D&D General BBEGs shouldn't miss.

[Charlaquin]

I’d also like to push back a bit on the idea that fudging rolls improves the narrative. Like, I get where that thinking comes from, I used to be a dice fudger myself. But when I made the commitment to roll in the open and stick to the results, I actually found that the narrative improved. By forcing myself to incorporate the results of the rolls into a cohesive narrative, I ended up stretching my own creativity and weaving stories with more narrative twists and turns that were overall much more engaging. Turns out that by fudging rolls, I was taking control of the narrative, but by doing so I was also limiting it to what I would write as a novel. And I like to think I’m a decent writer, but that random element helps break me out of my narrative comfort zone. And the nature of the dice mechanics naturally creates strong dramatic tension curves if you just leave it alone.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Life or death all the time, all the encounters: doesn't that get stressful after a while?

Yes. That's the point in a campaign that is presented as a living world. I want my players to be scared of combat, in the real world is really scary! If my players knew that I was going to pull punches and ensure that combat was not deadly, again, it becomes a video game. I may as well offer up the option of allowing them to "save" before each combat and if they don't like the result of said combat they could "reload" and try again. As another example I don't allow things like raising the dead in my games as it really is just a way for players to "reload" from a failed combat.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I’d also like to push back a bit on the idea that fudging rolls improves the narrative. Like, I get where that thinking comes from, I used to be a dice fudger myself. But when I made the commitment to roll in the open and stick to the results, I actually found that the narrative improved. By forcing myself to incorporate the results of the rolls into a cohesive narrative, I ended up stretching my own creativity and weaving stories with more narrative twists and turns that were overall much more engaging. Turns out that by fudging rolls, I was taking control of the narrative, but by doing so I was also limiting it to what I would write as a novel. And I like to think I’m a decent writer, but that random element helps break me out of my narrative comfort zone. And the nature of the dice mechanics naturally creates strong dramatic tension curves if you just leave it alone.

Yeah, I don't think there is anything wrong with fudging per se, but this is basically my reason for generally not doing it.

As for fudging as solution to the big bads feeling too weak, it would be merely an awkward band-aid. If you end up routinely resulting to fudging to 'fix' a certain type of a situation, then there is some systematic problem and it would be better to resolve that.

Making the boss monster to automatically hit is a terrible solution though. It will completely naughty word up the balance between different defensive options (AC becomes worthless, hit points become more valuable) and in general will feel really dissatisfying to the players.

 

[billd91]

I just don't see the point of introducing a random element to the narrative if you are going ignore said random element. Just choose the result you want and be honest about it.

Because most of the random results are fine all the time, all of the random results are fine some of the time, but sometimes certain random results are not welcome. For example, I’m OK with rolling crits, but if I‘ve been on a hot streak, I might knock that 4th crit down to a regular hit.
So it’s not a question of picking the specific result I want. It’s more a case of choosing to occasionally edit the result that comes up.

 

[Olrox17]

I’d also like to push back a bit on the idea that fudging rolls improves the narrative. Like, I get where that thinking comes from, I used to be a dice fudger myself. But when I made the commitment to roll in the open and stick to the results, I actually found that the narrative improved. By forcing myself to incorporate the results of the rolls into a cohesive narrative, I ended up stretching my own creativity and weaving stories with more narrative twists and turns that were overall much more engaging. Turns out that by fudging rolls, I was taking control of the narrative, but by doing so I was also limiting it to what I would write as a novel. And I like to think I’m a decent writer, but that random element helps break me out of my narrative comfort zone. And the nature of the dice mechanics naturally creates strong dramatic tension curves if you just leave it alone.

As a big fan and practitioner of improv DMing, I would be inclined to agree with you. But if another DM is more the "novel writer" type, and they need a bit of fudging to make it work, who am I judge? If the story they're spinning is good, I'll stick around their game.

Yes. That's the point in a campaign that is presented as a living world. I want my players to be scared of combat, in the real world is really scary! If my players knew that I was going to pull punches and ensure that combat was not deadly, again, it becomes a video game. I may as well offer up the option of allowing them to "save" before each combat and if they don't like the result of said combat they could "reload" and try again. As another example I don't allow things like raising the dead in my games as it really is just a way for players to "reload" from a failed combat.

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.

 

[NotAYakk]

BBEG shouldn't do nothing for a round.

BBEG should still miss. In fact, BBEG should try to hit tanks and miss them due to their high AC (but not always miss).

This means BBEG need not-crazy attack bonuses, the ability to deal with being "locked down" by high-AC tanks, but not completely ignore them.

Fans of knives (or whatever) that attack everyone in LOS, on-turn "escape lockdown" abilities, off-turn aoes and "smack someone nearby".

This means that "locking down" a BBEG does some good; their legendary action attacks have to smack the tank, and are more likely to miss. But it isn't infinite lockdown, because on the BBEG's turn it escapes (at modest cost).

Abilities shouldn't veto player abilities as much as mitigate them. The ability to stand and move a fixed distance as a legendary action (if grappled, the grapping creature comes with you) might be an example, as an alternative to doing an attack; the grapple+knockdown cost the BBEG something, but didn't cost them everything.

 

[nevin]

If the BBEG's never miss then over time the players realize that nothing they do to make thier player's tougher means anything. My players aren't stupid, why would I treat them Like they are? That's just Inane. I don't run video games.

 

[billd91]

I mean, I get it. It’s kind of like rolling on those random dungeon generation tables in the DMG, deciding you don’t like the result you rolled, and rolling again, or picking the next result down the list or whatever. The roll is really just a starting point to get the creative juices flowing. Introducing that random element to combat, while allowing yourself the flexibility to change the result if you think it’s important to do so, is something I can totally understand the appeal of. I just think it’s kind of sketchy to do that without telling the players it’s what you’re doing. If you’re up front about the fact that you might fudge rolls, you roll in the open, and tell your players when you’re fudging? I don’t see a problem with that, so long as the players are cool with it too.

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.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

@pming But, if every single fight, trap and hazard is a life or death affair...what's so special about the BBEG fight? It's just another horrifyingly dangerous battle, like the dozen other battles the group had to deal with before the BBEG.
I'm not trying to demean your DMing style, I just never played in a game like yours and I'm genuinely curious. Life or death all the time, all the encounters: doesn't that get stressful after a while?

It's not that "every single fight, trap and hazard IS a life or death affair...", its that "every single fight, trap and hazard is a POTENTIAL life or death affair".

For example, lets say a 5th level PC with core stuff (no feats, no unusual race/class, no multiclass, etc) is in a forest. The PC has medicine for a sick town elder on the other side of this forest. This forest takes a day to go through, going around it takes 4 days. Thing is, the forest is known to be the stomping ground of a rather nasty Manticore. The Player decides to save time and head through the Manticore Woods as time is of the essence. Now, the DM can handle this two ways (at least).

Way Number One: The DM has the Manticore's stats...and it's bumped up a bit (near max HP's, missing an eye so -3 to hit with it's tail spikes, but it's old and bigger, so damage is +5 with the spikes; you know, a 'unique and tough' old veteran monster). The PC takes a wrong turn and ends up falling down a small cliff of 30' and takes 15 points of damage. Later that day, the PC just happens to have taken the 'easiest looking route'...looks like a large game trail. Of course this trail is frequently hunted by the Manticore, old Blackspike! The DM's notes say that once per hour of traveling 'in the open', gives a 1 in 12 chance that Blackspike find them.

Way Number Two: Same thing, but the DM pre-emptively decides "he won't encounter Blackspike, I'll just make it a black bear if Blackspike is rolled to show up".

Now, the problem is that with number 2, the DM has decided specifically to NOT go with consistency. This sets up the Player expectation that "The DM won't throw stuff at us that can kill us...at least not a 'random encounter'". HOWEVER, if we look at number 1, and the DM rolls a Blackspike encounter, and keeps it as rolled...and the PC dies. Well, that sets up the Player expectation that "The DM isn't going to save me...that's on me".

So the potential to meet up with a deadly foe was completely up to the Player. He could/should have known "If I go through the woods, alone, Blackspike will kill me if I encounter him. No way can I fight him alone. Hmmm.... Nope. Not worth the risk. I'll take the long way" ...OR... the player can decide "If I go through the woods, along, Blackspike will kill me if I encounter him. No way can I fight him alone. Hmmmm... I'll have to risk it. The elder doesn't have the time". In the Players mind... HE has made the decision and has to live with the consequences.

This ties into the BBEG expectations. In a campaign with death being a possibility "at any moment" (re: the DM isn't going to 'lessen' encounters or build them specifically towards the PC's strengths/weaknesses), when it comes time for a BBEG, the expectation is "This is the climactic battle! It's very likely that some of us die...hopefully we win and save the Princess". This is a far superior (IMNSHO) situation to have than "Oh, it's the BBEG. It's gonna be tough...be we'll probably win...and those of us that die will probably get Raised somehow after".

In the former case...a 6 round combat with the BBEG is NOT a problem...it's a goal!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

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?