The D&D thread

A trick I used to use is let the dice choose. I used it for a ton of shit. Depending on what it was and the gradient needed. 25% chance increments use a D4. Get a 1 only 25% (roughly) is true. Get a 4 it is 100% true. Have folks roll dice when meeting an NPC. Use that to fuck with them cause you have them roll a D4 they are going to be WTF ing all over it. Can fine tune things or broad strokes it with that and it spices the game up for you as well.

And unreliable narration can be fun as fuck, but it can also strip all trust out of a DM/player role. Mileage may vary.

Srathor said:

And unreliable narration can be fun as fuck, but it can also strip all trust out of a DM/player role. Mileage may vary.

Click to expand...

yeah, that's what i was thinking, both the fun aspect and the stripping the trust away

I feel like either you guys aren't understanding what he's saying, or I'm not. The way I'm reading it he is saying that if his character says I search the hallway for traps, instead of the player rolling the die, he the DM rolls the die behind the screen. If he rolls low, he tells the player you were 100% sure there are no traps in this hallway. He is lying to the player because there is a trap in the hallway. But as far as the player knows, his character thinks there are no traps in the hallway because the DM lied to him. Player walks forward and gets hit by a trap. He's asking if that's a shitty way to do it.

The alternative being what happens at most tables, where a player says I look for treasure, and they roll a three and you say they don't find anything. So then the next player says oh well then I look for treasure, and so on and so forth. Typically if someone says I look for treasure, and they roll in that 20, no one else is rolling. So unless I'm misunderstanding, that is the crux of what he's asking. Should he roll ability checks behind the DM screen, and potentially lie to the players based on what their character believes.

I personally feel like that's totally fine, there are groups that would really like that style of play, and groups that would really hate that style of play.

Onoes said:

I feel like either you guys aren't understanding what he's saying, or I'm not. The way I'm reading it he is saying that if his character says I search the hallway for traps, instead of the player rolling the die, he the DM rolls the die behind the screen. If he rolls low, he tells the player you were 100% sure there are no traps in this hallway. He is lying to the player because there is a trap in the hallway. But as far as the player knows, his character thinks there are no traps in the hallway because the DM lied to him. Player walks forward and gets hit by a trap. He's asking if that's a shitty way to do it.

The alternative being what happens at most tables, where a player says I look for treasure, and they roll a three and you say they don't find anything. So then the next player says oh well then I look for treasure, and so on and so forth. Typically if someone says I look for treasure, and they roll in that 20, no one else is rolling. So unless I'm misunderstanding, that is the crux of what he's asking. Should he roll ability checks behind the DM screen, and potentially lie to the players based on what their character believes.

I personally feel like that's totally fine, there are groups that would really like that style of play, and groups that would really hate that style of play.

Click to expand...

This is baked into the rules of Pathfinder 2e: for checks where success/failure wouldn't be immediately apparent, we use "secret" checks where the GM rolls the d20 and then applies your character's modifiers. This can be really fun for knowledge cheks, because a critical failure grants incorrect information. When you don't know whether the information you have is true or not (from a meta standpoint), it makes it easier to jump into the RP of what your character knows because there's nothing you could have done about it anyways.

Kriptini said:

This is baked into the rules of Pathfinder 2e: for checks where success/failure wouldn't be immediately apparent, we use "secret" checks where the GM rolls the d20 and then applies your character's modifiers. This can be really fun for knowledge cheks, because a critical failure grants incorrect information. When you don't know whether the information you have is true or not (from a meta standpoint), it makes it easier to jump into the RP of what your character knows because there's nothing you could have done about it anyways.

Click to expand...

yeah it's basically this. it's the idea of an unreliable narrator. as a dm it could be fun but it could also be combatative to the players if not used with restraint... no idea if i'll use it, i just wanted thoughts from other people before talking to my table about it. it'd be for a new campaign though, so not for a while if it happens

j00t said:

yeah it's basically this. it's the idea of an unreliable narrator. as a dm it could be fun but it could also be combatative to the players if not used with restraint... no idea if i'll use it, i just wanted thoughts from other people before talking to my table about it. it'd be for a new campaign though, so not for a while if it happens

Click to expand...

I don't think it's combative, you're letting the dice determine the results. I think it's more "combative" when everyone is metagaming low rolls on searches and knowledge checks.

j00t said:

thoughts?

Click to expand...

I use FGU and I usually have my players roll in the tower if the result of a check isn't obvious. Basically, anything that can't be objectively proven or seen in the moment could be a tower roll. Insight, Stealth, Persuasion, Deception, Perception, Investigation, etc.

For example - I always have players roll Stealth checks in the tower because the character is always going to do their best, but they won't know if it's good enough until their check is challenged. However, there's no point in rolling a Strength(Athletics) check in the tower when forcing a door open because it either happens or it doesn't. Perception is one that should almost always be rolled in secret because if a player rolls very low they're convinced they've missed something and will try to find ways to discover whatever it is. In contrast if they roll low in secret and I say something like "You don't notice anything particularly strange or interesting about the statue" they are much more likely to accept it and move on.

Having players roll their checks in secret requires them to trust the DM. With long-time friends that's not difficult, but people often harbor some natural skepticism if they don't know each other well. Particularly, if the player has had a negative experience with a previous DM. I occasionally reveal the result of a tower roll when it's no longer relevant and it helps remind the new folks that I'm always going to give them a fair shake.

I think more DMs should use the tower and use it more often because it dramatically reduces some aspects of metagaming. It also helps a session flow more naturally.

Onoes said:

I feel like either you guys aren't understanding what he's saying, or I'm not. The way I'm reading it he is saying that if his character says I search the hallway for traps, instead of the player rolling the die, he the DM rolls the die behind the screen. If he rolls low, he tells the player you were 100% sure there are no traps in this hallway. He is lying to the player because there is a trap in the hallway. But as far as the player knows, his character thinks there are no traps in the hallway because the DM lied to him. Player walks forward and gets hit by a trap. He's asking if that's a shitty way to do it.

The alternative being what happens at most tables, where a player says I look for treasure, and they roll a three and you say they don't find anything. So then the next player says oh well then I look for treasure, and so on and so forth. Typically if someone says I look for treasure, and they roll in that 20, no one else is rolling. So unless I'm misunderstanding, that is the crux of what he's asking. Should he roll ability checks behind the DM screen, and potentially lie to the players based on what their character believes.

I personally feel like that's totally fine, there are groups that would really like that style of play, and groups that would really hate that style of play.

Click to expand...

I'm probably in the group that didn't quite understand his question, but I replied before I saw your comment.

I never outright lie to the players because some people will resent that. Not to mention, if you lie to them enough they will become skeptical of EVERYTHING and the game is so much less fun and more difficult to run when the players are basically crackheads peeking through the shades every 30 seconds.

The phrase I use constantly is : "As far as you can tell _______________________." That phrase neither confirms nor denies anything, but it retains the possibility that there could be more.

Ok, last post in a row. Sorry, the whole "skills" mechanic in D&D is not well designed and I have a lot of opinions about it.

Anyway, I also think that DMs call for skill checks waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too often. I'm occasionally guilty of it, but I try very hard not to be.

Your 17 STR Fighter wants to jump a 5' wide river? Roll an Athletics check. You want to ride the horse you've had for a year? Roll Animal Handling check.

No. No. No.

Skill checks are primarily meant for two situations: 1. A task that is beyond the mundane for that skill or 2. Failing to perform has a consequence.

Unless a character is trying to do something challenging (on a scale), rarely done, or could end poorly...don't ask for a roll.

In contrast to that, there are some situations that should require characters to have proficiency to get a roll. For example - a player is wanting to diagnose a poison that his character is suffering from. If you're got proficiency in Medicine or maybe Survival/Nature (if it was from a beast/plant) - sure, roll. If not, no because it would be little more than a guess.

Grabbit Allworth said:

Ok, last post in a row. Sorry, the whole "skills" mechanic in D&D is not well designed and I have a lot of opinions about it.

Anyway, I also think that DMs call for skill checks waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too often. I'm occasionally guilty of it, but I try very hard not to be.

Your 17 STR Fighter wants to jump a 5' wide river? Roll an Athletics check. You want to ride the horse you've had for a year? Roll Animal Handling check.

No. No. No.

Skill checks are primarily meant for two situations: 1. A task that is beyond the mundane for that skill or 2. Failing to perform has a consequence.

Unless a character is trying to do something challenging (on a scale), rarely done, or could end poorly...don't ask for a roll.

In contrast to that, there are some situations that should characters to have proficiency to get a roll. For example - a player is wanting to diagnose a poison that his character is suffering from. If you're got proficiency in Medicine or maybe Survival/Nature (if it was from a beast/plant) - sure, roll. If not, no because it would be little more than a guess.

Click to expand...

I'd second this, and also add that players have the same problem, constantly asking to make checks. Generally, yes, what they want is going to lead to a check, but let the DM make that call

I posted this in the BG III, but it's a bit more relevant here. Anyway, the way Long Rests are handled in 5e is pretty lame and DMs basically have to force players into combat to interrupt one or tell them "No, you can't rest here." Neither of those solutions is great so I got inspired from something I read a couple years ago and created this system for resting. It seems incredibly awkward and fiddly, but it's really not. It only adds about 3-4 minutes to a rest.

Anyway, tell me what you guys think.

slippery said:

I'm going to playing in a Pathfinder 1e campaign. It seems like the hardcovers are all out print, rip. Going to try some of the pocket edition and see how I feel about them. Any recommendations on books worth picking up?

Also, is there a good compilation of PDF somewhere so I have everything on hand?

Any recommendations for a good app for an ipad for character sheet type stuff?

Click to expand...

I'm curious why you're choosing 1e over 2e. 2e is a fabulous system that is well-balanced all the way to 20 and everything is still in print.

I haven't played PF 1e, but I know it suffers from the same problems that D&D 3.x does. 3.x is painfully bloated due to the fact it has a bajillion options. Combat takes forever and any meaningful check usually takes couple minutes to resolve because there are so many potential modifiers. Character creation is a massive clusterfuck and a lot of builds end up grossly overpowered.

Some people like the Mathfinder aspect of 1e/3.x and I've definitely incorporated a few aspects of previous editions in my 5e game, but I'll never go back to that era. Fuck single rounds of combat literally taking an hour to resolve.

At any rate, I have every PF 2e book and most of the PF 1e books so I'll try to help answer some questions if you can be more specific regarding about what you're wanting.

Grabbit Allworth said:

I posted this in the BG III, but it's a bit more relevant here. Anyway, the way Long Rests are handled in 5e is pretty lame and DMs basically have to force players into combat to interrupt one or tell them "No, you can't rest here." Neither of those solutions is great so I got inspired from something I read a couple years ago and created this system for resting. It seems incredibly awkward and fiddly, but it's really not. It only adds about 3-4 minutes to a rest.

Anyway, tell me what you guys think.

Click to expand...

i like the idea of this, but i think it might need some... streamlining? or something? there seems to be some issues of redundancy. like you have the overall dc being decided by where they are, an inn vs the 9 hells were your examples. but then you also have bonuses or penalties to camp locations, like +3 if it's a secure location with no dangers around, or -3 if the dangers are omnipresent.

those two categories seem to be the exact same thing? an inn (0 dc) should be a secure location (+3 bonus to setting up the camp) whereas the 9 hells (30 dc) should be a place where the dangers are omnipresent (-3 penalty to setting up the camp).

j00t said:

i like the idea of this, but i think it might need some... streamlining? or something? there seems to be some issues of redundancy. like you have the overall dc being decided by where they are, an inn vs the 9 hells were your examples. but then you also have bonuses or penalties to camp locations, like +3 if it's a secure location with no dangers around, or -3 if the dangers are omnipresent.

those two categories seem to be the exact same thing? an inn (0 dc) should be a secure location (+3 bonus to setting up the camp) whereas the 9 hells (30 dc) should be a place where the dangers are omnipresent (-3 penalty to setting up the camp).

Click to expand...

There are some redundancies, but some of them are there to make the 'math' work. Also, the camp check roll doesn't always happen. Its primary use is for characters that are traveling and looking for a place to set up camp. The result of the camp check helps me decide how successful they were in finding shelter.

For example - if none of the Survival checks succeed then the characters aren't able to scout out a relatively safe spot. However, if the characters are already in a reasonable safe spot then the camp check rolls are skipped and the modifiers for their chosen rest area are calculated.

At any rate, I've already iterated the system several times and I plan to continue to tweak it because it's definitely not finished yet. In fact, I've made some changes since I posted the screens. For one, I combined the ration/water bonus into one because doubling up was far too easy in all but the most extreme situations.

Indyocracy said:

So why does being on watch hurt your rest check by default? What if you don't require the regular 6-8 hrs of sleep like warforged or elves? It seems interesting for sure but that part just goes against how I think of resting as I would think not having a watch would be what you would wanna punish

Click to expand...

It clearly states that those modifiers are for individuals. If a mod doesn't a apply to a character it doesn't get applied.

However, for people that sleep normally, there's no disputing that getting woken up to stand a 2 hour watch is going to be less beneficial than resting uninterrupted.

Regardless, this is one of my houserules and it's not for everyone.