this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2024
559 points (97.0% liked)

RPGMemes

10339 readers
568 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] platypode@sh.itjust.works 71 points 5 months ago

So that my players see me roll the dice. As long as they believe the illusion, the roll is real to them, and so their experience is meaningful and memorable; at the end of the day, that's what matters most to me as a DM.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 61 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Play a system that accounts for this.

Fate gives you fate points to spend when you do t like a roll. It also gives you "succeed at a cost" if your fate points are exhausted or not enough.

You can still just roll with it (pun intended) and die to a random goblin if that's fun. But you also have agreed upon procedure for not doing that. "It looks like the goblin is going to gut me, but (slides fate point across the table) as it says on my sheet I'm a Battle Tested Bodyguard, so I twist at the last second and he misses (because the fate point bumps my defense roll high enough)"

This is pretty easy to import into DND, too, if you like the other parts of it

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Baldurs Gate does a good job of this with the inspiration

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] WolfLink@lemmy.ml 49 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I don’t fudge rolls, but I do dynamically adjust enemy’s max HP depending on how well my players are doing.

[–] Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I'm not big on fudging rolls, but that's one thing I will do. In my last campaign, I had statted up the first real villain for my players to fight, and they knocked him out in one punch. I would have made him one level higher, but then his own attacks would have been strong enough to one-shot some of the players. Level 1 woes.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I would have made him one level higher, but then his own attacks would have been strong enough to one-shot some of the players

Level 1 woes are real, but remember, NPCs don't have to follow player character creation rules

[–] Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago

Yeah, I learned that too. I had come up with a villain later on who had a very defense/counterattack focused stationary fighting style combined with sundering armor, and I thought I could make him a big threat, but then he ended up completely flopping because there just wasn't support for building that style and making it strong. Now I'm playing looser, and stealing lair actions from D&D (minus the lair part most of the time) to make my loner villains work.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk 45 points 5 months ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Skkorm@lemmy.world 33 points 5 months ago

To newer DMs: Never admit to your players whether or not you fudge rolls. As the DM, The only thing you need to do to maintain the integrity of your game is to shut your damn mouth when you bend the rules. The players just need the illusion maintained.

[–] Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 30 points 5 months ago (2 children)

If my players need plot armor, they can spend their hero points on it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] papalonian@lemmy.world 30 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I'm a first time DM and I struggle with this a lot haha. There are times where I feel a roll is appropriate, so I do it, and whatever is supposed to happen fails, then I realize.. "what the hell is supposed to happen if that doesn't work?" so it just kinda happens anyways.. IDK if my players have caught on..

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 35 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

You could just skip the roll, because if failure is unacceptable then it isn't appropriate.

[–] papalonian@lemmy.world 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's where my problem comes from. I'm not experienced enough to know immediately where failure is acceptable or not; rather, I don't always have backup plans or ideas for when things that should be able to fail, fail. So I roll, and it fails, and it should fail, but I've got no idea what happens when it does. So it doesn't fail.

I think I'm getting better at improv-ing events and making backup plans. It's still difficult for me to find the balance between the story I want to tell/ have prepared vs the story that my players wind up creating, but checking in with my party here and there tells me everyone's having fun and only rarely does anyone feel gipped or abused by dice rolls.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 9 points 5 months ago (18 children)

Prior to rolling, think about what will happen if the roll fails or succeeds. If you are worried about failure at all, that is a good sign that failing is probably not an option. Basically, if you are able to make the decision to fudge it when it happens you had the same time frame to decide notnto risk that need to fudge in the first place.

Over time with more experience you will find ways to make failure a bump in the road to fun tims.

[–] papalonian@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for spelling it out like this. I think I've been too focused on "doing something" and keeping the game going, that I don't stop to think before doing some things. Ie rolling before I know what will happen with a failure. I'll try to take more quick pauses to think things through, and worry about smoothness of play later.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 11 points 5 months ago

I learned in my first adventure that what I've prepared to happen might just be stupid and unrealistic, so I'm never too attached to it. If the dice say it doesn't happen, they know better than me, so I just toss it. If I lie about the dice to make it happen anyway, I'm making a worse experience for everyone.

If a failure means a path is unavailable, see if you can open up a different path. If there are no other paths, just let them have this one for free.

[–] _NetNomad@kbin.run 27 points 5 months ago (5 children)

i'm kind of torn on this. because, if the dice are the be-all-end-all, why have a GM at the table? i'd wager the vast majority of GMs tune difficulty and pacing on the fly without realizing it, even if it's just "i'm gonna skip this last encounter because we're already a half hour over and i have work tomorrow" or even just "wow everyone is bored as shit right now, we outta pick up the pace" but on the other hand, I have seen a fee bad rolls in a low-stakes encounter spiral into a character dying, and it was cool as shit. that's part of the magic of rpgs- no do-overs or back to the title screen, instead the rest of the party (or the whole party if the player rolls a new character) needs to contend and deal with being down a person. in our case we had to drag a corpse across a continent to get to a cleric powerful enough to bring him back, and in doing so accidentally let the big bad into the otherwise secure city limits. we would have completely missed out on all of that if those dice were fudged. i guess it all down to context- fudging to prevent the GM railroad from being derailed robs you of experiences, but we also have GMs at the table for a reason, and i'm ok with them using fudging when they feel it's warranted so long as they're not abusing it to the point where there's no risk to anything. at the end of the day, if we're all having fun, i trust the GM with whatever they're doing, and if we're not, fudging is probably a symptom of whatever actually is the issue

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 28 points 5 months ago (1 children)

if the dice are the be-all-end-all, why have a GM at the table?

Dice are terrible at making battlemaps, and don't get me started on their awful faux-Scottish accents.

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Actually, dice have a better scottish accent than me by virtue of not having one at all. But you don't join my table for quality scottish accents.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 25 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Rules are important, but they aren't the most important thing as a GM.

The 2 things that are more important are: pacing and fun.

Not fudging dice is important, but if it is in the way of fun, then I either just not roll or only pretend to roll.

Same with pacing, if a roll is going to bog down the games pacing, making everything take longer for no reason other than the roll, then that roll does not matter.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Rudee@lemmy.ml 24 points 5 months ago (5 children)

My 2 cents is that at the low levels, players need a bit of a buffer. A Lvl1 wizard with +0 CON can be one-shot by a goblin rolling a crit, to say nothing of the bugbear boss of the first encounter in Lost Mines of Phandelver (many people's first introduction to DnD 5e)

So minor selective fudging to keep the characters alive long enough for them to at least be wealthy enough to afford a Revivify seems like a small and harmless enough concession to me

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] blackbelt352@ttrpg.network 20 points 5 months ago

As a DM dice are there to make noise behind the screen and raise tension. They're a psychological tool as much as they are a randomizer.

Personally I play a lot of World of Darkness games, which runs on dice pools, so if I can just keep obviously adding more and more dice to a pool, recount once or twice and roll to really sell the illusion that they may be in for something a lot bigger and scarier than they are. Or just roll a handful of dice as moments are going on, give a facial reaction and let that simmer under the surface for a while.

[–] 108@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sometimes You roll dice just to make them think something’s up.

[–] scutiger@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

DM: Roll a perception check
Player: Nat 20
DM: There's nothing there.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Depends heavily on what you and your players want out of the game. In all the campaigns I've been in the focus has been storytelling and character growth, so having a character die to some random happening would be counterproductive.

There have been situations within those campaigns where we've done things knowing that character death was a possibility, though, and in those cases we've carried through if the dice fell that way. The key is having buy-in from both player and DM on those particular moments of risk. Even a regular combat could turn into one of those if the player decides to press forward into danger.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Xanthrax@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago (1 children)

How to tell if someone likes writing more than improv:

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

How dare you cut a thread short, that could have gone on for pages and pages of bikeshedding, with your one truthful and incisive comment.

[–] Xanthrax@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

Don't write on me.

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 14 points 5 months ago (3 children)

As long as you're not going super hardcore, I don't see the problem with just letting the truth of the dice decide whether a character receives a 'fatal' blow, only to find after the combat encounter that the character is barely alive, and the rest of the group needs to focus all their resources on triage and emergency evac.

Getting out of a dangerous place with a barely conscious character can make for a pretty tense situation.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 12 points 5 months ago

Some games have this built in and you don't have to fudge it.

Fate, my go to example, has important but simple rules around losing a conflict.

At any point before someone tries to take you out, you can concede. That's a player action and not a character action. If you concede, you get a say in what happens to your character. That's where you as a group say "maybe they stab me but leave me for dead in the confusion" or "maybe the orcs take me prisoner so you all can rescue me next week". Whatever the group decides is cool goes, but you get a say. You make this call before the dice are rolled. You also get one or more fate points, which is nice.

If you instead push your luck and let them roll, and their attack is more than you can take, you're done. The rest of the table decides what happens but you don't get a say beyond what was agreed to in session 0.

This would also be pretty easy to import into DND or most other systems.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] off_brand_@beehaw.org 13 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Look if someone's having a bad time, it don't cost much to throw em a bone. Like sure, that last attack killed them a round early because everyone has had a moment to feel proud today but you. Or like the spellcaster who is feeling a bit shitty because every monster has saved against their spells by some fluke today.

Like if they aren't having fun, what am I doing here?

Video games do this shit all the time. Famously the first GoW gave new players a small boost in multiplayer. It led to a community and better engagement in the long run because people had more fun. BG3 has that goofy 'karmic dice' system, which is on by default. Fire emblem lies. etc etc

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] fhqwgads@possumpat.io 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The GM just rolls dice because they like the sounds they make.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Fudging removes the joy of surprises and working through failures, or is a band aid to poor planning if failure isn't an option.

[–] polonius-rex@kbin.run 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

a band aid to poor planning

you think you can plan around your players' actions?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 5 months ago

i love how these threads are just people discovering the principles of game design on their own lmao

[–] _lilith@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

Well when you arn't sure if the encounter is balanced from the beginning and the dragons breath would tpk in one hit its kinda better to turn the cone into a line and half the damage so you only have one player down.

[–] Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

To give the illusion that fate was on their side.

I make a point not to kill my players unless they make a habit of doing dumb shit, or it's "almost" happened a couple times already.

Especially if I get several good rolls or they get several bad rolls in a row.

The game should be fun for everyone, and if even one player goes home upset with the session I will have considered my night a failure as DM.

Not that I consider it a failing or even "bad" if someone else kills off their players. Everyone has different expectations from games and I've seen fantastic role playing of deaths before.

One player ripped their heart out of their own chest, chugging a health potion to stay alive long enough to place it in their spouse who had just died died, and another player healed the spouse.

They asked me if I would allow that and honestly it sounded cool enough that I was all for it.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 7 points 5 months ago

They asked me if I would allow that and honestly it sounded cool enough that I was all for it.

Rule of cool trumps all.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 5 months ago

Fear, fear and suspense.

[–] freewheel@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

Answer: to give the players the illusion of fairness while I reach behind me to grab the plot gaf.

[–] TheMetaleek@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 months ago

I don't agree but I like the meme, upvoted!

[–] stoned_ape@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

I prefer games with player-facing rolls. I also prefer emergent gameplay so I'll roll on random charts, but that's it. Stakes are stakes, and character death should be something in the forefront of player minds imo

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago

-Sam Riegal refusing to use his free advantage except the one time where it would fuck with the rest of the table

load more comments
view more: next ›