D&D 5E Supplemental books: Why the compulsion to buy and use, but complain about it?

[pemerton]

I do it to avoid an outcome that I don't want, in the example I quoted there would have been a TPK with another breath attack, four on the trot was bad enough, the dice would have effectively ended the campaign.

This is why, as I posted, I use a system in which the players losing on the dice rolls won't produce bad outcomes.

For instance, zero hit points doesn't equal death in 4e. It can instead equal unconsciousness.

 

[Kaychsea]

This is why, as I posted, I use a system in which the players losing on the dice rolls won't produce bad outcomes.

For instance, zero hit points doesn't equal death in 4e. It can instead equal unconsciousness.

As it doesn't in 5e. The last attack would have taken two of the last three standing to death saves and was more than a match for the remaining rogue who was on less than ten HP. The previous four rounds had seen the main fighter taken out in two rounds, the cleric in another one and the remaining members badly hurt. Leaving the wounded rogue one on one wouldn't have lasted another round. The daft thing is that this was solely due to a ridiculous run of luck recharging. Their plan was sound, and took the three kobolds out quickly, the red half dragon was tearing them apart with ridiculous ease. With the three still standing the rogue took him down with the sneak attack he wouldn't have had on his own.

 

[Hussar]

If that's what's right for your table, yes.

But, Bill91, note his phrasing. It's certainly not, do what's right for your table. He flat out states that random results are not for D&D. Why aren't you questioning him, instead of me?

Did I say it did? It was an example of a situation where, had I gone with the dice, five players would have been rolling new characters because of an extremely unlikely set of die rolls. Not because they had done anything wrong or dashed in without thinking, but because of something happening 1.2% of the time.
Bad beats are for poker not D&D.
I'll ask you the same question I asked above. Do you roll everything in the open, for instance breath recharges?

So, you do in fact believe that fudging makes one a better DM. Hey, that's fair, but, at least be open about it.

And, yes, absolutely. I roll everything 100% in the open. Why bother hiding a roll? The party dies to a freak chance is the stuff of gaming stories. The time the party rogue got caught by a critter and I proceeded to roll and confirm (3e D&D) 3 straight crits and a fourth hit and turned the rogue into a fine red mist is still remembered in my group.

 

[billd91]

But, Bill91, note his phrasing. It's certainly not, do what's right for your table. He flat out states that random results are not for D&D. Why aren't you questioning him, instead of me?

Because that's not what he's saying. It's more of a questionable interpretation on your part.

 

[Hussar]

Because that's not what he's saying. It's more of a questionable interpretation on your part.

Really? "Bad beats are for Poker, not D&D". What other interpretation are you taking from this?

Or,

"Knowing when to fudge is an important part of the role.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?366531-Supplemental-books-Why-the-compulsion-to-buy-and-use-but-complain-about-it/page47#ixzz3GZnAwd7U"

So, what are you taking away from what he's saying? Because it looks like he's saying that an important part of DMing is fudging the dice. Me, I think that it's an important part of a single style of DMing, but not part of DMing in all styles.

 

[Kaychsea]

So, you do in fact believe that fudging makes one a better DM. Hey, that's fair, but, at least be open about it.

I'm not sure how more clearly I can say that I don't. I think some flexibility is necessary but how much is down to the individual. Style. I keep mentioning that. It's important.

And, yes, absolutely. I roll everything 100% in the open. Why bother hiding a roll? The party dies to a freak chance is the stuff of gaming stories. The time the party rogue got caught by a critter and I proceeded to roll and confirm (3e D&D) 3 straight crits and a fourth hit and turned the rogue into a fine red mist is still remembered in my group.

And again, bully for you. Apart from giving the rogue a war story did it help the story at all? So your players know when a breath weapon has recharged? Which they shouldn't. Their behaviour doesn't change when you start rolling dice with no explanation? Behind the screen you can get away with hiding multiple rolls when they know you are rolling for something in particular.
Do I coddle the players? Not really, stupidity is generally punished, if they are losing a fair fight it's up to them to get out of it. But I won't let the sheer brutality of extreme random chance ruin things.

 

[Hussar]

See, Kaychsea, here's the thing. If you didn't believe that fudging made you a better DM, why do you have such a problem with my refusal to fudge? Yes, for my group, it absolutely made a better story. It turned what would have been a fairly forgettable encounter with yet another critter to something that players talked about for weeks and still talk about years later.

Why not let them know when powers recharged? That's pretty easy to narrate- hey, the dragon's taking a big honking breath and fire is spurting out it's nostrils, it's going to breathe on you again! What's the point of keeping it secret?

They were losing a fair fight, but, you saved them. AFAIC, there is no "thing" to be ruined. The dice are there to tell you the thing. It's not my job as a DM to do that.

Look, I accept that you want to have more control over the story of your game. That's fine and no problem. Lots of DM's out there will agree with you. Just like in this thread, there are lots of DM's who will agree with the idea that the DM is not obligated in any way to compromise on stuff he doesn't feel like compromising about. Again, totally fair. If the players are happy, then great.

However, that being said, I find that the game is improved, and greatly improved, when the DM doesn't have a opinion about where the story "should" go. But, that's just me. I don't feel that "bad beats" only belong in Poker. I have no problems with the dice directing the story and, in fact, as a player and a DM, I insist on it. I'd be very disappointed to learn that the only reason we survived that dragon attack is because you fudged the dice. It totally robs the scene of any emotional impact.

I mean, heck, the players could have retreated after the second breath weapon no? The players could have surrendered. The players could have done a thousand different things. But, no, they fought to the bitter end, safe in the knowledge that the DM was going to bubble wrap the encounter and protect them. No thanks. That's not for me. If the dice declare a TPK, then, guess what boys? It's character generation time.

 

[Kaychsea]

See, Kaychsea, here's the thing. If you didn't believe that fudging made you a better DM, why do you have such a problem with my refusal to fudge?

Really, I don't. I also don't know why you said:

But, Bill91, note his phrasing. It's certainly not, do what's right for your table. He flat out states that random results are not for D&D. Why aren't you questioning him, instead of me?

When I did no such thing, nor did the guy you said it to believe so.
My beef is with outliers that wreck campaigns. Otherwise I and my table would be playing Amber or the like.

I mean, heck, the players could have retreated after the second breath weapon no? The players could have surrendered. The players could have done a thousand different things. But, no, they fought to the bitter end, safe in the knowledge that the DM was going to bubble wrap the encounter and protect them. No thanks. That's not for me. If the dice declare a TPK, then, guess what boys? It's character generation time.

They could have but considered the chance of it happening again to be slim, and after the third they had characters down. Surrender was not an option for story reasons, they would have been dead the moment they dropped their weapons and knew it.
As I said, decent plan, beyond bad luck. Do I do it often? No I don't. Have my games killed characters? Of course they have. Do I think blind luck should be a game-killer? No, which is why I won't be having wild magic in my campaigns.
And that is all I have to say on the matter.

 

[pemerton]

My beef is with outliers that wreck campaigns.

<snip>

Surrender was not an option for story reasons, they would have been dead the moment they dropped their weapons and knew it.

What I see here is a pre-authorship of the story ("for story reasons, they would have been dead") and then the overriding of dice rolls to ensure conformity to that story.

Given this, I'm not sure what the point of the dice rolls is.

decent plan, beyond bad luck.

So why roll the dice? If the plan is decent, and if "story reasons" preclude any other outcome, why not just narrate the PCs' success?

 

[Hussar]

Well, Pemerton, just to jump the fence here, you could roll the dice to determine degree of success, rather than success/failure.