this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2024
279 points (100.0% liked)

RPGMemes

250 readers
1 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 35 points 5 months ago

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

[–] Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk 28 points 5 months ago (2 children)
[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

rule of kul (fun in swedish)

[–] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 2 points 5 months ago
[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 months ago

I’ve definitely fudged rolls so something hilarious would happen, and our kittens are named after one of those scenarios.

[–] WolfLink@lemmy.ml 23 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 15 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 months ago

There is a reason why the D&D 5e creatures have their HP written in dice values (4d6+10).

It allows for variation within the stat block. But it also gives a maximum and a minimum HP they can have.

Most of the time you use the average. But if the game is too slow, you can lower it to the minimum HP. And if they are steamrolling an encounter, you can just increase the HP to the maximum.

This makes encounters more dramatic and fun.

[–] Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 21 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rudee@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago (1 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

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 months ago

It is the reason why I prefer starting at lvl 5

Also the classes all feel and play the same below that level.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 16 points 5 months ago (1 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.

[–] Paradachshund@lemmy.today 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I agree with this. I've always seen the rules as a framework to assist in collaborative story telling and keep things impartial and surprising. At any point where they begin to do more harm than good, we can change them.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I got down voted for saying this elsewhere, but to my mind there's a huge difference between the GM unilaterally changing the rules, and the group deciding.

Scenario: the goblin rolls a crit that'll kill the wizard. This is the first scene of the night.

Option A: GM decides in secret that's no good and says it's a regular hit.

Option B: GM says "I think it wouldn't be fun for the wizard to just die now. How about he's knocked out instead?". The players can then decide if they want that or would prefer the death.

Some people might legitimately prefer A, but I don't really want the GM to just decide stuff like that. I also make decisions based on the rules, and if they just change based on the GM's whims that's really frustrating and disorienting.

There's also option C where this kind of thing is baked into the rules. And/or deciding in session 0 what rules you're going to change.

[–] Paradachshund@lemmy.today 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I definitely dislike the idea of stopping the action and suggesting a direction. For my games I always try to aim for immersion, and this would really take me out of it.

I think you might have gotten the wrong idea about how I approach it, though. Part of keeping things surprising and impartial is avoiding changing things all the time secretly. That being said, I don't believe in a hard and fast rule of never fudging anything.

Here's an example where I would consider it. The players have been trying really hard to overcome an obstacle, and have had many setbacks already. They come up with an exciting and novel solution, but a bad roll happens on my end that would end this great idea in another failure. Because they've earned it by this point, and it will make for a more exciting game, I would likely fudge that roll and give it to them. I would do this in secret, because calling attention to it deflates the experience for the players.

I see the GM as a storyteller and entertainer, whose primary goal is to immerse the players into a story, and to create an exciting and unpredictable experience. Not everyone will view things like I do, and that's fine, but I wanted to clarify what I mean anyway. Hopefully that makes more sense now.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

For your example, I'd probably still ask if the players wanted me to let the dice decide or not before rolling. My players once had a clever idea of setting some poison traps and using earthbind to deal with a wyvern. The thing made all of its saves and nothing worked. I could've lied, but we'd already agreed to openly roll and abide by it. Would lying have made it better? Maybe. The game carried on and that arc had a thrilling climax later.

Alternatively, if we'd been playing a game that has a "succeed with a cost" / "fail forward" mechanic it could have been satisfying. D&D and close relatives are especially prone to disappointment because of how random and binary they tend to be.

Anyway. All of this I think it reveals a difference in how RPGs are enjoyed by different people.

On one hand, there's going for immersion. The player wants to be in the world, be in the character, and feel everything there. It's very zoomed in.

On the other, where I hang out, it's more like a writer's room. I'm interested in telling a cool story, but I'm not really pretending to "be" my character. My character doesn't want a rival wizard to show up, but I as a player think that's interesting (and maybe want the fate point, too) so I can suggest that my "Rivals in the Academy" trouble kicks in now. I enjoy when I can invoke an aspect and shift the result in my favor, or when I can propose a clever way I can get what I want at a cost.

Neither's better or worse than the other, so long as everyone's on the same page. It can be bad if half the table wants to go full immersion and just talk in character for two hours and the other half doesn't.

[–] Paradachshund@lemmy.today 4 points 5 months ago

I definitely agree that the beauty of ttrpgs is how many different things they can be to different people. We've got very different styles, but I think it's great you've found a way to play that works for you and your table!

[–] _NetNomad@kbin.run 14 points 5 months ago (1 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

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Bro paragraphs are your friends.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 months ago

What I found in the TTRPG community is that a lot of GM's like to hear themselves talk. They write these huge paragraphs of sentences stringed together jumping from one topic to the next.

You can even notice this in the way the D&D books are written. Instead of using easy to navigate bullet points, it is just walls of text one after the other. Trying to find some specific knowledge in that is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

As a data nerd, I can't stand it.

[–] off_brand_ 14 points 5 months ago (1 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

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

the problem with flubbing is the dishonesty and unilateralness. You can play a different system that doesn't create the situation your players don't like so easily.

Or honestly just import Fate points and "succeed at a cost" into dnd. The dice system still sucks but that would help tremendously.

[–] Umbrias 6 points 5 months ago

Fudging isn't unique to DND, though I agree that people would be better off trying anything else.

The system is a means to an end. No system captures its tone perfectly through mechanics.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 3 points 5 months ago

Fate points sound cool, ngl

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 13 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 11 points 5 months ago (1 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 11 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.

[–] blackbelt352@ttrpg.network 11 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.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 5 months ago

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

[–] fhqwgads@possumpat.io 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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

[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 5 months ago

Fear, fear and suspense.

[–] Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website 7 points 5 months ago (1 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 6 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.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 7 points 5 months ago

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

[–] 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

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Roll in the open, fuck narrative first gameplay, it's a game.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.de 2 points 5 months ago

This+rescale the dice rolls so they make sense. A 20 for them does not have to mean they crushed the challenge. They might just have gave it their all, had brief hope, and narrowly avoided death, or not.

[–] smeg@feddit.uk 3 points 5 months ago

Fudging a roll is for when I, the DM, realise I made a mistake. No, I didn't realise this creature got a sneak attack until after I rolled that 20!

[–] apotheotic 2 points 5 months ago

I love fudge, but too much of it isn't pleasant.

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 months ago

I just like the sound they make. Low key asmr

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.de 1 points 5 months ago

I have just the die for such an occasion...

https://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0628.html