Stupid High Skill Checks and Saves

Herremann the Wise said:
No rule set is perfect and for all I know, such will forever be the case. However, as I mentioned in my post above, normally the problem is of the DMs making. I have forced my group to follow the rules for an entire campaign (and by this, I mean core and complete series with NO houserules) and the results have been a little surprising. From this experience, I have not had a problem with the D&D ruleset and everyone has had a great time with literally zero rules complaints.

Start tinkering with it (which for some is half if not most of the fun) and you have to tinker with other things to keep the balance (and then keep tinkering with things to try to keep the balance as the PCs invariably keep changing). As fun as it is to cook something up how you like it, if you follow a recipe and then decide that you prefer low-fat ingredients and a little less spice, there's no point complaining that the meal didn't come out quite how you envisaged. Is this the mistake of the recipe or the cook? If you like grim and gritty, best to find a new recipe/system rather than blaming the old one me thinks.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


Well, neither myself nor my gruop has an issue with the rules as we've made them. And our recipe/system is fine. I was simply trying to give advice to someone who seems to be going down the same path as myself, and others did when they find that D&D losses itself later.

However, if you don't mind that players can dodge, block, or simply out will most spells and over come most foes as the game progresses. IF you dont mind the the video game style of play where eventually there must be only a single foe for the party to fight since anything less, smaller, or less powerful would just be whooped and thrown to the side. Then that's fine. It just didn't sound like this person felt that.

My style of game play, as is the style of many, is that we don't wish to keep upping the stakes to make the game seem fun. We never liked it that when fighting a foe in a videogame, at the begining of the game, he is one level, but return to that spot later, and that same foe has matched you in levels, or equal to it with the amount of enemies on the screen.

This is what happens in D&D.

You gain levels, so must the enemies, therefor, later, if you haven't left the country, the wolves in the area have gone from 1 to 12 Cr if you wish to still use them in the story. OR, you end up killing almost every wolf in the country in a single battle with the party to make them worth while. On the other hand, if you dont use normal creatures, you are forced to use the rare and wild foes to the point that in every sewer, or around every dark alley is something that really shouldn't be there, but is there becuse anything else would be a waist of the parties time. Example: take some of the monsters in dungeons *beholders, dire rats, giant cocroaches, monsterious bats..and so on and so on* to me, that sounds a bit funny after a while. You ask questions like "why in the hell is all that crap down there?" and others that seem to poke holes in the concept.


I say, keep it simple. Keep it dangerous and mysterious. If you use something not human, or monsterious, use it fleating so that the party doesn't grow accustomed to it. In this case, as the person who started the thread said: he wanted to know how to tone down the game so that his palyers dont run amuck and walk over everything he throws at them, he also didn't want to load down the foes with magic items, since, once beaten, the party would have them and then he would have to up the stake even more the next time he wished to use combat in that night's game.

Now, unless you have conservitive party. Gamers who arn't to be the killing machines that some are. Gamers who arn't out to get the items that give them +'s to this and that to the point that they are supermen, then you have nothing to worry about. But if you do, then you must tweak the game. And, I feel that every one does. No one wants the game to run away from them. Or, maybe its just me.


Game On.


a last question. How do you feel about when players are at +10 or higher to hit? At what point does the %, the chance feeling of the game go away? At what point should you start over since rolling doesn't matter anymore. You know what you can and can't hit, what you can or can't dodge, soak, or kill by simply guessing its stats compared to yourown. And, if you can do all that, then what then is the point of the game. It's no longer a game, I feel.

I say, to keep it a game, you must make it so that the Dice are needed, that they Player isn't always sure that his (to hit) will make it. Stats are fine, and + weapons are great, but after a while, if you have all the bonuses then what point is there to play. Unless that is the point, to become the ubber player with all the feats, stats and magic in the game so that even the gods dont mess with you. But, I'm not that kind of player. A simple sword, and cloak and half filled sadle of food makes my character get by.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

William drake said:
However, if you don't mind that players can dodge, block, or simply out will most spells and over come most foes as the game progresses. IF you dont mind the the video game style of play where eventually there must be only a single foe for the party to fight since anything less, smaller, or less powerful would just be whooped and thrown to the side. Then that's fine. It just didn't sound like this person felt that.

That's only the style of play if you have a DM who hasn't got a varied enough grasp of the mechanics to challenge the PCs in various ways. There are tons of DMs on this site who are providing such varied challenges at levels in the 10+, 15+, 20+ and higher range.

My style of game play, as is the style of many, is that we don't wish to keep upping the stakes to make the game seem fun. We never liked it that when fighting a foe in a videogame, at the begining of the game, he is one level, but return to that spot later, and that same foe has matched you in levels, or equal to it with the amount of enemies on the screen.

This is what happens in D&D.

Maybe in your games. Not so in mine or in those of many DMs here. Firstly, many of the enemies in my game are not sitting waiting in one spot for the PCs to show up, whenever it is they do. And many foes don't level up to keep pace with the PCs. It's easy to challenge PCs with drastically lower level PCs, but again, only if you know the rules well enough to do so.

You gain levels, so must the enemies, therefor, later, if you haven't left the country, the wolves in the area have gone from 1 to 12 Cr if you wish to still use them in the story. OR, you end up killing almost every wolf in the country in a single battle with the party to make them worth while.

As mentioned above, all enemies don't need to level up with the PCs. And there's nothing wrong with PCs sometimes fighting much weaker enemies and wiping the floor with them. It gives the players/PCs a sense of accomplshment and character growth. That can be quite worthwhile.

On the other hand, if you dont use normal creatures, you are forced to use the rare and wild foes to the point that in every sewer, or around every dark alley is something that really shouldn't be there, but is there becuse anything else would be a waist of the parties time. Example: take some of the monsters in dungeons *beholders, dire rats, giant cocroaches, monsterious bats..and so on and so on* to me, that sounds a bit funny after a while. You ask questions like "why in the hell is all that crap down there?" and others that seem to poke holes in the concept.

I've been DMing my last Eberron campaigns for 2+ years (PCs going from 3rd to 13th level thus far) and another Eberron campaign somewhat concurrently before that for 2 years (PCs going from 4th to 11th) and in both cases, every time they run into weird stuff there's a reason for its existence where it was. That's not too hard to do.

I say, keep it simple. Keep it dangerous and mysterious. If you use something not human, or monsterious, use it fleating so that the party doesn't grow accustomed to it. In this case, as the person who started the thread said: he wanted to know how to tone down the game so that his palyers dont run amuck and walk over everything he throws at them, he also didn't want to load down the foes with magic items, since, once beaten, the party would have them and then he would have to up the stake even more the next time he wished to use combat in that night's game.

It's easy to run the game mostly as written (I do, except my PCs are much stronger than using just the core books) and still keep things dangerous and mysterious. And when it comes to not having the PCs walk all over everything, one just needs to create and run their opposition more effectively. The OP's made it clear that's a significant weakness of his, hence the problem.

Now, unless you have conservitive party. Gamers who arn't to be the killing machines that some are. Gamers who arn't out to get the items that give them +'s to this and that to the point that they are supermen, then you have nothing to worry about. But if you do, then you must tweak the game. And, I feel that every one does. No one wants the game to run away from them. Or, maybe its just me.

No, you don't need to tweak the game, or at least not seriously, to continue to challenge most players. And I think players who want their characters to be effective combatants and gain magic items that help them (why wouldn't they, considering their PCs are adventurers, whose lives depend on their effectiveness and equipment?) are the norm. Nothing wrong with that, and it's definitely not something that'll automatically make the game eventually unplayable, as it seems to be for you.

a last question. How do you feel about when players are at +10 or higher to hit? At what point does the %, the chance feeling of the game go away? At what point should you start over since rolling doesn't matter anymore. You know what you can and can't hit, what you can or can't dodge, soak, or kill by simply guessing its stats compared to yourown. And, if you can do all that, then what then is the point of the game. It's no longer a game, I feel.

The role of chance in the game never goes away. A character with a +10 can hit an AC 29 without rolling a natural 20 (which lets him hit an AC of infinity) and can miss an AC of 13 without rolling a natural 1 (which lets him miss, however low). I'm not sure what sort of games you've been in, but I've never seen a PC (the highest I've played in 3e is up to 17th lvl) who is so powerful that he can always be sure of success.

I say, to keep it a game, you must make it so that the Dice are needed, that they Player isn't always sure that his (to hit) will make it. Stats are fine, and + weapons are great, but after a while, if you have all the bonuses then what point is there to play. Unless that is the point, to become the ubber player with all the feats, stats and magic in the game so that even the gods dont mess with you.

What level of play are you speaking of? Just the core rules and the MM itself has creatures that can challenge parties up to 20th lvl and beyond (especially if using classes, templates and HD advancement for creatures). This fabled uber character that you speak of, whom absolutely nothing can challenge or touch doesn't actually exist, IMNSHO.

But, I'm not that kind of player. A simple sword, and cloak and half filled sadle of food makes my character get by.

It's a good thing that you know what works for you but to imply, as you do, that there is no point to other methods of play is a bit silly. Especially since a lot of what you're saying is absolutely part and parcel of the game is just not the case as long as you have a competent DM.
 


jgbrowning said:
And as humorous as that is, I pretty much agree. If a GMs breaking the rules and that makes the game more fun, who cares? :)

joe b.

The trick is making it more fun. Most DM's i have played with that try this just end up coming off as cheating jackas.. well you know
 

I think I agree with much of the above.

This might sounds like a rant but I've always used a 'Stream of Consciousness' technique for my writing. Sorry if it comes over as gibberish.

My group includes both PCs with titanic Spot/Listen bonuses and pathetic ones. Huge Save bonuses and normal ones.
They more often than not see stuff before it happens and don't fail saves that often.

It's just stuff I take in my stride. If they spot 4 ambushes in a row they will miss one (hopefully), if they decimate the opposition in 2 rounds they will not be as lucky next time (hopefully), if they make all the DC18-21 saves they won't do so next time.

Basically, I don't let it get to me. I know I can't make all NPCs as potent as the PCs (don't intend to devote the time to powergaming them) and I wouldn't want to. If the PCs seem to be having it a bit easy, I set an equivalent encounter next time. They might do it again or not. Doesn't really matter to me as long as their success is a result of lucky rolling and/or player intelligence.
If they are having easy encounters because the opponents are too weak I can fix that; if they are rolling high on a particular night nothing needs fixing.
If the opponents kick the crap out of them because they are too powerful then I still, probably, don't need to change anything. I sometimes set challenges from which the party should seriously consider running. Not often, but sometimes. If it keeps happening then I'll adjust my challenge levels.

I think that my job as DM is to challenge the players. If they can prevail through rolling dice alone then I am being lazy. They should have to think. Sometimes they should have to think about losing.
 

shilsen said:
That's only the style of play if you have a DM who hasn't got a varied enough grasp of the mechanics to challenge the PCs in various ways. There are tons of DMs on this site who are providing such varied challenges at levels in the 10+, 15+, 20+ and higher range.



Maybe in your games. Not so in mine or in those of many DMs here. Firstly, many of the enemies in my game are not sitting waiting in one spot for the PCs to show up, whenever it is they do. And many foes don't level up to keep pace with the PCs. It's easy to challenge PCs with drastically lower level PCs, but again, only if you know the rules well enough to do so.



As mentioned above, all enemies don't need to level up with the PCs. And there's nothing wrong with PCs sometimes fighting much weaker enemies and wiping the floor with them. It gives the players/PCs a sense of accomplshment and character growth. That can be quite worthwhile.



I've been DMing my last Eberron campaigns for 2+ years (PCs going from 3rd to 13th level thus far) and another Eberron campaign somewhat concurrently before that for 2 years (PCs going from 4th to 11th) and in both cases, every time they run into weird stuff there's a reason for its existence where it was. That's not too hard to do.



It's easy to run the game mostly as written (I do, except my PCs are much stronger than using just the core books) and still keep things dangerous and mysterious. And when it comes to not having the PCs walk all over everything, one just needs to create and run their opposition more effectively. The OP's made it clear that's a significant weakness of his, hence the problem.



No, you don't need to tweak the game, or at least not seriously, to continue to challenge most players. And I think players who want their characters to be effective combatants and gain magic items that help them (why wouldn't they, considering their PCs are adventurers, whose lives depend on their effectiveness and equipment?) are the norm. Nothing wrong with that, and it's definitely not something that'll automatically make the game eventually unplayable, as it seems to be for you.



The role of chance in the game never goes away. A character with a +10 can hit an AC 29 without rolling a natural 20 (which lets him hit an AC of infinity) and can miss an AC of 13 without rolling a natural 1 (which lets him miss, however low). I'm not sure what sort of games you've been in, but I've never seen a PC (the highest I've played in 3e is up to 17th lvl) who is so powerful that he can always be sure of success.



What level of play are you speaking of? Just the core rules and the MM itself has creatures that can challenge parties up to 20th lvl and beyond (especially if using classes, templates and HD advancement for creatures). This fabled uber character that you speak of, whom absolutely nothing can challenge or touch doesn't actually exist, IMNSHO.



It's a good thing that you know what works for you but to imply, as you do, that there is no point to other methods of play is a bit silly. Especially since a lot of what you're saying is absolutely part and parcel of the game is just not the case as long as you have a competent DM.


You've missunderstood.

I'm a big fan of using less leveld enemies for the Pc's to fight; I agree that those conflicts can be just as dangerous. And you don't need alot of magic or items to make the foes just as deadly as anything the Pc's have.


But, about the weird stuff. I don't agree. I recently was in my local comic shop and picked up a pre-packedm pre-written game *I dont use them, and the reason for it will be made clear soon.* In this book, there was a sewer level. In it, there were 3 beholders, an albino aligator, dire rats, a few large posinious spiders, alot of traps so on and so on. It was just a sewer, it wasn't someones lair or hideout. To me, that sound abit silly. And, getting back to the point, or maybe its just my opinion, but all those things which seem out of the place, but make sense since they are in the MM, just seem a bit over used.

Why is it always dire rats, and dire insects? Why are their always monsters, why isn't the sewer, and the things in it, based on setting, and background? Why is it always another place to meet the enemy. Yes, I know its a game. But think of it this way, if you were reading a book, and in every sewer there were monsters....wouldn't you wonder why the hero keeps going down there? Also, wouldn't you wonder why the town's people never did anything about the things beneath them?

When I read these things, these suplements they sound like video games. Where everything is a monster, but then again I also laugh when I read that some monsters carry gold. As if they needed it or would really care about it; but, there, like you said, is a reason for it. You have to give the player something for killing the monster.

In my game, and I've DM'ed for a very long time. I don't give players gold when they slay a foe, nor does the enemy vanish into smoke like some of its counterparts do on the Playstation. I tend to make sure that the players start out with jobs, or skills that allow them to earn money. Now, some creatures slain are worth money: their bodies can be broken down and used as magical componets, or they can be sold as exotic foods...or even used into ther producs. I tend to think of monsters like I would animals; they have a reason for being their, and they also may have a use. They arn't just there wandering around waiting to eat someone.



Another thing. I said that I agreed with using numbers. Using low leveled foes to take on the party is fun. However, say I liked a particular creatures. Isn't it true, that without upping its numbers, sometimes to silly levels, the creature becomes useless? I mean, at what level would wolves become silly in the amount that would make them a threat to a high level party? When you have to fight two packs of wolves to make them dangerous, don't you find that silly. I know, yes I know, why is the party still fighting wolves at high levels? That's not point, the point is, that wolves are always dangerous, and if they arn't, then neither are the other creatures, so at a point, they must all be let go. Or is that not your point when you said that the foes didn't have to equal the party in levels/or numbers?

My issue is with the pre-packaged games where they sound silly when reading. But, its also with high high fantasy at times and the almost need for: constant healing, and magical items to best the plot and win the day. I was thumbing through a new FR book, and in it, on the first few pages. There was an army of just everything nasty outside an elven castle. There were demons, and other things in numbers that just made me think that reality should've just collapsed under the weight of it all being in the same place at the same time.

But, then again, I've a different view of fantasy. When my players ge a magial item its like their ring of power, its one of the few, if not the only one in the world. I mean, what would u think of frodo's sword, Sting, if everyone had a glowing orc-alarm system built into it?

Now, you talked about dice, and to-hits. You mentioned a player with a +10 to hit. NOw, lets talk about that.

That's either a very low stat, and illequiped 10th level character, or a high stat wellequiped lower leveled character. Either way, this point will go to both. *And the reason I say illequiped, is because many characters by this time have many magical items which give them bonuses across the board* (I'm not a huge fan of many magical items: one or two per player so that a race to arms doesn't happen on both sides of the gameplay later.*

Moving on.

Ok, so looking at the MM. I found that this player could only miss on a Roll of 10, less then 50 creatures in the entire MM. Ok, so now throw on a keen weapon, some combat feats, and stat points, and some magic items, and that 50% miss is now almost gone. Now for a single player, that wouldn't matter because those creatures would prob dish out enough damage to kill him or atleast make him not really wish to fight them; but we dont play single parties. So, now you have a party of five players, each able to easily hit said foes, and since their are more of them, they do and win. *The party might even have the standard cleric in the group, and enough money so that healing becomes a thing out of finaly fantasy.* Now, to use the creature that was killed by the party again, and not have them so easily slay it, it must be either upped in numbers, or levels. *this is about having the same foes over a long scen: like, going through a swamp, lots of...w/e. Firsts time the party puts it down easily.* Now, you can mess with the terrain, or w/e to change the tatic of the battle, but the numbers are the point. And by giving the party alot of magical times, weapons and so on, you only add the diff later in the game as they move on. Ofcrouse, you can break their itemes, or make them runout or they happen to lose them; but that just makes them upset. IF they dont get them, or only get a few. For good reason. Then that's that.

So, my question is. Is there a way to fix it so that players can't cheat the system. *I know, its a game, its not cheating, you'r supposed to tilt the hand in your favor. Your and adventure; you'r out to collect all the Dragon Balls and Summon the Great Dragon before the fight with the next insain foe which should've destoryed the earth with the amount of atomic energy coming out of his :):):):):):):)....bla bla bla.*

Wouldn't the guy who first posted this blog simply fix his probem, and those that might come later by slowing the rate of level growth, and keep alot of magical items out of the game. Or no?

Anways, Game On
 

William drake said:
So, my question is. Is there a way to fix it so that players can't cheat the system.

Wouldn't the guy who first posted this blog simply fix his probem, and those that might come later by slowing the rate of level growth, and keep alot of magical items out of the game. Or no?
Yes. Play at the levels you and your players are comfortable with, with the amount of magic that you and your players are comfortable with, in the style that you and your players are comfortable with, at the pace you and your players are comfortable with. If you and your players happen to disagree about any of the above, you and your players will need to compromise or find new players or a new DM.

RPG products cater to an audience with very varied tastes, from casual players and DMs who simply want to play through a challenging encounter without worrying too much about the background and logic of the scenario (or will fill in a background and come up with logical reasons for the encounter to be set up the way it was themselves) to dedicated storytellers and worldbuilders who demand a high level of coherence; from players and DMs who enjoy low-magic worlds, to those who enjoy settings where magic is rare but powerful, to those who prefer magic to be common and reliable. As you yourself have noted, you have a different view of fantasy from some others.

Finally, the challenge of a monster is not entirely determined by how easily a character is able to hit it with his primary attack. A creature may have other defences, such as regeneration, fast healing, miss chances, damage reduction, or plenty of hit points, or just good attacks. In any case, attack bonuses for fighter-types tend to increase faster than their opponents' ACs, so the chances of them hitting with their first attack tends to increase at higher levels. If even a fighter type has only a 50% chance of hitting a creature with his best attack, characters with medium or poor BAB probably shouldn't even bother to try. This approach helps keep melee combat viable for the non-fighter types a little longer.
 

William drake said:
But, about the weird stuff. I don't agree. I recently was in my local comic shop and picked up a pre-packedm pre-written game *I dont use them, and the reason for it will be made clear soon.* In this book, there was a sewer level. In it, there were 3 beholders, an albino aligator, dire rats, a few large posinious spiders, alot of traps so on and so on. It was just a sewer, it wasn't someones lair or hideout. To me, that sound abit silly. And, getting back to the point, or maybe its just my opinion, but all those things which seem out of the place, but make sense since they are in the MM, just seem a bit over used.
Not all published material is good. But that's a problem with the published material not with the core rules.
Why is it always dire rats, and dire insects? Why are their always monsters, why isn't the sewer, and the things in it, based on setting, and background?
Because you are buying published material that is not a good fit with your tastes and should select other published material?
Why is it always another place to meet the enemy.
It's not in my games. PCs are attacked at home, on the road and when staying with NPCs. Again, your problem seems to be that you have purchased some disappointing adventures. That sucks. But I think if you make better use of the ENW reviews system and forums, you can avoid this.
But think of it this way, if you were reading a book, and in every sewer there were monsters....wouldn't you wonder why the hero keeps going down there? Also, wouldn't you wonder why the town's people never did anything about the things beneath them?
Yes. I would. Fortunately, as an ENnies judge this year, I don't think I have found a single sewer in any of the submissions to the Best Adventure category.
Another thing. I said that I agreed with using numbers. Using low leveled foes to take on the party is fun. However, say I liked a particular creatures. Isn't it true, that without upping its numbers, sometimes to silly levels, the creature becomes useless?
Yep. Eventually, D&D characters will become tough enough that regular hyenas won't seem to be a threat to them. That's a basic thing about D&D: as characters gain levels, they will be become more powerful. If you don't like that, might I recommend you switch to a game where advancement is slower and less exponential in character. If you want there to always be a chance of a regular wolf killing a PC, you should pick a game system where characters' capacity to survive damage doesn't increase as they adventure more.
I mean, at what level would wolves become silly in the amount that would make them a threat to a high level party?
High level parties just aren't going to be threatened by mundane wolves in D&D. If you want to play a game in which very experienced adventurers could still be killed by a pack of wolves, play Runequest or Call of Cthulu or some other game where a few very unlucky dodge rolls in a row are all it takes for a highly experienced character to die. D&D is a flexible system that can be used for a lot of things but I think that what you want out of it in this respect is beyond its capacity. And that's okay.
I know, yes I know, why is the party still fighting wolves at high levels? That's not point, the point is, that wolves are always dangerous,
To everyone? All the time? It seems to me that there are all kinds of conditions under which wolves are not dangerous like in a well-fortified city that can close its gates and all kind of entities to which they are not dangerous like ghosts and dragons. Well, in D&D, there is another set of conditions under which wolves are not dangerous: when they face a high-level party.
and if they arn't, then neither are the other creatures, so at a point, they must all be let go.
Huh? What other creatures? Seems to me like the books are full of creatures that are dangerous to high level parties.
My issue is with the pre-packaged games where they sound silly when reading.
So don't buy them.
But, its also with high high fantasy at times and the almost need for: constant healing, and magical items to best the plot and win the day.
Then perhaps you should consider playing Grim Tales or RQ Lankhmar or some game that isn't about that. The products that are suited to your gaming tastes are out there. You just have to choose to purchase them instead of
thumbing through a new FR book,
But, then again, I've a different view of fantasy.
You've got perfectly common views. You just appear to insist that D&D be adapted to your views instead of you adapting your purchasing behaviours to what is out there.
So, my question is. Is there a way to fix it so that players can't cheat the system.
Yes. Here is the procedure: go to your FLGS and purchase a game that meets your needs; then run it.
 

But, then again, I've a different view of fantasy. When my players ge a magial item its like their ring of power, its one of the few, if not the only one in the world. I mean, what would u think of frodo's sword, Sting, if everyone had a glowing orc-alarm system built into it?

The problem is, D&D has never really been very good at genre emulation. D&D is, as has been said many times, its own genre and trying to shoe horn it into something it isn't leads to a lot of frustration. D&D has never really been about low magic parties relying on nothing but their mundane weapons. In earlier editions, certain monsters were absolutely invulnerable if you didn't have the right plus on your sword.

I like to point to the paladin for proof of this. The paladin is limited to 10 magic items in 1e and 2e. 4 weapons, a shield, a suit of armor and 4 other goodies. Now, this is a very strict limitation and is called out very specifically in the rules. If a paly goes over this limit, he becomes a fighter. It's that strong.

Think of the implications of that for a second. That means that the assumption is that everyone else in the party will have MORE than ten magic items. After all, a limitation which no one reaches isn't much of a limit at all. Parties were assumed to be 6 to 8 PC's in 1e, at least judging by the modules. That means that the default assumption is that parties will eventually have 66 to 88 magic items between them. That's a buttload of magic.

Fusangite put it right. If you want to play low magic fantasy, why are you playing D&D in any incarnation?
 

First off, props to Hussar - that's a point which often gets "conveniently" forgotten when people start talking about "the good old days" before powergaming or magic item proliferation.

Secondly, my view on fudging is this - fudge the stats beforehand if you need to, but don't fudge what happens in gameplay. So sure, give that troll king an extra tough hide and more HP - but once the battle starts, don't keep making his rolls "1 better than yours". If the BBEG is that important, give them some action points, and make a note when they get expended - if they get away and return later, they'll be that much less lucky.


Why not fudge in gameplay? Well, three reasons. First off, it can very easily become a slippery path. First you use it sparingly, but if you're not careful you'll end up giving random bandits nigh-godlike powers because you think the PCs should be more afraid of robbery.

Secondly, when you fudge things a lot, it disconnects players from having any input on the story. Got a great plan to sneak past some guards - won't work, because the DM wanted you to fight them. Prepare carefully for the BBEG? Why bother - perfect strategy or random flailing will end up the same. He's going to last for as long the DM finds it convenient.

And third - would you like it if the player's fudged their rolls "for RP purposes"? Heck no, but they could probably make a good case for it:
"Well, my character is very devoted to protecting his friends, so he wouldn't have failed that save against fear, because running would mess up his story."
"I just don't see an expert mage like me fumbling that fireball - I think my backstory, which mentions my good concentration skills, is more important than some random roll."
"Yeah, I didn't roll that critical, but the moment felt right for a decisive blow."

You take this too far, and it isn't a game anymore, it's purely collaborative (or possibly argumentative) storytelling.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top