends to have DMs with little experience and tons of new or rules-illiterate players. We've had to fix some weird fucking rule misconceptions when those players bleed over into the normal D&D group.
Has there ever been an edition of DnD where rolls that aren't attacks or saves can crit? For that matter, is there a spin-off or OSR that does so?
>>45353293
That's how I prefer to handle it.
If you wouldn't succeed even with the highest roll possible, I won't ask you to roll. Conversely, if you couldn't fail even with the lowest possible roll, I won't ask you to roll either.
>>45353111
It's a house rule and always has been. In 5e they take pains to note that it is a house rule, because popularized mention of the Nat 20 rule has strengthened the erronious belief that it is the default.
> tl;dr Make sure your players understand that that is a house rule. Explain to them calmly that you do not want to use that house rule.
>>45353111
>>45356323
Well, like I said, we're not playing too seriously. If a player rolls a 20 to attack, some crazy shit is gonna happen, so some equally crazy shit has to happen if it's a 1.
>>45353111
Try looking at it from another angle: if a natural 20, the best possible roll, doesn't succeed, then why the fuck were you allowed to roll in the first place? Whatever you were trying to do must have been in the realm of possibility for there to be any point in picking up the die.
>>45353111
>How did the idea surface
Because you shouldn't roll a die unless multiple outcomes are possible.
If someone tries to do something that can't work (or only has one possible outcome, which is typically failure), then you don't bother rolling for it. You just say it fails.
>>45358141
>then why the fuck were you allowed to roll in the first place
Because it's a shit GM that just goes 'don't even bother rolling, you fail'
>>45358262
>I want to flap my arms so hard that I fly, land on God's head, and take his power
>Ok, roll
>20
>Congrats, you're God now
>>45358262
Disagree. "You can't roll Diplomacy, you don't share a language; they literally can't understand a thing you're saying, and don't much care either" is valid.
It's another matter if Diplomacy is always useless, of course, but occasions where your skills do not avail you because of circumstances aren't a bad thing.
>>45358262
It's a much worse GM that says "roll" and then "you fail" regardless of what the result was.
>>45358333
No, it's a shit GM who calls for a die roll for every single fucking action.
WHEN TO CALL FOR A DIE ROLL AS A DM:
1. Action has a chance of success
2. Action has a chance of failure
3. There is a risk or cost for failure
ALL THREE CONDITIONS MUST BE MET
Rolled 12 (1d20)
I roll to become a god.
>>45358333
There is a difference between letting them roll and letting them succeed at what they rolled for.
>>45358356
Just because none of the possible results are high enough to succeed doesn't mean you shouldn't let a player that wants to roll for something to roll for something.
Now, if you declare failure on a roll that should have succeeded, that is some bullshit.
>>45353111
Common house rule is to apply critical success and failure to all dice rolls, not just attacks.
This tends to be because of initial misreading of the rules, and then gets exaggerated and insisted upon due to "awesome shit" that pops up.
>>45353111
>I'll roll a stealth check so I don't wake up the dragon
>Ok, go ahead
>Nat 20
>Hmm... The dragon's innate sense of perception is so powerful that, despite the fact that you just crit on your stealth roll, he wakes up and kills you anyway. Roll a new character.
You see how that makes no real sense? It doesn't matter how high I roll on stealth, I'd never beat a Dragon's passive perception, unless I crit.
>>45358757
>Trying to sneak up on something that is better at noticing things than you are at not being noticed
Maybe you shud git gud before you try sneaking up on dragons, m80
>>45358757
But if you go by the rules, a 20 on a skill check isn't a 'crit', it's just a 20. It just happens to be the highest number you can roll.
>>45358757
>calling for a roll when even a nat-20 is a success
That's the dumbest part of your example.
>>45358757
Have you ever fucking played a RPG in your life? That's a dumb example, and you should feel dumb.
>>45358495
>that pic
>>45356695
As someone who has fired bows multiple times in his lifetime, I can safely say that a bowstring is not so fragile that it will snap after only a 100 or so shots.
Think about it, back then you didn't take a bow out to shoot at targets for fun, often times you were doing so because you were fighting for your life on a battlefield. If your bowstring is snapping once ever 20 shots, you're either improperly maintaining it or you're using shit materials that have the longevity of a housefly.
>>45353287
>>45355539
>The more skilled you are, the more rolls you make in a round
>The more times you roll, the more often you'll roll a 1
Fumble rules barely affect characters on the level of normal people, but they make you clumsier and worse at fighting the more skilled you are at fighting, to the point where a master swordsman can't attack anything without decapitating himself.
>"But it's more realistic that way!"
>>45353111
Willful misinterpretation of the rules
>>45357133
Really that's good to hear maybe 5e has some redeeming quality's after all.
>>45358262
Better that then getting a 20 and being told its not enough.
>>45358495
I suppose one could make the argument that you don't want your players to know just how hard the action would be sometimes.
>>45356873
At least they're actually making something. And for bonus points it's not incredibly dumb and preachy.
Why roll for things if there's no chance to either succeed or fail? Unless you're just finding exactly how fucked you are.
>>45356873
You're kind of a retard. I've got a bigger menagerie of dissimilarities in my game group. I bet that Muslim isn't even a closet homosexual.
It was well drawn. I just wish it were based on their own idea instead of Facebook spam.
>>45358333
Isn't that how it works in Exalted and/or Nobilis?
> Party runs into BBEG trap
> They're outnumbered, outgunned, outplanned
> They're all bloodied or worse
> Their spellcaster is out of spells
> There's no way out
> Half-orc Barbarian doesn't even get a round in as a miniboss stabs him with a glaive
> Elf Druid lights some pinecones with Druidcraft and only manages to set the building they're trapped in on fire
> Takes an arrow and blacks out
> It's down to the Paladin
> The player tells me he's going to go out swinging
> Charges the miniboss, swinging a cursed sword
> Rolls to attack
> 20
> 20
> He double crits the miniboss so hard that it cuts the thing in three pieces
> He's got 10 HP left, but for a moment he's alive
> BBEG, who's a half-giant bounty hunter, turns to the paladin
> Gives a little villainous speech about not usually giving heroes a chance to face him, but he'll make an exception
> Unsheathes his greatsword and charges
> 1
> 1
> 16
> Have a houserule that says that a natural 1 on an attack is always a miss, and if you confirmed the roll (i.e., you roll again and miss) the target of the attack gets a free attack against you if they're in melee range.
> No idea where it came from, but it made polearms a lot more appealing and gave melee characters more active stuff to do
> Gets resolved as a part of your turn, so it's conceivable for you to get knocked out on your turn
> Bounty hunter rolls a 2 and a 4, confirming the first critical miss
> Paladin attacks before the end of the bounty hunter's turn
> Rolls an 18
> Paladin manages to drive the sword into the bounty hunter's chest
The bounty hunter survived. The party still lost. But for a moment, everyone was cheering for the least skilled player at the table.
What the fuck is happening. Why are people talking like critical success is a thing on skills? You all realize that's not a thing, right? Crits only can occur on initiative, attack rolls, and saving throws.
>>45358423
>You shouldn't be able to roll if you can't succeed
>A good GM always lets you roll
> Here's an examle that shows why you're wrong
>You shouldn't be able to roll if you can't succeed
>>45353111
Because some people enjoy fun.
>>45365433
What a shitty, meaningless reply.
>>45365396
Are you talking about that God example?
>>45363591
>20 town guardsmen hit the training room for an hour, hitting practice dummies with wooden clubs
>at the end of the session 5 guardsmen have died and 6 are heavily wounded
>"But it's more realistic that way!"
>>45365768
Yes, it's a situation in which you shouldn't allow the person to roll because they can't succeed.
>>45353111
You can't crit a skill check.
>>45365260
>Crits
>initiative
What system does this? What benefit does it confer?
>>45369039
The only one I know of is Savage Worlds, and it lets you act whenever you want in the initiative order, plus get a bonus.
>>45358495
>There is a difference between letting them roll and letting them succeed at what they rolled for.
Unless you're deliberately obfuscating the difficulty of the action, all allowing unpassable rolls does is waste time.
>>45358757
If you try to sneak up on something with a perception 20 points higher than your stealth then yeah, no shit, that's exactly how it works.
>>45369210
Oh no, I took 5 seconds of my carefully rationed entertainment allotment to let a player feel vaguely empowered by his ability to attempt a thing. Clearly this is a travesty.
>>45365202
> They're outnumbered, outgunned, outplanned
My man
>>45353111
That's why my system uses d100s
>>45356949
There's been official optional rules for it offered, but I can't recall any edition that allowed it in vanilla.
Unearthed Arcana had had some weird shit in it
>>45363718
If the player insists on doing something that is impossible but can still be attempted it makes sense to roll on it.
Flapping your arms to try and fly is impossible and requires no roll. Jumping over an 80ft. gorge is also going to be impossible for most characters, but I'm still gonna make somebody who tries it make a Jump check, cause that's what that check is for.
>>45353111
Just stop playing with that retarded houserule. What the actual fuck.
>>45369081
Deadlands, Savage Worlds' ancestor system, lets you act whenever you like in the turn if you draw the red joker, or if you've got a card up your sleeve.
>>45356880
I think it is actually kewl and randumb, awesome or comical, depending on context. The problems of skewed mechanics aside, crit success or fail can make something happen that seemed impossible: No-one at the table expected it! This leaves us with an explanation problem and we (usually the GM) are left to explain "how the heck did that happen". The surprise and often memorable explanation gives an intense experience with the potential to form a focal point for the story, be it tragic, comic, heroic or tense.
>>45374031
But if that's happening 1 in every 20 skill checks it's not tragic, comic, heroic or tense - it's mundane.
>>45365202
>They're outnumbered, outgunned, outplanned
You know, my solution to being outgunned is to shoot enough people until you are no longer outgunned.
>>45353111
It comes from people who dont play TTRPGs but like to read facebook posts with screencapped greentext stories or tumblr posts about "Epic" things that happen.
>>45374057
I agree, it's too frequent.
>>45358423
>ALL THREE CONDITIONS MUST BE MET
Not really. When a character goes to the king and tells him to hand over the crown, the range could be from king laughing because he thought it was a joke to kill that insolent son of a bitch immediately.
Chance of success? None.
That is why you don't be a fag and play a better system like rolemaster, where, if you want to do ridiculous tasks you need to open the dice 3 to 5 times
>>45356323
You could do that with a 1/20 chance of a snap too. 1/20 doesn't mean one out of every 20 pulls results in a snap. The probability is the same for every pull so you're always 19 times more likely to NOT snap the string.
>>45356873
My eyes rolled a nat 20 when I saw the hijab.
>>45353111
If a player made a roll without me telling him to do it, he would get a warning not to do it again, because I won't count uncalled rolls.
If he argued that is should, because he rolled 20 or some other, stupid shit, he would get kicked out of my group.
If he did it again, depending on my mood (how much of other bullshit I had to put up with during this playing session), I would either remind him I won't count that types of rolls or just give him the boot.
There are some borders you just shouldn't try crossing when socializing with civilized people, one of them is not to piss them off intentionally.
>>45353111
I don't know, why people think landing in free parking grants you the moneypool in monopoly?
>>45353111
>I was DMing a campaign earlier and a player tried to argue that his 20 on a Diplomacy check would allow him to convince the group of Sahuagin to change their minds about attacking the party. They didn't even share a language.
Why did you let him roll diplomacy if it was impossible?
>>45374085
mine is to go back home for more funds so I can come back with more guns
>What is context
Nah, Nat 20 successes always result in godhood.
>>45374057
That's not how statistics works.
Nor does it acknowledge that the largest amount of rolls will go to combat.
>>45375487
That's actually a really apt comparison.
>>45375514
Obviously, it's about some kind of fucktard that rolls without GM's approval and then "hurr-durr I have a 20 on diplomacy I can do anything now".
>>45353111
The mechanics should serve the story, not the other way around. Just keep that in mind, and you literally cannot go wrong.
>>45375597
How about buying war bonds?
>>45353111
So....nothing about the situation described works like that. Assuming we are talking about DND, diplomacy requires that you be able to communicate clearly, and that the other party gives you time to make your case (several minutes worth, IIRC).
So you shouldn't get mad at your player for trying this, just have the sahuagin stab his ass while he tries to talk to them and continue on.
>>45353172
Fucking tumblr with their bullshitI lol'd
>>45353111
first game ever played
>party thrown in jail. next morning guard is laying dead on the floor in the hallway
>ranger wants to pick up the keys on the floor to unlock his cell
>haha okay roll for dex
>rolls a 1
>DM laughs.
>uhh i don't know...the keys uhh explode in your hand haha. take 1 dmg.
ranger and the rest of the party went along with it and they all thought it was funny. i thought it was stupid but i ignored it.
DM ended up being fucking terrible and we only played 3 sessions with him. we don't really do crazy stuff on fails anymore except accidentally hitting party members.
>>45353111
1) because as the highest roll possible to get, it's generally a success in something actually possible to achieve. If it's impossible, why did you even let them roll?
2) house rules to let them do something seemingly impossible as a last ditch effort. They are heroes, after all; Million to one odds come up 9 times out of ten
3) house rules for when people are fucking about
4) doormat GMs that don't put their foot down when some lolsorandumb fuck decides to seduce the king
>>45377252
>>ranger wants to pick up the keys on the floor to unlock his cell
>>haha okay roll for dex
Having to roll to pick up an object off the floor should have been the first warning sign.
>>45358141
>the best possible roll, doesn't succeed, then why the fuck were you allowed to roll in the first place?
Because your shitty rpg have 5% increments
Its not you cant do it, its just you cant have something with less than 5% chance of doing and so everything below 5% is 0%
>>45378873
Probably they were juuuuuuuuuuuust within reach of the cell through the bars, but whatever.
>>45378963
>5% increments
They made it somewhat better with advantage and disadvantage.
>>45378963
Roll in multiple stages? "You have a five percent chance of performing stage one correctly, then a fifty percent chance of stage two" gets you to 2.5%, you can fiddle with it from there to get your exact desired odds.
>>45358831
Sometimes crit roles like that make for a better, more interesting story.
Like I doubt Bilbo's stealth was high enough to sneak around Smaug, he just rolled incredibly well, and it was a good storytelling point, so it was allowed.
On the other hand, if Bilbo's player had tried to roll for something like "I sneak up on Smaug, climb down his throat, and tear out his heart" he should be allowed to roll, but that doesn't mean he has any chance of success. I would use it more as a degrees of failure situation.
Ie. Rolls a 1: dies in smaugs mouth, because Smaug let him in.
Rolls a 10: Smaug wakes up and bats him across the room, heavily injuring and potentially killing him.
Rolls a 20: Smaug wakes up before the attempt can get fully underway, potentially, but unlikely, saving the players life.
>>45369210
Let's take a second and pretend all our players are actually competent role players (difficult, I know)
If they're actually attempting something, it's probably fairly reasonable plot wise, ergo, let them roll, even if it's a guaranteed failure, just use the roll to determine how badly they fail.
If your characters are proposing ideas that are fundamentally retarded, your problem isn't the idea that a 20 is natural success, the problem is stupid players.
>>45363591
Not only that, but like most houserules intended to add "realism" to the game, it makes martials even weaker relative to casters, since there is no roll to cast a spell.
>Swinging a sword is riskier and more unpredictable than bending the laws of physics and the fabric of the universe
>"But it's more realistic that way!"
Crits don't promote realism, they promote variety.
That said, a 5% crit chance is too high if you ask me. Instead, follow each crit chance with a confirmation roll that must succeed (or fail) to confirm the crit.
Another option would be to make a nat 20 explode (roll again, add 20 + the new result to your roll.) gives you a chance to make that DC 35.
>>45353111
> a thread based on a misnomer
> still alive
how?
>>45378873
it was everyone's first time and i think most of them just thought it would be fun because of the critical failure jokes that circulate. particularly the ones about accidentally seducing enemies. no, he was a bad dm for other reasons.
>>45378963
Increments smaller than 5% aren't worth tracking for a game. Lots of games do have 1% or smaller increments or include special tables to roll on for some event with <1% chance of happening, but they're bad, and exist out of some designer's compulsive need for extraneous detail.
>>45382289
In my experience, you can count on a couple of 1% crits happening in a session.
That's what makes them special.
>>45382289
By your logic critical results are not worth tracking.
Because having a 5% chance of either kind is idiotic and cheapens them.
>>45353111
Skill checks don't have crits. A 20 on your skill check just means you got a 20+skill mod against your DC (which can easily be higher than a 30 or 40).
As regards combat, sure, a 20 is a hit, but that's all it is. You still need to confirm it and even if you get a confirmed crit it's going to mean you win.
>>45380986
Could work.
>>45381185
That fucking weapon cord nerf man.
>>45353287
i am 90% sure that 95-100 actually was auto fail in DH and that you can't fate that if you roll it
>>45358248
That can't always apply. There are situations where success or failure is guaranteed, but they should still be allowed to roll searches, for example.
They may want to search, but nothing is there. You let them roll, and if for some godforsaken reason you play with skill auto success, they would still find nothing.
>>45375597
And ships?
And so the balance shifts?
>>45382941
I don't know about not being able to spend a fate point to avoid it, but under the "Roll Dice" section on page 22 of the Dark Heresy 2.0 core rule book, it says any roll the results in a 1 is an automatic success, and any roll that results in a 00 is an automatic failure.
Anyone else browse /tg/ and see these threads where people complain about dead systems where the rule they're mad about isn't even a rule and they were the dm and they could have just houseruled it either way but they don't and they don't communicate and it's like jesus christ dude what are you doing with your life but then you realise this guy probably doesn't actually play games he just posts fake complaints because that's what you do on /tg/ ?
>>45388619
No. Are you on the spectrum?
>>45356949
I wouldn't think so. Crits were around in wargaming at the time D&D was developed, and were a popular house rule. But even critical hits in combat are a relative novelty in the published rules. Gygax hated them and ranted about how criticals were unfair on the players and in any case needless complexity when the game already had damage rolls. I think critical hits showed up as an "official option" in 2E, but didn't become part of the core rules until 3E.
>>45375219
Not a good counter-example. In that situation, the DM has (implicitly) said that getting the crown is impossible and no roll should be made for that. There's a separate but related question of how well the king responds to the request, where there's a chance of success (amused monarch), failure (unhappy monarch) and a risk (execution). The DM could certainly lie to the players and call the roll one thing while having it be another, but that doesn't change what's going on behind the screen.
>>45380986
This is pretty much RAW, because listen vs. move silently is adjusted for distance. You could use the hobbit's real check (without a silly critical hit notion) against the dragon's passive listen to work out how close Bilbo gets before he's discovered.
>>45353111
>they didn't even share a language
every race understands the language of love, baby
>>45389065
>Not a good counter-example.
Yes it is. You are just moving the goal post by arbitrarily adding more factors, which is not only irrelevant but also stupid.
The character takes an action and rolls for its ramifications.
>>45382289
>Increments smaller than 5% aren't worth tracking for a game.
actually you can use actual % to make stuff easier to developer, dm and players.
By having a % system that can be broken down as much as needed.
One example of a related problem not related with dices is dwarf fortress, the tile dont have a size and beings are multi tiled. If you overthink about this situation (using walk speed to check tile size and etc......) you see how messy the game is, if he decided for a tile size and used multi tile, he wouldnt need to guess or to decide how fast, long ...... stuff will be, he just do according to how fast or long the stuff really is
