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

[BryonD]

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.

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?

Being as I have some history of defending my story-trumps-mechanics position against you... ... I feel compelled to jump in here and state that I completely AGREE with you.
The mechanical details of characters throughout the game must be slaves to the narrative aspects of those characters. (Thus I declare. )
But you are dead on that the rolls very much have a point. My high level fighter is not likely to miss the orc. But he MIGHT. Part of the narrative definition of each character, an IMPORTANT part, is the lack of predestiny in the outcomes. Uncertainty in how the odds will play out central to the extended experience.

Thus, roll in the open and then roll with it.
As much as I hate it when mechanics trump narrative, the whim of fate, as decreed by the dice, is a PART of the narrative. Obviously good design requires that the odds of which way the winds blow make sense. But having the right odds is one thing and having good and bad runs of luck within those presumed reasonably correct odds is another.

So, I agree.

 

[pemerton]

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

True, but if I wanted to do that sort of thing D&D mechanics aren't really where I'd start.

In a slightly more abstract resolution system, you could set those sorts of stakes more easily: fail your roll(s) and you win but get injured (or lose a shield-bearer, or whatever); succeed on your roll(s) and you win without significant loss.

But D&D (other than 4e skill challenges) doesn't lend itself especialy well to that sort of approach to resolution.

There is a further complication, too, in doing this in D&D: in D&D, the main costs of success are attrition (hit points used, spells used, items used, etc). And the main consequences of attrition are a reduced chance of success on future encounters. But if it has already been established that (for "story reasons") surrender is not an option, then TPKs in future encounters will still be campaign-endinng, and hence will still necessitate GM fudging in order to avoid them.

So the degree of success itself is in danger of ending up being a mere illusion.

 

[Sadras]

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?

Lovely!

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

I use this quite a bit at our table. Prefer it to the straight Yes/No outcomes of skill checks. I believe it increase the likelihood to enhance the narrative in an interesting way, allowing one to PCs to engage more with the world, IMO. It definitely assists
me during storytelling.

True, but if I wanted to do that sort of thing D&D mechanics aren't really where I'd start.

Sure, other systems, like Vampire, are better suited for it, but I find the D&D mechanics cope with it relatively well.

On a varied note, besides Die Fudging, DMs can also, for whatever reason
- Hit Point fudge (last second add an extra 10 hit points, for one more round of action with the BBEG), grant abilities/features, insert action point/s...etc.
I suppose this is also off-limits by the open-die crowd?

 

[Hussar]

Frankly I don't bother. At worst I might say something died because you hit it and it only had one HP left and it's not worth wasting the table's time to finish it off. OTOH, one of the other DM's in the group delights in that sort of thing and love it when the baddie gets one last shot in while it's still on its last legs. So, to each his own.

About the only "fudging" I might do is in the tactical aspect of things. Maybe soften an encounter by drawing a few extra AOO's from the baddies with some "poor" movement choices. OTOH, when I do that sort of thing, it always means that if the PC's fail to stop my move, I'm going to lay some extra boots on someone squishy. Or maybe the baddies take a poor route through some difficult terrain and delay their arrival on the scene by a round. That sort of thing. But mess with the numbers? Naw, not worth the effort frankly. If the PC's smoke the baddie in one round, fantastic. I've got unlimited baddies. It doesn't ever matter that this one died faster than expected.

 

[Kaychsea]

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.

I know what you mean, because there could be nothing that could have gone before in the campaign that had run the course over the previous three months would have made that likely. It's not like this was the last surviving brother, the party having killed the other two in a fight this one barely escaped from. Or that they had survived three previous attempts to get revenge, or that he had sworn revenge (at least twice) in their presence. Or that this time they had the drop on him and ambushed him with his kobold bodyguard away from the rest of the lizardfolk force that was meant to get the drop on them. I doubt that they noticed that the room they fought him in had the altar on which he was going to burn their remains (dead or alive, preferably the latter), as he'd promised.
Nope. I was forcing it all on them, coddling them in cotton wool and feeding them from the teat of my benificence.

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

What are dice? Are they the annoying clattery things?

 

[prosfilaes]

I know what you mean, because there could be nothing that could have gone before in the campaign that had run the course over the previous three months would have made that likely.

I get that you're being sarcastic, but I completely fail to get what point you were trying to make behind that sarcasm.

 

[Kaychsea]

I get that you're being sarcastic, but I completely fail to get what point you were trying to make behind that sarcasm.

Pointing out that the story related reasons for them not having an option of surrendering came from the players previous actions rather than my fiat.

 

[Mistwell]

Because it is a proven fact that unmoderated or under moderated forums are toxic.

And note, the TOS for en world is already a compromise. It's not like I'm not allowed to ever talk about a particular edition. I don't go to forums where that is true. I vote with my feet.

The sister forum to this one, CircvsMaximvs.com, is unmoderatted and not toxic. It might not be to your tastes, but it's not toxic.

 

[Hussar]

The sister forum to this one, CircvsMaximvs.com, is unmoderatted and not toxic. It might not be to your tastes, but it's not toxic.

Number one, it's not unmoderated. It is moderated, just a lot less strictly than this one. Post neo-Nazi screeds and see how long they stay up. Hate speech is against the TOS at CM.

Number two, the existence of an exception does not really make much of a difference. For every lightly moderated forum that's fun to post in, you have a thousand 4Chan's.

 

[pemerton]

On a varied note, besides Die Fudging, DMs can also, for whatever reason
- Hit Point fudge (last second add an extra 10 hit points, for one more round of action with the BBEG), grant abilities/features, insert action point/s...etc.
I suppose this is also off-limits by the open-die crowd?

Frankly I don't bother. At worst I might say something died because you hit it and it only had one HP left and it's not worth wasting the table's time to finish it off.

I don't fudge hit point numbers.

And when I have a monster/NPC with 1 hp left I make sure to taunt the players about it! And then to try and do something worthwhile on my final round.

I agree wtih [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s remarks about decision-making for NPCs/monsters. That is the point in the rules at which GM discretion is required, and so that is the point at which I exercise it - not just (or even primarily) to moderate difficulty, but rather to manage pacing/excitement etc.