Stupid High Skill Checks and Saves

[nethervoid]

I'm just starting up a campaign, and I told my players strait up "The rules come second to the story". Basically I told them if the rules are getting in the way of the story, the rules are going to get changed. Rules lawyering and powergaming is for World of Warcraft, which I and others in our group play. If you want to be super-kewl with the blue flaming sword and pretty purple pants of the gods +435879403, play MMORPGs. Our PnP campaign is about a story, and the main characters of that story. We're actors when we sit around the table. Stats mean jack.

So I don't see why you should feel bad at all about breaking rules, nerfing, or powering up whatever the hell you want to make encounters memorable and fun. Easy mode is by far the worse of the two. More importantly story progression should be what your encouters are about. Who cares what the outcome is so long as it makes a good story even better.

One other thing I live by "The DM needs to have fun, which is more important than the players having fun" The DM puts more time in, therefore his or her investment is greater. While you can change out players fairly easily, there is no game without the DM. It must be fun for the DM first, and then you compromise what you can to make sure the players have fun too.

I'm so sick of hearing "Oh woe to my players! They didn't get what they want boo hoo!" Give your players a good story and some good challenge. If that means you have to bend the rules and/or nerf a few players? So be it. Hell back in my ver. 1 days, arguing players got hit with a boulder falling from the sky. Or sometimes they got a DM lightning bolt. Either way it's like "Stop whining. Start playing."

 

[pawsplay]

I get the frustration of DM'ing against massive stacked mods, but rather than just ignoring the totals, perhaps its better to limit the sources that can be stacked? Like say you can only add 3 types of bonus to skills or saves. You got a morale, competence, insight, alchemical, sacred etc bonus to your jump? Pick the 3 best, because the other stuff is probably overlapping anyways (like how only so many characters can use aid another on a skill check). Insight and competence bug me the most since I still cant actually figure out the difference, and sacred and profane should just be merged into divine. As a player, that would be more preferable, since its less book-keeping to keep track of, your choices are still meaningful, you're still challenged, and the number crunchers in the group arent wasting their time trying to figure out how to squeeze more blood out of the turnip when all the DM wants is them to fail on a result of 10 or lower (or whatever).

I've been toying with the house rule that the total bonus cannot be more than twice the highest bonus.

 

[pawsplay]

I'm so sick of hearing "Oh woe to my players! They didn't get what they want boo hoo!" Give your players a good story and some good challenge. If that means you have to bend the rules and/or nerf a few players? So be it. Hell back in my ver. 1 days, arguing players got hit with a boulder falling from the sky. Or sometimes they got a DM lightning bolt. Either way it's like "Stop whining. Start playing."

I'm just not interested in the divine command theory of DMing. In my view, the rules exist for a reason. They are part of the fun. I'm not going to sit down with you and play chess, and let you change the rules or situations to make it "more fun" or "more challenging." Even though RPGs aren't all that adversarial, it is still important for players to have real choices, which means an environment they can understand and perhaps control. When it devolves to DM fiat, then it's about the DM's choices.

 

[nethervoid]

I'm just not interested in the divine command theory of DMing. In my view, the rules exist for a reason. They are part of the fun. I'm not going to sit down with you and play chess, and let you change the rules or situations to make it "more fun" or "more challenging." Even though RPGs aren't all that adversarial, it is still important for players to have real choices, which means an environment they can understand and perhaps control. When it devolves to DM fiat, then it's about the DM's choices.

I think the real difference is more like: "Stop trying to min/max the world, and just dig into the story and the RP." I don't want the world devolving into a giant calculation. I can script that game if I wanted to. The best stories are the ones you don't know the ending of.

To me, that's what separates powergaming from roleplaying, and I've had all the powergaming I can stand. lol

Players can make decisions outside of combat. Don't let combat rule the game.

 

[pawsplay]

The best stories are the ones you don't know the ending of.

But if you are DM, and you go around fudging, you do know the ending.

Dice are a great storytelling tool if you like to be surprised.

 

[Halivar]

To me, that's what separates powergaming from roleplaying, and I've had all the powergaming I can stand. lol

Players can make decisions outside of combat. Don't let combat rule the game.

It's for this reason that I've been interested in playing in a one-off using The Pool or similar narrative system.

 

[Slife]

Giving the hider a psionic shard +10. 1 time bonus to skill.

 

[gizmo33]

I'm just starting up a campaign, and I told my players strait up "The rules come second to the story". Basically I told them if the rules are getting in the way of the story, the rules are going to get changed.

The rules get changed to what? Since any new rule has the potential to "get in the way of the story", then I imagine that it too will be changed. In fact, why even use rules, or dice for that matter? If DnD is a vehicle for collective story-telling, then why perpetuate the illusion that it's a game?

Rules lawyering and powergaming is for World of Warcraft, which I and others in our group play.

It's probably worth pointing out that the original poster has weighed in to say that (IIRC) he overreacted to some lucky rolls on the part of the players (or unlucky on the part of the DM). Also, that he wasn't considering possible modifiers to spot/listen when he was designing encounters.

Thus, I think it remains the case that with a reasonable amount of cleverness, a DM has more than enough things stacked in his favor to create an interesting encounter without having to remove a consistent rules standard from the game.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I've been toying with the house rule that the total bonus cannot be more than twice the highest bonus.

That would work too. Just let the players know its not worth their time to fart around getting every bonus out of every supplement they can scrounge (and you'll do the same) and move on. That way no one spends gold, feats, etc in a pointless attempt to keep up with the imaginary Joneses. Theres too many piddly, situational benefits as is. Like I'm really going to remember that my 5 ranks of Spellcraft gives me a +2 to checks to Use Magic Devise checks to activate scrolls. Either make it a +2 to UMD all the time or just ignore it alltogether.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

My group can be very loose with the rules at times, so this has come up. Remember that those who make the spot checks must still warn the other PCs, and they may still not see the ambush. i.e.

DM calls for a spot check. PC1 makes it, PC 2-4 does not.

Suprise round. PC 1 is not flat footed, everyone else is. If PC 1 wins initiative, he could call out a warning. This may allow other PCs to take a standard action to make a spot check, or to simply take cover. If the y take the check, they roll, and succeed or fail. Failure means they are still flat footed to the foes they cannot see. If they run for cover, they are still flat footed, but the cover or concealment may give them enough bonuses to stay safe untill the first regular round.