Is he right fellow fa/tg/uys?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jxGcsP8Qs8
Probably not, judging from the image. He doesn't seem to understand that subjective opinions on roleplaying games are not the same thing as objective facts about historical weaponry.
>>46373332
Well, the tl;dr version of the video is basically: Just roll the damn die, and don't be that guy who drags out every encounter because he has to look up every modifier, stat, penalty, etc. before he even rolls.
I get what he's saying, but this sort of thing hasn't happened much in the groups I've played in. People either just know all the modifiers and bonuses they have before they pick up the die because they've been playing for years or they roll the die right away and add the modifiers afterwards.
But yeah, if I was gaming with someone who played like this I would ask them to pick up the pace as well. Rolling attack and damage at the same time if a big help, for example.
>>46373373
He is 200% objectively correct.
I agree with the general disdain for this type of player, although in my experience it's less about knowing the specific number, more humming and hawing about what to do. They sit there shaking that d20 in their hands, all eyes on them, "Hmm...", then after thirty painful seconds, they attack or cast fire bolt just like their last five turns.
I'm surprised Lindybeige has this opinion though, since a lot of his complaints about games like D&D are about how abstract certain ideas and mechanics are, yet here he's complaining about concrete numbers that change the outcome of the game. He's played 5E so I'm sure he's aware of the Inspiration mechanic, which is an example where it DOES help to know the number before you roll.
>>46373270
If the video is just about "roll the die and don't hold up the game to check a rule" then yeah, who'd think he was wrong? Got a player that does that in my group, pisses everyone the hell off.
>>46373373
Unless it comes down to "if I fuck up this turn, someone in the party dies", in which case looking for the optimal strategy probably a good idea.
That doesn't seem to be what he's talking about, at least at the beginning. He's talking about people insisting on knowing what the target number is before they roll, when they're going to roll a d20 making a standard attack regardless of what that number is.
He's absolutely right but the player type he's describing is incredibly rare.
>>46373270
Doesn't matter if he's right or wrong; he's a git either way
>>46373866
>>46373270
God fucking damnit, I recognized myself as player who always asks GM what are my odds before rolling, what I need to beat. I have spent so much time...
>>46373909
It's a habit I've had to teach myself out of, though thankfully I'm pretty much a perma-GM now so it doesn't come up often.
In fact, I actually cleave quite close to what Lindy's saying. I usually just have the players roll with a few of the more important variables present, and if they land something middling I'll look it up.
>>46373270
Honestly the right play as a DM is to just never tell them what the odds are. Just keep everybody in the dark, keeps people from doing this shit because they know you wont tell. Also adds some mystery to the exact nature of the creature they are fighting.
>>46373270
Jesus, Spoony has really let himself go recently, he barely even sounds like himself any more.
He's also a little bit wrong - there's a bunch of systems where you kinda need to know those additional things to work out your dice pools.
>>46374096
>Spoony has really let himself go
Cannot unsee.
>>46373909
You should be told if the enemy is on cover and stuff like that, but a DM should never tell the player the specific AC of an enemy unless their character has a spell or class ability that would let them know that.
>>46374076
I'm actually baffled as I've NEVER had a DM gie out things like target number unless the roll is extremely close or they forget to take something into account and have to change their ruling on whether something is a success or not.
Dat shit's privileged information and not for the player's tiny minds to comprehend, normally.
>>46374124
Me and our GM has learned quite lot as we are pretty new group. I still remember the few first sessions, oh god they were sluggish as fuck.
>>46373838
Being a Forever DM I've never had a player ask me the AC or anything like that before rolling, hell, sometimes not even after.
>>46374124
>You should be told if the enemy is on cover and stuff like that, but a DM should never tell the player the specific AC of an enemy
It really depends on the game. I tend to prefer it that way, myself, but there's nothing inherently wrong with doing it the other way.
I will refuse to tell players the target numbers, except in the most dire of circumstances. I also roll all GM rolls behind the screen and I will shamelessly lie about the result if I feel the result I rolled doesn't jive with how I want to make the encounter go.
Fite me.
>>46374369
Why would I fight you? That's how you're supposed to do it.
>>46374369
>I will refuse to tell players the target numbers, except in the most dire of circumstances
That's cool,nothing wrong with that in the slightest.
>I also roll all GM rolls behind the screen and I will shamelessly lie about the result if I feel the result I rolled doesn't jive with how I want to make the encounter go.
Die.
>>46373270
Never really been much of a problem in any of the games I've been in, at least not in the specific sense. But you shouldn't argue with the GM and should let him run the game the way he wants to. So there's nothing wrong with asking for target numbers, but if he tells you not to worry about it and just to roll, then shut up and roll.
>>46374485
>Die
But anon, that's largely the reason the DM screen exists.
>>46373909
It's counterproductive because the more you know about your specific chances the harder fudging is, which means you're more likely to get fucked.
>>46373270
>though I don't like to froth and rant and rave
>in a british accent
>on a youtube channel
Why should I care about this faggot's opinion?
>>46374699
You don't. You don't care about anything, anon. Nothing matters, life is just a pointless string of reactions to sensory stimuli bolstered by chemical triggers to lure us into the same repetitive actions.
Free yourself of the chains of consciousness. Go catch the Sunset Limited.
>>46374699
>>46374627
I see hiding the rolls as increasing the immersion, not as a means to fudge rolls.
Players don't care what you roll (except for the occasional 1 or 20), they care what THEY roll. It's why D&D has had "players roll all the dice" variants for the past few editions, and why D&D 5E added static monster damage as an optional rule. There was a good article by Chris Perkins where he said the only damage dice he ever rolled were d6s (and this was in 4E, of all things).
Of course you can fudge rolls or stick to the numbers depending on your preferred play style, I just think the screen is primarily to make the narrator/arbiter role more mysterious and less of a numbers game. Behind that screen you could be completely winging everything, and the players don't have a clue.
>>46374879
It has a lot to do with the GM-player relationship. Some players like to think the entire game is being decided by RNG and so they want the GM to roll everything the same way they do. But, sometimes as a GM (or a player) you don't want certain rolls to go a certain way because it might drastically derail the story for one or both parties. Having the screen lets the players feel like they've bested chance when something they thought would go terribly awry turns out to instead go their way, and the GM can keep the narrative going without being beholden to the rolls.
>So he might say "is he in medium cover, light cover, heavy cover; are you going to give me a range penalty for this attack?"
This is stupid. He clearly doesn't like RPG combat and just wants to speed through it with the bare minimum of decision making, but this kind of information is important and would be obvious to the characters. It's not important because the player wants to know the target number before he rolls, it's important because he wants to assess his options before he picks one at all. Do you make an easy attack at the kobold charging for you, or try to take out the sorcerer hiding in cover behind the front lines? That's an interesting and relevant decision for a player, but if the DM withholds that information then it suddenly becomes neither.
>>46375139
This.
Giving the exact number might not be a good idea, but giving some idea of it is. Lindy even suggests this:
>"He's a medium-armoured man-at-arms."
And yet he goes completely against that with the cover thing. The characters should visibly see how much cover there is and it will affect their decisions, and there's nothing wrong with telling the players in simple game terms if a monster has half cover from some foliage.
>There's a guy in front of you who is going to attack you
>...ok...so what weapons and armor does he wear? is he human?
>Huurr durr stop trying to know stuff! fucking powergamers!
>>46373270
He's right on some things, like not needing to know the armor class exactly before you roll (the DM should check that), but there are some questions that are valid. For example, asking whether or not an enemy is in cover makes sense: an enemy who's in cover requires two rolls to hit (one to bypass cover, one to actually hit the guy). Whether or not he's in cover can influence what you do next (attack him, move to bypass the cover and then attack or simply attack another enemy).
When spells come into play a lot more questions become important. Hell, there are even literal fucking checks (knowledge and spellcraft) that influence how much information the DM is allowed to give away.
>>46373874
Nah, he's just incredibly British to the point of almost being a walking stereotype. All he needs is a cup of tea.
>>46375348
You're an idiot. That is literally the exact opposite of what's described here. This would be a better example;
>There's a guy in front of you who is going to attack you
>..ok..so what weapons and armor does he wear? is he human?
>He's a human wearing a breastplate and wielding a spear.
>What's the exact AC of the breastplate combined with his Dex mod? What does he roll for damage when he hits? Does he have any feats? What levels does he have? What are his HP and saves?
While giving away target numbers is a bad idea, there's a kind of taboo in a lot of RPG circles against using numbers at all, which I think is kind of unwarranted. A character has a lot of intuitive information about his actions and environment that needs to be conveyed to the player, and often the idea of trying to convey bonuses and penalties purely through prose just doesn't do that, because the player doesn't have his character's experience or presence in the adventure. Numbers are our way of abstracting that experience and presence, and there's nothing wrong with just saying "you can try to hit it, but the winds will give your shots a -6 penalty" rather than forcing them to try to work out what "very difficult" actually means and how it compares to their skill at archery.
>>46373373
That's not what I'd take away, but generally yes. Roll. Roll. Roll.
If you don't roll, I won't let you roll.
>>46375859
>If you don't roll, I won't let you roll.
Look out everyone, we've got an internet badass here.
>>46375743
I completely disagree. By focusing on numbers and the arithmetic of mechanics you diminish the narrative and often remove entirely the 'theater of the mind' aspect of roleplaying. I try to find a middle ground and rely on description but, if pressed, will offer a number though in my experience unless the roll itself is of extreme importance the players don't mind just having an abstraction of difficulty.
>>46375991
And by removing numbers, you remove the ability of the player-driven narrative to fit together coherently at all, because the characters stop being present in the game world and are forced to make decisions from a perspective just as removed as the players themselves.
>>46376150
>>46375991
It seems like the obvious answer to this is to strike a balance somewhere inbetween.
>>46373782
Can't you burn Inspiration after you roll, though? That's how my group does it.
>>46373270
Probably not. The other ancient weapons guys correct mr. two-bladed-axes-never-existed all the time.
>>46374369
What's the point of rolling the dice then? What is the advantage of rolling an encounter table and lying about the results over just telling players that they encountered 5 kobolds?
>>46373270
I've heard a lot about this guy, both good and bad. Should I give him a watch?
I'm asking here because /tg/ also recommended Schola Gladitoria which is AMAZING.
>>46377047
His videos are a mixed bag. A lot of the time he comes to his own conclusions about history or weaponry, and presents them as fact without doing the research.
But he can be entertaining and he does raise some good points every now and then. His better videos are the ones where he shows off projects and places. The DIY miniatures are neat and his Malta videos really make me want to visit.
>>46377039
That's a bad example, because random encounters genuinely are awful and you always should pick something interesting over something random.
>>46377244
You should always just pick a thing instead of fudging a roll.
Yeah he's right, what does knowing the AC of the enemy even help pre-roll unless you expect the GM to cheat?
>>46374369
Obviously the first part is fine. But part of the fun of roleplaying games is that it's often as much a surprise for the gms as it is for the players.
>>46373270
Lindy "LARP" Beige is a faggot that knows jack shit outside of classical antiquity
>>46374369
>I will refuse to tell players the target numbers, except in the most dire of circumstances.
That's really obnoxious bro and I would hate playing your games
>I also roll all GM rolls behind the screen and I will shamelessly lie about the result if I feel the result I rolled doesn't jive with how I want to make the encounter go.
That's what that thing is for, you're supposed to lie to keep the story on track.
>>46373782
It's not about the specific numbers it's about players weedling pointlessly.
There is literally no point to looking up the AC or some such of an enemy before hand, and even good reason to conceal the information from the player.
typically you can just roll and the DM will call hit or miss and the game will continue, at most, AT MOST you might need to know if it's a hard roll or an easy roll and that could be summed up easily with the enemy description, but even then it could be good for an enemy to surprise you.
I get this bullshit from my players often in a different flavor when they constantly question what spell an enemy used, what class they are, how they mechanically did xyz action, etc etc. Questioning everything and refusing to act without maximum information on what the best action might be breaks the flow of the story and slows the game to a crawl.
Even if that wasn't an issue, the DM usually shouldn't be telling you anyway for a variety of reasons.
>>46378221
>question what spell they use
I use an online format to rp, so perhaps I am out of the loop, but isn't that fucking important?
>>46373270
He's a Limey, so he's wrong by default.
[laughs in first country on the moon]
>>46378289
USSR?
>>46378283
Oh yeah, it's super important. That however, it is just more reason to not tell the players unless they have one of the methods to identify a spell already in core, and then they should have to actively check. You can't just hand out critical tactical information for free, it's supposed to be a bonus for having the appropriate skills, spells, fests, or class.
>>46377047
You can pick a few videos where he visits a place, talks about mistakes in movies, rants about elves.
When it comes to weaponry, stick to SG
>>46373270
Well it's Lindy on RPG's so he's probably wrong or raising a point that plenty of others have raised and put to rest, let's see.
>0:10
Well that's a lie.
>0:57
Lindy demonstrates his lack of understanding that D&D is only good for combat heavy adventures.
And yes it is in fact "a point that plenty of others have raised and put to rest", good stuff Lindy a shit, let's all move on.
>>46379803
My favorite was the video where he went off on 4e because the class powers are different enough that one class can't masquerade as another. Or how in the three videos he put out dealing with early, middle and late D&D, the editions he used for early and middle were literally put out the same year: 1977 (Holmes Basic and 1st edition AD&D).
>>46375272
>>46375139
this, when i play as the narrator i always describe the enemies to the players and give them all the information they should obviously have(things they see/hear)
you shouldn't tell your players their opponent's armor class anyway.
>>46382122
I think there's more to it than just telling them what their characters can see - you need some indication of what it means mechanically, where appropriate. Don't give away numbers like AC (though it's probably more than fair to give a verbal assessment, if someone wants to know), but tell players whether that enemy hiding in the tree is counting as in heavy or light cover, for instance. It forestalls arguments, if nothing else.
>>46379803
To be fair, metric is rubbish.
>>46373270
Yes but for a different reason. Asking the DM the exact TN takes the power away from the DM and gives it to the player. The second the DM does this he is no longer in control. He is willingly letting the player hijack the game by doing this. Now the DM cant shenanigans. He cant prolong the fight if it seems to easy and he cant shorten the fight if its to hard and he doesn't want the players to die yet.
and no the DM cant change it after because the type of players that ask will throw the game out the window and throw a shit fit if the DM does. More often than not it doesn't take much to kill the mood of a game and once the mood is sour that's it may as well pack up.
>>46373373
>Figure out what your character's bonuses and penalties are before you roll.
>"YOU'RE TAKING TOO LONG"
>Ignore your character's bonuses and penalties before you roll.
>Roll.
>Everyone spends the same amount of time figuring out your character's bonuses and penalties after you roll.
Take your ritalin, fuckwits.
>>46382378
also true, i always play with the same people and it works great with them, but with someone else it could cause issues
>>46383604
With a long-term fixed group, your players will also get used to your verbal shorthand, so for instance they'll know that when you say "hard to make out" or whatever, they know it's going to be partial cover. It does lead to confusion if you don't make sure you don't accidentally use a phrase your players are used to to mean something different, though.
>>46377307
I roll a d100 to figure out how hostile the random encounter will be and then a d100 for difficulty, then I just pick a random encounter from my head.
Examples are ransacked caravan 50ish then 10ish
Bloodmage or Druid using tree/bloodwalk exiting around the party - 50 then 100
