D&D General BBEGs shouldn't miss.

[zarionofarabel]

Please don't do that. Do not discredit other, perfect valid play styles as "videogamey". Enjoy your style, be thankful that your group enjoys it as well, and refrain from judging others for what they enjoy.

You assume negative connotation where there is none.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Again, I don’t think the act of picking and choosing the results of the dice rolls is sketchy. I think doing it in secret is. Do you think your players would be ok with the fudging you do if you rolled in the open? If so, why do it behind the screen? If not, why do it at all?

Because it would destroy the tension at them moment. I don't mind GM fudging, but I absolutely don't want to know that they did so on any specific instance. There is a lot of secrets the GM has to keep to maintain the excitement and this is just one among many others.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

There’s nothing sketchy about it. GMs pick and design things all the time. They choose how monsters are going to react. They choose how many hit points they have. How is choosing to accept a die as rolled vs editing it any different?
And, frankly, I get a bit sick of the implications that those of us who do so are sketchy.

The problem comes with you "fudge" a dice roll or fifteen and the Player picks up on it. The player is going along, having a good time, and then encounters some bad guy you want to be a recurring villain. So you, the DM, start fudging the dice to keep the villain alive and have him "survive and look cool". The Player picks up on it. The player is now NOT going along with it and NOT having a good time...because it's obvious you are "cheating" in order to keep the bad guy alive and having him 'win' various checks, saves, etc., and thusly "making the Players character fail and look incompetent/overmatched".

THAT is the problem with "fudging" dice. If you do it, YOU are responsible for every single PC death. Period. It then becomes "Ok, what do I need to do so that Bill doesn't kill my PC?"...and not about "Ok, what do I need to do so that my PC lives?". In the later, it's Player choice/agency reacting in-game to the fiction in the campaign setting. In the former...it's trying to please Bill, the DM.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Bedrockgames]

What do you think? Should D&D boss monsters have more abilities that don't require a die roll to be threatening?

I think having monsters with an ability like this, where it makes sense, would be fine. I don't think it needs to be just a BBEG, but any creature you want to have a threatening ability, it could work. But there should be a good reason for the ability not missing (like it should make sense in the game world that this ability isn't missing, and isn't simply always hitting because the creature has some kind of plot protection). I definitely wouldn't want every big bad evil guy to have this though. It would just feel too much the same all the time, and it has a slightly artificial vibe if done that way in my opinion.

 

[billd91]

Hiya!

The problem comes with you "fudge" a dice roll or fifteen and the Player picks up on it. The player is going along, having a good time, and then encounters some bad guy you want to be a recurring villain. So you, the DM, start fudging the dice to keep the villain alive and have him "survive and look cool". The Player picks up on it. The player is now NOT going along with it and NOT having a good time...because it's obvious you are "cheating" in order to keep the bad guy alive and having him 'win' various checks, saves, etc., and thusly "making the Players character fail and look incompetent/overmatched".

THAT is the problem with "fudging" dice. If you do it, YOU are responsible for every single PC death. Period. It then becomes "Ok, what do I need to do so that Bill doesn't kill my PC?"...and not about "Ok, what do I need to do so that my PC lives?". In the later, it's Player choice/agency reacting in-game to the fiction in the campaign setting. In the former...it's trying to please Bill, the DM.

I can get those results without fudging dice by cooking the stats going in. Blaming fudging dice isn’t a solution if that’s my attitude.

A far better way to allow a recurring villain escape is to compensate the players for it. Giving out hero points in Mutants and Masterminds is a pretty good method. An equivalent in 5e might be giving everyone inspiration for every DM-fiat recurring villain escape from doom.

 

[Zsong]

Lying, fudging, improvising... it is all done by certain DMs who work to produce interesting and exciting encounters as best they can as often as they can.

Those who play the combat like it's a board game that is meant to be "won" willnot and do not agree with that. But those who treat combat as part of the narrative of the campaign will occasionally help it out when otherwise the story loses its import.

It’s also handy when you are a new DM or even an experienced DM that realizes you screwed up creating an encounter. That can happen even with experienced DM’s that are creating new monsters with new abilities.

 

[Zsong]

Ok, I get that. But there are other players at the table who might feel differently, and as such I think that “to fudge or not to fudge” and under what circumstances if any to do so should be something that is discussed and agreed upon by the whole group, instead of something that’s taken as a given by the DM.

Oh, I absolutely want to know that! Understanding the craft behind the artwork doesn’t diminish my appreciation of the artwork itself. If anything, it enhances it! I can still suspend my disbelief and enjoy the illusion, but I enjoy it all the more for knowing how it was pulled off. I know that’s not to everyone’s liking though. Different strokes, which is again why I don’t think it’s appropriate for the DM to take fudging as a given. Find out how your players feel about it first!

The dm doesn’t have to explain himself. If a person finds out they are not having a good time at his table they can leave. But the dm is under no obligation to tell anyone what he does behind the screen.

 

[Charlaquin]

Because it would destroy the tension at them moment. I don't mind GM fudging, but I absolutely don't want to know that they did so on any specific instance. There is a lot of secrets the GM has to keep to maintain the excitement and this is just one among many others.

Alright, that’s fair. So long as the players are aware that fudging may happen and have agreed to when it happens remaining secret.

 

[Charlaquin]

The dm doesn’t have to explain himself. If a person finds out they are not having a good time at his table they can leave. But the dm is under no obligation to tell anyone what he does behind the screen.

I never claimed they had an obligation to do anything. It’s just common courtesy not to lie to your players.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I can get those results without fudging dice by cooking the stats going in. Blaming fudging dice isn’t a solution if that’s my attitude.

A far better way to allow a recurring villain escape is to compensate the players for it. Giving out hero points in Mutants and Masterminds is a pretty good method. An equivalent in 5e might be giving everyone inspiration for every DM-fiat recurring villain escape from doom.

IMNSHO, "cooking the stats" isn't any different. The DM is still pre-emptively 'deciding' the results...although to a perhaps lesser degree. Now, add in fudging on top of that...well, you've only compounded the error. This is the opposition I have to "building the encounter to fit the PC's". It is effectively the DM "stacking the deck" in favour of, or disfavour of, the Players success. That just rubs ME the wrong way...if it works for some other group, fine, different strokes and all that, right?

The best way to get a recurring villain is to let it happen naturally, without the DM's "input", so to say.

Now, don't get me wrong. A DM that makes a dungeon filled with CR10 monsters for his groups party of 3rd level PC's is failing MISERABLY at the "be fair and neutral, neither favouring the Player Characters or the Monsters". For me, when I'm stocking a dungeon or writing out a wilderness area, or tossing together an adventure...I do use the very minimums of the group's PC's. It's basically "How many PC's, what's the average level". That's it though. I don't care what races, classes, skills, magic items, spells, equipment, etc that they have. Then I 'build' the dungeon/adventure around the backdrop story, the location in regards to it's place in the world, it's history of who/what/where/when/why/how, and off I go! Like any writer, at some point the thing you are writing takes on a life of it's own; sometimes it "writes itself" (ask any fiction writer and they will often tell you that at some point, a character in their story sort of 'tells them what to write'; same sort of thing with a dungeon complex, or series of ruins, or whatever.

So that's how I write. To the "world and campaign"....the PC's are an afterthought, to be honest. Every now and then I MAY toss in something I think is cool, makes sense, and just so happens to tie into a PC's bonus/penalty...but I don't do it the other way (writing something in because of a PC's bonus/penalty).

Anyway, this is getting a bit off the core topic of BBEG combat length. So I'll leave it at that.

^_^

Paul L. Ming