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
Inspiration in raw DND is extremely under baked. Bg3 expanded it a little by letting you hold more than one, and actually using it. Most tables I've played at don't use it, or it's pretty rare.
Fate by default starts you with 3 fate points per session. It expects you to use them and has clear ways of getting more.
I really tried to get my old DND group to use then more, but it didn't really click. I wasn't a good fit for that group really.
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
Year, our sorcerer got one shot by the goblins. Later on a mage wanted to punish whatever attacked him with magic missile and accidentally killed him. Now bro's a meme for dying in the first round.
Speaking of the bugbear, we were all at 1 hp at the end of the fight, and only because we managed to turn goblins to our side (and Kelemvorism).
If it's a 1st level character is there any harm in simply letting them be killed by a goblin? Depends on what you're looking for in a game but an early death can lead to some nice storytelling
Because it takes longer to roll up a new one than a table really needs as an interruption.
Purely practical imo. You don't want things derailed that early. Later on, a death can be worked with, made part of a story. In the first three sessions? It's just a pain in the ass
That’s when we find out the player’s wizard character, Ehariel, has a long lost brother named Aharial with a suspiciously identical set of stats and backstory
He also has been looking for his brother for years only to conveniently find the party minutes after his brother dies
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.
Couple sessions ago we had a character almost perma die to random encounter. It really brings a level of stakes and intensity to the game you can't get any other way.
I know that I can, based on experience. It is often an outline and can be revised, but having that as a starting point makes rolling with the unexpected easy enough.
Like having a route and planning on how to handle unexpected roadwork or changes in train schedules. It isn't necessary to plan every detail or how it will pan out, just major things that need to be handled until the end of the session and there is time to hash out the details before the next.
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..
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.
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.
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.
It might be a little bumpy at first, but should speed up with a bit of practice and the practice of thinking about failure will happen more often!. Plus the more you think about it the better you will get at coming uo with ideas for failure and that will let you being back the random rolls!
if you don't even roll, then you're robbing your players from the feeling of a near miss
also taken to its extreme, your players will probably just work out that they aren't going to die at all and start taking stupid risks that they shouldn't
and yeah, at that point you can punish them, but you've been responsible for them getting to that state in the first place, so you're essentially punishing them for your own mistakes
This is another thing I fear, that causes me to do probably unnecessary rolls. I want the story/ gameplay to have at least some semblance of believability, so I don't want everyone risking their life on a curiosity because they know I won't kill them, but I also don't want to "punish" players every time they take a step off the walking path.
I'll admit it right here: sometimes I roll the dice just to give the illusion of risk, when in reality I'm buying time to make up the results of what someone just did.
You can roll some dice but it doesn't need to be a skill check (or whatever the naming is in your system of choice). When I don't know what should happen, I may roll a die. If it's high then it should be something good and if low, maybe it will give me inspiration to think about some new lurking danger. But I may discard the result and go with the gut feeling. Whatever, it was an "oracle roll" as I like to call it. Not tied to anyone's statistics.
I like to use a deck of cards as well. In Savage Worlds, it is used to determine a random encounter. Clubs indicate an enemy, hearts a friebd, diamonds some good omen and spades obstacles. I like to draw a card so it inspires me on what should happen next (of course as long as it makes sense with the world)
I was worried someone might take it this way. Fudging rolls means stating the result of a secret roll was different than it was in reality. What I'm talking about is using a die to inspire you what should happen in a situation where rolling is not applicable. Players decide to go to the sewers for some reason. What's in there? I don't know. Yet. There are no rules on what to roll when they go to the sewers now. I may ask them what they expect to find. I may draw a card. I may roll a die. I may consult the random encounters table. It's not a "roll" in the gaming sense, it's a way to get some inspiration on my next description. But it's like with a coin toss, sometimes you know what should happen when you make the roll and before you even see the result.
Because the result has no meaning, it's not a roll in a gaming sense. It being 20 or 1 makes no difference, it's just to spark something in the imagination.
it has the meaning you assigned to it before rolling it, whether or not you're pulling that meaning from a specific table, and whether or not you reveal the system to the players
if you decide ahead of time that a low result is going to be a tough encounter, and a high result is going to be a pile of treasure, then it comes up low and you decide to ignore that and give them treasure instead based on your gut feeling, you're fudging the roll
if you decide what's going to happen next based on your pull from a tarot deck, and somehow get "death" four times in a row, anything less than a disaster scenario is fudging the roll
it's the exact same instinct that leads to "hmm, maybe this piss shit little goblin shouldn't decapitate the barbarian in one hit because it happened to roll well"
But that's the whole point, I don't know beforehand what any result would mean. Yeah, generally by habit you think higher roll is good and low is bad but you can't apply it to every scenario. Let me visualize how it works for me
"What's in the sewers? I don't know, let me see. I rolled 14. Maybe it's something good? Maybe someone friendly? No, it doens't make sense in this context. It should probably be a hideout of crocodile people gang."
Did I know 14 would mean that? Should it? Is it good? Bad? I could also not roll. I could use a coffee stain to decide. I could toss a paper clip.
Personally I don't consider it as fudging rolls just because dice is involved. There are no procedures. I use it to guide my imagination because I have it right here before me. Tarot deck? Usually not, but it's also a fantastic tool to do so and you may interpret it however you want. But I agree with you that drawing death 3 times is rather self explanatory and it's an obvious disaster (also what a fun one!). But a die result is just a number without meaning, it only gives me a starting point for my thoughts. It's a habit; a tick; a real object that binds me with the virtual world. Not a roll to hit or a skills check.
If that's fudging rolls for you then I guess I need to stir up some dice to get my flow going.
I occasionally roll dice as theatre myself. In my last session, I had a troupe of traveling performers that I rolled for on each act to see if they did well or not, with each roll hidden from the players, and I would then describe the outcome to them. Most of the rolls were real, but some performers I had already decided would fail from the beginning, because they were plants for the enemy faction and had a plan going on in the background that depended on their failure at the act. But of course I still had to roll to not set off any alarms. Going to be fun when my players later piece together "oh, that hypnotist didn't actually fail, they just used mass suggestion to make everybody believe they did so they don't come under scrutiny." If a player catches on - one actually did pretty quick - then great, let them have the victory, but in general it's one of the ways I like to create expectations so I can subvert them or use them to sneak things by. The enemy faction is very guerilla-oriented, so it fits their MO pretty well.
On a more general scale, when it comes to hidden rolls, if I really need something to succeed, I'll make the roll not a matter of whether they succeed, but who succeeds. Keeps the story moving if I realize too late that that roll shouldn't have happened because a failure brings the game to a halt.
I really like the "who succeeds" idea. In events where I roll a fail and have no idea what to do with it, I can just have the outcome only happen for certain characters, or tweak the "success" so that it isn't quite so successful. Haha.
RPGs depend on mutual respect. If you think your players will metagame you and you need to punish them then it stops being a collaborative roleplaying game.
your players will probably just work out that they aren't going to die at all and start taking stupid risks that they shouldn't
you can't just not metagame
if you know a choice will result in a certain outcome, you can no longer make that decision neutrally
in fact, you literally can't take a risk when you know what the outcome of a choice is, because there's no risk to take
not even bothering to roll is barely a step removed from just telling your players "i'm not going to make the enemy roll to hit you because then you might die and you haven't found your long lost brother yet", and if you can't see that that's a garbage scenario for roleplaying i don't know what to tell you
I'm all for rolls that make sense. If it's an encounter, of course you should always roll. I roll in the open and players know what hit them and whatnot. The consequence is damage and/or death. But if you're a thief and want to open a simple lock and nobody's is trying to defenestrate you at the moment? No need to roll, failure is meaningless. You just killed a dragon? No need to persuade the king to help you. That's a reward for doing something beforehand. But oh my if an orc swings at you with his axe I'm gonna roll the dice right in front of you so you know that critical was not fudged.
I skip rolls if players are either super prepared or their failure will not mean anything. But as I said earlier, it needs trust between players and the GM - I don't make their lives harder as a punishment, I do that for the storytelling. And they don't try to work around me because we skipped a roll for athletics when they had a full day to climb a tree.
Oh but that reminds me. I was metagamed recently. When the team tried to decide what to do with a defeated enemy one of them said "let him live, he will come back as a sidequest. When we kill him then that plotline is dead as well".
Well he was not wrong but that needn't to be said.
But if you're a thief and want to open a simple lock and nobody's is trying to defenestrate you at the moment? No need to roll, failure is meaningless. You just killed a dragon? No need to persuade the king to help you.
this conversation is specifically talking about when you're in a scenario where you logically need to make a roll, but where a bad roll coming up essentially ruins things for both the gm and players
There are more better ways to make a player fear for their character other than death.
Like killing a beloved NPC, making the situation much worse, taking away their valuables, making their god angry, being hunted by assassins, making them wanted across the kingdom.
Death isn't the only punishment a GM/DM has at their disposal.
sometimes allowing an outcome that should mechanically via the rules of the game and logically via the rules of common sense has more downsides than upsides
it doesn't have to refer to exclusively player death
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.
startrek.website
Hot