517
Cope (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/rpgmemes@ttrpg.network
95 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I don't see the issue with the GM lying to players if the lie makes the game more fun and less frustrating.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 30 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    That's a valid mode of play, but I feel like if we're going to have agreed upon rules we should follow them, and not unilaterally change them. If the rules say "you spot the trap on a roll of 10 or above", the GM deciding you just don't spot it because they say so can feel wrong. It can feel like cheating. We had an agreement, and they just broke it.

    On the other hand, if in your session 0 you all agree that the GM may fudge things for more drama, then have at it.

    On the third hand, I've done things like "the rules say X but I think that's going to stink here. Anyone object to changing it?".

    The important thing is everyone gives informed consent.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    Generally speaking, it's almost always a bad idea to fudge things to make it worse, but acceptable to fudge things to make it better.

    If your players are rolling well, good for them! Sometimes players want to feel really lucky and like their investments paid off. If that makes your campaign too easy there are lots of ways to address it, and an easy fight will rarely if ever cause a campaign to crumble

    But a series of bad rolls? That can absolutely melt a campaign. It can suck the soul out of a party and make things feel unfair or too difficult even when it's just a string of bad luck. Preventing a TPK or allowing a PC to narrowly escape certain doom can be the difference between a player losing interest and them learning how to mitigate risk.

    GMs should all spend some time reading up on the psychology of games and player behavior. Stress and frustration exist in the strangest, most illogical places because our brains are strange and illogical.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    One of the things I like from Fate is the concept of Conceding. It gives players the option to give up.

    So when you have bad rolls or the situation is going real bad, you can concede. You all decide what that looks like. You don't get whatever you wanted in the conflict, but you decide if that means you're just left for dead, or you fall into the river and are swept away, or what. You get one or more fate points, too. Because this is written into the rules, it doesn't feel as cheaty as it would in DND for a player to say "I don't think we can win this. Can we say we escape somehow?"

    You can always choose to fight to the bitter end, but then you don't really have anyone to blame but yourself.

    DND is an old game and it's just missing whole concepts like this that I think would make a better experience.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    6e when?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    I don't think D&D will ever really change much. There are people that really like its quirks, and there'd be a backlash from people if they made large changes. People still repeat largely nonsense complaints about 4e, sometimes while trying to patch 5e with ideas that 4e did.

    Unfortunately, some people like it without ever trying anything else. D&D is a mega behemoth. I personally think it's more popular than it should be, given how many people I've talked to that play it only with a generous heaping of house rules and practices that transform it into something else.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Shouldn't play a game with random rolls if one doesn't like random rolls. Secret rolls don't add anything except suspicion.

    As a DM if I decide something is going to happen then I don't bother rolling. Like if a character who is competent wants to do something and they have plenty of time they just succeed. If a monster is sneaking I might just compare their stealth to character perception if being stealthy doesn't have more of an impact that the characters finding out they were being followed. If it has a game play impact then I roll openly but don't say what it is for. That way there is no suspicion that I rolled low and decided that it should just pass instead when the reason for the roll is eventually revealed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Some events in my campaign are doomed to happen no matter what, but I don't always want the players to know it.

    For example if they try a Survival check to track someone who was never even there, I might make a secret Stealth roll plus a million bazillion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    Sure, sometimes. It should be used incredibly rarely. However, not in this way. The GM has plenty of levers to pull without messing with the one thing you have players for. If the GM is just going to tell a story then they should write a book. If they want to do cooperative storytelling then they need to cooperate.

    If the rolls don't matter then the story gets incredibly boring, as it just goes whatever direction the GM wants. Without failure, success is boring. Without success, failure sucks. When they're perfectly balanced by the GM, it's predictable and not surprising or fun.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    I would say you as a player experience the game best when you are not privy to 90% of what happens behind the DM screen. The more mystery there is, the better. Half the point of the screen is for the DM to be able to weigh if certain things trigger and if they do not, imo. I agree that D&D is at its best when a DM loosely has what an idea for the campaign but leave it up to the players to write the story.

    I personally had the most fun as a player when the DM was constantly rolling hidden checks, since out of character you feel that danger is lurking. I agree that you wouldn’t want predictable outcomes for whatever happens next, since the fun is in the mystery.

    I would say that the DM has a lot of agency to pick and choose what moments you succeed versus fail. The DM may throw a check at you that requires a 30+ to succeed, but you don’t know that in the moment. Likewise, if you’re in a close fight and one of the players scores a natural 20 and a big hit, then I feel it’s a better moment for the story if that enemy drops from that. Rather than having the foe still stand with a couple hp, it dodges the next two rounds of hits, and wipes the party.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (1 child)

    I agree totally, but the rolls that aren't supposed to be behind the screen shouldn't be. It removes agency from the players when the DM is deciding what they can and can't do. Like you said, there are plenty of things they do control. There's no reason to control other things. There should be hidden checks for things like spotting traps/enemies they aren't aware of, and things like that. Their actions shouldn't be hidden though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    I would say it shouldn’t be something you do often. Maybe if you’re secretly charmed or mind controlled I could see it, but I don’t think there would be too many instances a DM should be hiding a player’s roll.

    For sure the DM shouldn’t abuse the player’s trust in those situations either. If it’s a hidden roll, the DM shouldn’t be lying about if the player actually passed the check or not.

    I can see the appeal, for instance, of having the party running for their lives to escape a collapsing cave and having players make hidden rolls as they perform strength and dexterity checks on the way out. There can be tension behind not knowing if you pass or fail. Killing a player that way would kinda suck though rather than having some sort of funny outcome if they fail, imo.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent