D&D General Dealing with bad luck (From behind the DM screen).

[Ruin Explorer]

As an aside, this is partly why I'm nearly "done" with d20-based games (as a DM, at least), because far too many of them just have far too much RNG, and it's far, far too easy to just see like eight or ten bad rolls in a row completely stuff and mount the PCs, and just absolutely destroy any fun and momentum a session had. And whilst it's less common, bad luck streaks can go further. This is unless they have specific mechanics to counteract this, but generally speaking if a game uses d20s (or d100s, to some extent), the people weren't considering bad luck streaks or RNG much at all, so they usually don't. I'm increasingly preferring to run systems which have at least two smaller dice, and preferably a relatively large modifier on them (or just mechanics which are less binary than d20-based systems tend to be).

 

[Oofta]

I don't fudge dice but sometimes I will take it easy on tactics and, based on the group, I adjust on a regular basis. Occasionally I won't use some of the more damaging/recharge abilities if the players are just having a really bad day. Every once in a while I'll point out terrain features they could take advantage of or some weakness I thought was obvious. But that's about as far as I'll go.

I know a bad string of bad dice rolls suck but I don't want the DM putting their thumb on the scale to let us win, it feels like it cheapens the victory. I mean hopefully the DM let's us know there's a tarrasque around the corner before our first level party charges in, but if we did charge in anyway we deserve what we get.

It can be a tough balance though, and the most important thing is you're all there to have fun at the game table. Even if it means you may need to talk to the group to discuss what's been happening and how they feel about it.

 

[GMMichael]

So we've been playing the 13th age 2e playtest during my weekly games for the last little while and it's been....rough.

Maybe you got a good feel for the game, then? Time to move on, or are you committed to 13'A_2e>pT for some reason?

I feel bad because my players aren't having fun and my players aren't having fun because they're just getting their asses kicked due to bad RNG.

Ah, sign of a wholesome GM. However, the RNG isn't the only fault. It could also be rules, player decisions, and/or GM rulings.

I'm wondering if my fellow DM's have any ideas/advice to help when players are feeling bad about a game due to streaks of bad luck?
. . .
I was also considering maybe doing some sort of collective luck pool mechanic where everytime a player fails a roll they get to add a token into a central pot . . .

Whatever your plan ends up being, tell the players about it and do it, because who wants to keep playing an un-fun game? Make sure you convey your sympathy, because seeming like an apathetic GM isn't good.

 

[Wolfpack48]

You just need one of these:

 

[DEFCON 1]

- Sometimes I will take it easy on tactics and, based on the group, I adjust on a regular basis. Occasionally I won't use some of the more damaging/recharge abilities if the players are just having a really bad day.

- I know a bad string of bad dice rolls suck but I don't want the DM putting their thumb on the scale to let us win, it feels like it cheapens the victory.

I would imagine your way of seeing how these two sentences interact with each other allows you to be good with how you are choosing to play, and that's cool... but I know for me when I see these two things you write, I don't see any appreciable difference. Fudging a die roll and/or easing up on tactics and not using a creature's abilities are both the same thing to my mind-- in both cases they are the storyteller adjusting what should be the actions of the scene to change the results. So I don't see why one might be okay while the other was verboten-- to me they both should be acceptable or both not, since to me they are one and the same.

Of course there is the existential "wiggle-room" between ignoring a die role versus ignoring an ability... the latter allows the person to justify it in their head by saying something like "Well, maybe the monster just wasn't tactically savvy in that moment"... whereas the former means deliberately ignoring something that actually happened (the die roll). So I can understand the reasoning why one might be okay with seeing them as different things. But for me? I think they are both just the DM trying to help out the players to make the experience the most fun it could be. So why bother splitting hairs? I don't think either one is any better or worse than the other. Obviously your mileage varies.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Nothing higher than a 10? Are some players rolling a d12 instead of a d20? I jest... although I've heard stories detailing just that.

But yeah, to echo @Ruin Explorer above, throw in some sessions that are mostly social interaction and/or exploration. And only bust out the dice when there is a meaningful consequence for failure to a PC's goal and approach. And even then, on a failed check, use "success with a cost" liberally so some sense of progress is there for the players.

Also, similar to @Oofta above, I roll in the open and don't fudge dice rolls but there are certainly other dials you can turn to make things less harsh. Monster battle tactics being one. Monster motivations being another - and think about this during prep... when will the monsters feel they have "won", when will they try to parlay, when will they run? Shortchange the monsters on HP during combat. Allow for party retreat to be an option. Give the PCs access to beneficial environmental factors like cover, high ground, and pinch points. And more: The Dials of Monster Difficulty

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I know a bad string of bad dice rolls suck but I don't want the DM putting their thumb on the scale to let us win, it feels like it cheapens the victory.

I think part of it is just what's reasonable within the story. One thing I've found can help is to play monsters as dumb tactically as some players play. Like, many players often overextend or make basic tactical errors in my experience (even if their character is smarter than that). If they're rolling decent/balanced, you can punish that or whatever, but if the PCs are rolling poorly or terribly etc., you can have the monsters do similar dumb stuff, and frankly, I've read so much military history, and listened to so many military history podcasts, I cannot possibly see that as much of a "thumb on the scale". People/armies who should know better constantly make vast and sometimes hard to explain tactical errors (particularly where arrogance or overconfidence gets involved, or just really dumb doctrine).

So if the monsters are winning a fight I think it's quite reasonable to have them make choices which are... less than tactically ideal and easy to punish, particularly overextending backliners, getting easily flanked, or the like.

In fact, if I always play the monsters as as tactically reasonable as I am, that would be a huge thumb on the scale in favour of the monsters, because one thing I've come to realize is that, if a certain player is missing from my main group, oh boy the group is not good at tactics without her. She really is the only one in the group who has a strong, instinctive grasp on tactics (perhaps from having played tactics videogames since she was like 8). We've played some skirmish wargames between sessions when not enough people could turn up, and I still haven't lost at all, which is helping illustrate the gulf of tactical acumen (and I don't consider myself "good" at tactics).

 

[Oofta]

I would imagine your way of seeing how these two sentences interact with each other allows you to be good with how you are choosing to play, and that's cool... but I know for me when I see these two things you write, I don't see any appreciable difference. Fudging a die roll and/or easing up on tactics and not using a creature's abilities are both the same thing to my mind-- in both cases they are the storyteller adjusting what should be the actions of the scene to change the results. So I don't see why one might be okay while the other was verboten-- to me they both should be acceptable or both not, since to me they are one and the same.

Of course there is the existential "wiggle-room" between ignoring a die role versus ignoring an ability... the latter allows the person to justify it in their head by saying something like "Well, maybe the monster just wasn't tactically savvy in that moment"... whereas the former means deliberately ignoring something that actually happened (the die roll). So I can understand the reasoning why one might be okay with seeing them as different things. But for me? I think they are both just the DM trying to help out the players to make the experience the most fun it could be. So why bother splitting hairs? I don't think either one is any better or worse than the other. Obviously your mileage varies.

The difference to me is that I'm always in control of the opponent in any combat encounter, along with the environment, setup and everything else. So ... sometimes a lower intelligence monster doesn't think of the tactics in the heat of battle that are clear to me. I also roll out in the open so people would know if I fudged an actual roll (although of course monster stats they wouldn't know). I suppose it is pretty arbitrary at times on my part but it just "feels" less dishonest to me somehow.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The difference to me is that I'm always in control of the opponent in any combat encounter, along with the environment, setup and everything else. So ... sometimes a lower intelligence monster doesn't think of the tactics in the heat of battle that are clear to me. I also roll out in the open so people would know if I fudged an actual roll (although of course monster stats they wouldn't know). I suppose it is pretty arbitrary at times on my part but it just "feels" less dishonest to me somehow.

100% with you on this.

It really feels to me like there's options and flexibility in how you roleplay the tactical choices enemies make which can considerably impact difficulty, but which don't feel at all like fudging, and I don't think really are fudging, because this is an RPG, not a tactical wargame.

 

[Oofta]

Nothing higher than a 10? Are some players rolling a d12 instead of a d20? I jest... although I've heard stories detailing just that.

But yeah, to echo @Ruin Explorer above, throw in some sessions that are mostly social interaction and/or exploration. And only bust out the dice when there is a meaningful consequence for failure to a PC's goal and approach. And even then, on a failed check, use "success with a cost" liberally so some sense of progress is there for the players.

Also, similar to @Oofta above, I roll in the open and don't fudge dice rolls but there are certainly other dials you can turn to make things less harsh. Monster battle tactics being one. Monster motivations being another - and think about this during prep... when will the monsters feel they have "won", when will they try to parlay, when will they run? Shortchange the monsters on HP during combat. Allow for party retreat to be an option. Give the PCs access to beneficial environmental factors like cover, high ground, and pinch points. And more: The Dials of Monster Difficulty

Good point on the monster motivations. Even if the party is not doing well, the enemy doesn't know specific details; enemies can be anything from zealots that want to die to hired mercenaries to hungry animals that though the PCs would be an easy meal.