|
DeclaredYuppie posted:Actually that sounds like something that everyone would have a good laugh about and it'd be that thing the whole group mentioned years later when they're sitting around drinking like "Hey Jander remember that time our group faced a whole den of baby owlbears and we all got slaughtered ahhahahah that was funny." Yeah, I can see that as having been funny back when we were teenagers and played DND in Matt's living room every Friday night. Now we are in our mid to late 20s with relationships and jobs, and we game online 2 or 3 times a month when no more than 1 person has to miss a session. When your gaming time is precious and when you're trying to run a more story driven campaign and your DM doesn't have 5 math classes a week to dream up plot lines in, a party wipe due to bad luck is harder to swallow.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 17:58 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 23:17 |
|
|
Gomi posted:This makes a lot of sense -- 'always fudge' and 'never fudge' are both untenable positions if long-term fun at the table is the goal. I've been running a game for years without fudging and people still have fun. I'm not saying that people who fudge are doing anything wrong - unless they're lying to the other players about it - but it's entirely possible to run a fun game without rolling the dice for something you're not going to let the dice decide. ZerodotJander posted:I'm glad you guys all have a ton of fun when the party TPKs because the DM crit 5 times in a row in an encounter with non-intelligent monsters that was added in to give the setting a little more flavor. Yeah, if you're in the sort of game where a random TPK isn't going to be fun then definitely don't let it happen. I'm all for the GM exerting some control over the narrative, I just don't buy that it's necessary to do so by secretly manipulating the dice results.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 18:20 |
|
|
LogicNinja posted:Look, I get that some people want to "let the dice fall where they may", no matter what, because they prefer the arbitrary decisions of a table/rulset and a random number generator to the slightly-less-arbitrary decisions of a person. Okay. That's the thing, though. It doesn't have to be arbitrary. It just depends on how the rules incorporate dice rolls. Someone upthread mentioned Burning Wheel. Perfect example. The stakes of every roll are set by the player and the GM beforehand, so if there's some crazy unacceptable outcome that would derail the entire game and make it less fun, it doesn't get figured in. All rolls are good for is resolving conflict fairly, so that no one person's vision of "what should happen" is more important than another. FATE also does the same thing with consequences -- they're flexible and player-defined so that it's not just like when you're playing RuneQuest and suddenly "LOL, crit on your head, you dead." D&D doesn't really account for stakes-setting, so it's a LincolnSmash fucked around with this message at Jul 7, 2011 around 18:30 |
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 18:26 |
|
|
noob question: What do people mean when they say "nova" or "nova round". I can't find a definition anywhere.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 18:27 |
|
|
Elmo Oxygen posted:noob question: What do people mean when they say "nova" or "nova round". I can't find a definition anywhere. Drop as many of your most powerful attacks as you can at once in hopes of crippling the enemy before they get a chance to act.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 18:30 |
|
|
LincolnSmash posted:That's the thing, though. It doesn't have to be arbitrary. It just depends on how the rules incorporate dice rolls. Not what I mean. The dice tell you who wins, what happens, etc. They do in an arbitrary way--they're not weighing anything, they're just generatin' you a random number.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 18:32 |
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Yeah, if you're in the sort of game where a random TPK isn't going to be fun then definitely don't let it happen. I'm all for the GM exerting some control over the narrative, I just don't buy that it's necessary to do so by secretly manipulating the dice results. Ultimately though, it's like most people are saying - do whatever works for you group.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 18:42 |
|
|
ZerodotJander posted:Yeah, I can see that as having been funny back when we were teenagers and played DND in Matt's living room every Friday night. Now we are in our mid to late 20s with relationships and jobs, and we game online 2 or 3 times a month when no more than 1 person has to miss a session. When your gaming time is precious and when you're trying to run a more story driven campaign and your DM doesn't have 5 math classes a week to dream up plot lines in, a party wipe due to bad luck is harder to swallow. As a dude in his late 20s with exactly those kinds of restrictions, I'd still think it's funny, and I'd hope that by that age everyone would be less married to a sense of reward for seeing the end of a D&D story than as high-schoolers.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 18:43 |
|
|
Elmo Oxygen posted:noob question: What do people mean when they say "nova" or "nova round". I can't find a definition anywhere. A player, usually a leader or controller, can make an enemy easier to hit with one of his or her powers. A nova round is the round following this power hitting so that everyone has a better chance of using their most damaging attacks. But, as Locus Cosecant said, it's basically just everyone using their most damaging attacks in one round.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 18:49 |
|
|
LogicNinja posted:Not what I mean. The dice tell you who wins, what happens, etc. They do in an arbitrary way--they're not weighing anything, they're just generatin' you a random number. Sure, but I'm just saying some systems have solved the problem of completely arbitrary outcomes by allowing the players to weigh the circumstances surrounding the resolution method in the game and manipulate them in a more involved way to eliminate unwanted outcomes that you'd end up fudging anyway. I don't have to fudge dice if I can eliminate all the game-derailing/unfun stuff in the first place.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 18:54 |
|
|
ZerodotJander posted:I guess I don't understand why having a friendly band of elves happen to wander by, or whatever other Deus Ex mechanism for rescuing a party, is better than telling the players that a monster missed instead of critting. I'm not saying you have to introduce some implausible plot element to resolve things. That doesn't sound very satisfying. I'm saying that you can do exactly what you do when fudging the dice - resolve the combat as the PCs winning independent of dice results - except that you do that directly instead of pretending it was the result of some dice rolls. There can absolutely come a point in a game where fealty to mechanical resolution is going to be less fun than going with what is appropriate for the story, but if that time comes, it's okay to just stop rolling the dice.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 19:02 |
|
|
GMs also control a lot of things that aren't controlled by dice. As a GM, I tend to play enemies as brutally as possible, and sometimes it rubs people the wrong way. Other GMs will hold back with a certain attack, or have an enemy choose a sub-optimal target to prevent annihilating a vulnerable PC. Like fudging rolls, whether this is okay or not depends on the players involved. You can't make everyone happy, but at least you can let them know ahead of time how you run things and try to find a good balancing point.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 19:22 |
|
|
Flaky Biscuit posted:holy poo poo, are you serious Yes, I am 100% serious that "everything is justified as long as everybody has fun" is a terrible argument. A distinct and also terrible argument is "you'll have fun if you do this - therefore you should do it". I can have fun without lying or being lied to. Fun doesn't justify any wrong, however minor, if fun could be had just as well without that wrong. Also, FuegoFish, I'm glad I'll never have to play with you. I'm not saying you're playing the wrong way in some objective sense, but you ARE playing the wrong way for me. As a player, I'd like my decisions to matter without regard for your opinions of them. I don't want all outcomes to be in the hands of one person, because then it's just that person telling his own story. No matter how much input into the story you allow your players to have, my problem is that you're ALLOWING it. That you insist on being the inscrutable and incorrigible power behind the veil and reserve for yourself all decisions over what is fun. (but you're a GOOD GM because you listen to your players before making your unilateral unassailable decisions!)
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 19:25 |
|
|
Jimbozig posted:No matter how much input into the story you allow your players to have, my problem is that you're ALLOWING it. That you insist on being the inscrutable and incorrigible power behind the veil and reserve for yourself all decisions over what is fun. (but you're a GOOD GM because you listen to your players before making your unilateral unassailable decisions!) This is remining me a whole lot of the terrible "taxes are theft!" libertarian position. In games with one distinct GM that don't have explicit narrative mechanics, the GM *is* the inscrutable and incorrigible power behind the veil. Even in FATE, the GM has to allow/accept declarations. The idea that there's something fundamentally different between the power resting with a GM and the power resting with your ruleset and/or dice is ludicrous, and gives rise to opinions like "fudging dice is bad but deus ex machinas are OK".
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 19:33 |
|
|
The power is always in the hands of people to interpret what happens. The rules are just a means to guide them towards a decision and resolve conflicts between people as to what happens. But there's a difference between everyone knowing that fudging is going on and that "we're all on-board with just forgetting the rules," and the players believing that the rules are being followed when they're not. In FATE, sure, the GM has that power, but it's all out in the open. That's a different dynamic than having a dude behind the screen decide things without you knowing what's being decided on and why. It's just about expectations. *edit* To clarify this post and the last one: Fudging in D&D is essentially the same as setting stakes/"narrative flexibility". It's the same damned thing, just dressed up with different language. It's a way to get acceptable results out of random ones. Not everyone likes it in every game (like I don't like it in challenge-based games like D&D), but it's there. The difference, IMO, is that one is "out in the open" and often available to the group, whereas in D&D it is privileged. I think that this privileged position makes it extremely important that the DM is clear on what type of DM they are before play starts to avoid upset expectations regarding how the game proceeds. That way I know that when the DM goes to choose an "acceptable" outcome, it's going to gel with me just fine. In a lot of indie games, the social contract is explicit in the rules. In D&D, the social contract is still handled at the table-level, between the DM and the players, and so open communication regarding rulings and play procedures (whether before the campaign begins, or during) is far more important in a D&D game. But I mean, you guys don't need me to tell you that, all the social contract/communication stuff is in the DM Kit. *shrug* LincolnSmash fucked around with this message at Jul 7, 2011 around 20:14 |
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 19:38 |
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I'm not saying you have to introduce some implausible plot element to resolve things. That doesn't sound very satisfying. I'm saying that you can do exactly what you do when fudging the dice - resolve the combat as the PCs winning independent of dice results - except that you do that directly instead of pretending it was the result of some dice rolls. There can absolutely come a point in a game where fealty to mechanical resolution is going to be less fun than going with what is appropriate for the story, but if that time comes, it's okay to just stop rolling the dice. DeclaredYuppie posted:As a dude in his late 20s with exactly those kinds of restrictions, I'd still think it's funny, and I'd hope that by that age everyone would be less married to a sense of reward for seeing the end of a D&D story than as high-schoolers. ZerodotJander fucked around with this message at Jul 7, 2011 around 19:53 |
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 19:49 |
|
|
ZerodotJander posted:I guess I can see that but I have fun with D&D Combat (I hope everybody who plays D&D enjoys its combat system, if you don't, why aren't you playing a different RPG?) and would have more fun with the DM telling me that the monster missed and I'm not sure if he fudged the die or not, than saying "Well the dice aren't treating you well, let's just say you won this encounter and move on." To each his own. See, for me, I like the combat game enough that it adds to my desire to play it straight. Like your group, we're all adults with other demands on our time, so there's only so much combat we can get through in a session. If an encounter goes off the rails, then rather than pretending to play it out I would prefer to move forward to a new one which we could actually resolve using the rules. Obviously, if you prefer your method, play your way. My only argument is with some of the claims that have been made that you have to fudge in order to run a fun game, or that the only other options are narrative chaos or the use of dei ex machina.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 20:07 |
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Yes, I am 100% serious that "everything is justified as long as everybody has fun" is a terrible argument. A distinct and also terrible argument is "you'll have fun if you do this - therefore you should do it". I'm going to say, personal opinion here, that comparing drugging a person to rolling dice is a way wronger wrong than fudging said dice. You know. As long as we are assigning inherent wrongness to acts.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 20:11 |
|
|
Drox posted:As long as we are assigning inherent wrongness to acts. Which is totally what we should be doing in a discussion thread about a magical elfgame.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 20:16 |
|
|
Yeah seriously, what the gently caress. It's like if I said not fudging dice rolls is like taking your child out to a back alley and letting him watch people get murdered over five dollars.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 20:17 |
|
|
Also, I think there's a difference between "fudging-hardcore for GM story-time" and "nudging the results to compensate for weird mechanical glitches/outcomes" that people often forget. For some reason fudging gets wrapped in with illusionism when it's a different thing altogether. If I find out the GM did the former, I'd probably be really annoyed. The latter depends on the circumstances.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 20:19 |
|
|
This may not be the right place for this question, and I apologize if it's not. I'm building out an Executioner with the DDI Character Builder, and it doesn't give me the option to select Cloak of Shades as my Level 2 Utility Power (the option is simply not available); I was under the impression that because Executioners are considered a subset of Assassins, they had access to the same Utilities. Is this not the case? OpaqueEcho fucked around with this message at Jul 7, 2011 around 20:38 |
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 20:21 |
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Yes, I am 100% serious that "everything is justified as long as everybody has fun" is a terrible argument. Look, if you compare someone you disagree with (over a loving fantasy game especially) to a rapist, you've pretty much just invalidated your argument.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 20:23 |
|
|
OpaqueEcho posted:This may not be the right place for this question, and I apologize if it's not. I don't know if this is your issue because I'm not familiar with those two classes, but definitely make sure there isn't a checkbox at the top saying "check this for other options" -- I had that happen to me before.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 20:26 |
|
|
homullus posted:I don't know if this is your issue because I'm not familiar with those two classes, but definitely make sure there isn't a checkbox at the top saying "check this for other options" -- I had that happen to me before. Yeah, that makes several other options open up, but Cloak of Shades isn't among them. What's weird is that I've seen the copy/paste straight out of the CB with really similar builds that has the Cloak selected. Here's one from these very forums: http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...54&userid=80281 Thanks for the reply, though...hopefully there is an answer!
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 20:37 |
|
|
At encoutners last night I had to lay down the law for our ADHD 14 year old at the end of the session. He called me an rear end in a top hat. I told him that if he played at my table again I'd send him to Carceri. The biggest problem with the kid is not just that he's annoying, but he's annoying to the point where he's basically on the verge of causing the other players to quit. I lost a really good guy last night because he didn't want to play at a table with that little poo poo. I have another player who has a head injury who almost went into a violent rage because this kid just will NOT shut up. This kid is the guy where it's all about him. Not so much his heroic adventure, but him killing the most tokens. Being THE BEST player. He's trying to win at D&D. For those who heard my concerns about this kid cheating, I checked, he's not, at least not this week, but he was giving himself a bonus that isn't in the rules. Honest mistake, I'm going to assume, but still, for someone who, at the start of the session, leaned in and told me, "I know you are new at this*, so if you need any help DMing, I'm an expert." he sure doesn't know the rules very well. His character, argh. "My character is "Snake the Fourth." Everytime a Snake dies, A new one appears who had been trained by the previous Snake in secret." "Who trained the first Snake?" "Exactly." Snake IV is a half elf scout. Obviously. *I'm not new at it. It's just the first time I've DMed for him. And since the planets all orbit this precocious little poo poo, I guess that implies I've never done it before.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 20:42 |
|
|
"Snake? SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE!" "Yo!"
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 20:45 |
|
|
ZerodotJander posted:Maybe I am just the man-child you are apparently calling me, but I don't see why I shouldn't want my DND game to include my character being a successful hero and to navigate the story the DM has come up with. I'm not going to sulk and whine because my character died, but we might as well as just play dungeon delves and save the DM the hassle of coming up with plots if we have no investment in the game. What's the point of playing D&D if there is no inherent risk in entering combat against horrible monsters in dangerous places? I mean there are plenty of other story focused game where the characters will always be successful, and they are generally quicker and easier to play than D&D. Also failure in a combat shouldn't necessarily mean a TPK. This isn't OD&D, Fantasy Vietnam is not a requirement. Maybe the team is just captured and you have to fight your way out. Maybe the bad-guy's just leave you for dead in the dungeon and are successful at whatever scheme you were trying to stop. Your DM should be able to come up with some suitable consequences to losing a fight regardless if its from "5 crits in a row" or just vanilla sucking. If you are guaranteed to succeed 100% at whatever you do there is no challenge in the game and you should just forgo dice rolling all together. I too am a late married late 20-something with kids and a career who rarely has time to game in person, and yet I don't mind failing in game. It keeps it fresh, can actually challenge myself and my friends, and prevents it from becoming ~*~DM FanFic Hour~*~.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 20:51 |
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:What's the point of playing D&D if there is no inherent risk in entering combat against horrible monsters in dangerous places? I mean there are plenty of other story focused game where the characters will always be successful, and they are generally quicker and easier to play than D&D.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 20:53 |
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Yeah but the reason why I was saying that it might be a good idea to fudge the rules is that I got brought down to 0hp and only got hit once the first time I played this game. And your point being is what? You weren't dead at 0 HP. Presumably you had a leader in the party that could bring you back. Besides, its not like someone tore up your character sheet and sent you away because Blackleaf died.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 20:56 |
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:And your point being is what? You weren't dead at 0 HP. Presumably you had a leader in the party that could bring you back. MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at Jul 7, 2011 around 21:06 |
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 20:59 |
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Not with the monsters ripping off a quarter of my hp ever turn which is why I said that its very easy to design kill fest encounters if you are new to this game. Then again it doesn't help that I think it was the only monster I've seen that Wizards actively errated. So stop getting up in the monster's grill if he is wrecking you. Or, if you are playing perfectly as a brand new player, then talk with your DM about toning down encounter difficulty, or ask your teammates why they weren't helping you while you were being torn to pieces. Just because you "lost" in your first game doesn't mean that you should get to press the "I Win" button.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 21:04 |
|
|
Flaky Biscuit posted:Look, if you compare someone you disagree with (over a loving fantasy game especially) to a rapist, you've pretty much just invalidated your argument. Dude. I didn't mention surprise sex. I compared lying to a friend and acting behind their back to help them have a fun time to... lying to a friend and acting behind their back to help them have a fun time with drugs. I very much did not intend to imply that there was any abuse of said drugged person! In my mind, the drugged person went on to drink and dance and have a fun time (otherwise the comparison would have no basis). If people were taking it as a surprise sex comparison, I really must apologise.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 21:05 |
|
|
So this past session I did something I think both sides of this discussion will hate: during the dungeon crawl that would lead the party to the conclusion of the current arc, I had dropped the Minotaur rune priest below 0 with a breath attack. The dragon was then punched out of sight by the sorcerer. The next action was my fly-by attack which I used to blast the entire party with a burst, knowing that this could kill the rune priest. I hit him, fortunately without the automatic crit, and rolled near min damage for the burst. I knew that my rolled 8 damage would keep him alive, that 12 would have definitely killed him, and that 10 or 11 damage were iffy. I announced 10 damage.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 21:06 |
|
|
Comte de Saint-Germain posted:His character, argh. "My character is "Snake the Fourth." Everytime a Snake dies, A new one appears who had been trained by the previous Snake in secret." "Who trained the first Snake?" "Exactly." Sounds like an opportunity for a cool backstory quest where he takes a portal back in time to train the first Snake. 
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 21:08 |
|
|
LincolnSmash posted:Also, I think there's a difference between "fudging-hardcore for GM story-time" and "nudging the results to compensate for weird mechanical glitches/outcomes" that people often forget. For some reason fudging gets wrapped in with illusionism when it's a different thing altogether. The first was what the original poster was talking about, you know. He literally suggested not giving your monsters hp and just letting them die when you feel it's appropriate.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 21:10 |
|
|
thatdarnedbob posted:So this past session I did something I think both sides of this discussion will hate: during the dungeon crawl that would lead the party to the conclusion of the current arc, I had dropped the Minotaur rune priest below 0 with a breath attack. The dragon was then punched out of sight by the sorcerer. The next action was my fly-by attack which I used to blast the entire party with a burst, knowing that this could kill the rune priest. I hit him, fortunately without the automatic crit, and rolled near min damage for the burst. I knew that my rolled 8 damage would keep him alive, that 12 would have definitely killed him, and that 10 or 11 damage were iffy. YOU ARE A MONSTER This is perfectly reasonable. I think both extremes in this debate really need to lighten up.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 21:11 |
|
|
thatdarnedbob posted:So this past session I did something I think both sides of this discussion will hate: during the dungeon crawl that would lead the party to the conclusion of the current arc, I had dropped the Minotaur rune priest below 0 with a breath attack. The dragon was then punched out of sight by the sorcerer. The next action was my fly-by attack which I used to blast the entire party with a burst, knowing that this could kill the rune priest. I hit him, fortunately without the automatic crit, and rolled near min damage for the burst. I knew that my rolled 8 damage would keep him alive, that 12 would have definitely killed him, and that 10 or 11 damage were iffy. This sounds exactly like what I would do.
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 21:12 |
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:So stop getting up in the monster's grill if he is wrecking you. Or, if you are playing perfectly as a brand new player, then talk with your DM about toning down encounter difficulty, or ask your teammates why they weren't helping you while you were being torn to pieces. MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at Jul 7, 2011 around 21:23 |
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 21:15 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 23:17 |
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:I actually had looked this up and the encounter difficulty was actually spot on for the group. Also, its really dumb to say get away from the monster when the mechanic of the class I played basically entails being right next to said monster before anyone even acts which dropped me to half HP before the monsters or I even acted. You mentioned that this was mostly due to a particular monster; mind telling us what it is?
|
| # ? Jul 7, 2011 21:21 |
|
