I am currently running a campaign that has roughly 100 sessions lined out. I just have a very basic general outline of what I want the story to be. I left PLENTY of room for the players to do whatever crazy stuff they want to do. But it most definitely is something I am very proud of. The only thing, is sometimes I will ignore the results of roles, just so that I can get to the end goal. For example, our wizard casted Mage Armor on our monk, which brought his AC up to 20. The goal of this session was to have the BBEG get all the PC's really low, then tell the PC's to stop getting in the way. The monk was the last guy conscious, he was only alive due to his AC. I had to rap up the session so what I did was, I had the BBEG role to hit, (he failed) then I said he hit, put the monk to 1hp, said his threats, then dipped. I feel really bad for spoofing the role that way. But it also really progresses the storyline.
And thats not the only thing. Sometimes I create or ignore rules on the fly, which also makes me feel bad. I am still a fairly new DM (6 months). I am very comfortable with running the game. But not so much with the rules.
The only thing I can really comment on is the Mage Armour on the Monk. The Monk uses Unarmoured Defence which is an AC calculation of 10+Dex+Wis. Mage Armour is an AC calculation of 13+Dex. You can't use multiple AC calculations at the same time - they don't stack. So their AC likely wouldn't have been 20 - unless their Dex modifier is +7 (a Dexterity score of 24 or 25).
The DM can always choose to ignore the rules if that's what'll produce the most fun outcome, but if you find yourself constantly trying to ensure encounters play out a certain way you're being a bit too rigid in your planning and overriding your player's role in the story.
Case in point, if you hadn't broken the rules the monk player might've walked away from that session proud to have been the only character that wasn't beaten down, and the wizard would've felt like they contributed to that*. You missed out on an opportunity to show how the villain acts when they underestimate an opponent, or a chance to start a more personal rivalry between them and the monk.
Remember, D&D is a shared storytelling game and part of the point of using dice is that even the DM can be surprised by how events unfold. Don't override your players lightly.
*Mage Armor doesn't stack with Martial Arts Unarmored Defense, but the point still stands, and the rolls could've missed purely due to luck.
I mean you can fudge rolls if you want. As the DM you're pretty much allowed to do anything as long as your players agree to continue playing. But if it weighs on your soul, then perhaps be ready to either think on your feet, or have contingencies ready. Your wizard and monk came up with a very good idea for combating your threat, and even though they don't know it, you punished them for it. Why not just laugh at the monk, congratulate them for being scrappy, and leave? Why not threaten to kill a party member if they don't yield? If they are all of a sudden confidant that they just stood toe-to-toe with the BBEG, doesn't that just set them up for a bigger fall? I find that the problem with planning too far head is that you can never plan for the crazy things that players do, so it'll never come out exactly the way you expected.
The only thing I can really comment on is the Mage Armour on the Monk. The Monk uses Unarmoured Defence which is an AC calculation of 10+Dex+Wis. Mage Armour is an AC calculation of 13+Dex. You can't use multiple AC calculations at the same time - they don't stack. So their AC likely wouldn't have been 20 - unless their Dex modifier is +7 (a Dexterity score of 24 or 25).
Ember rightly pointing out a need to maybe be more on top of the mechanics side of things aside, at the end of the day, what do your players think of the session?
I mean it's ok, I guess, to leave the party with 1 hp collectively so the BBEG can monologue and make their getaway; but if that sandbags them mechanically so they'll have to burn through healing resources or precious travel time because the need to take a long rest to get back into fighting or pursuit shape. But when you're fudging rolls for specific story moments, you're basically rail roading. So depending on the nature of your players what's going to come into play, so to speak, is whether your story is that good that the players are willing to be taken along for the ride (which is one style of DMing and isn't necessarily a perjorative one if the DM is in fact a skilled story teller that players want to keep going back to to see what happens next), rather than you providing a setting an antagonist and a set of events that sets the players off to decide how they'll go about facing challenges. It's more a spectrum than a dichotomy, but if you're seriously plotting out a hundred sessions, that's sounding more like a story with some interactivity to it than a campaign with player agency. New players, just getting used to the mechanics tend to enjoy the former. More experienced players with an idea of a character they want to articulate, and want to have a role in telling the story would be more put off by the mode.
So again, it really comes down to not what a bunch of people non immersed in your campaign says, it's what your players thinks. I alway end my sessions with fifteen minutes where I ask the group something to the effect of "so how did that go?" or "where do you see this going?" and in the hour or two I spend between sessions take that feedback into consideration as I prep the ground, so to speak, for the next one. Usually the debrief is story oriented, though sometimes a player wants to go mechanical about using a class feature or why that zombie just wouldn't die ("CON checks, my friend, sometimes the dead don't die... but I'll admit I was running out of vital areas to be hanging by a thread when we got to the fifth should have been killing blow").
If the players like the drama of getting mopped all over the floor, keep it up, but if there was frustration in more than one or two players in that session, rethink the sort of table you got. Really, you're just a player too, you just have the burden of having to be literally more considerate of the other players so they engage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The DM can always choose to ignore the rules if that's what'll produce the most fun outcome, but if you find yourself constantly trying to ensure encounters play out a certain way you're being a bit too rigid in your planning and overriding your player's role in the story.
Case in point, if you hadn't broken the rules the monk player might've walked away from that session proud to have been the only character that wasn't beaten down, and the wizard would've felt like they contributed to that*. You missed out on an opportunity to show how the villain acts when they underestimate an opponent, or a chance to start a more personal rivalry between them and the monk.
Remember, D&D is a shared storytelling game and part of the point of using dice is that even the DM can be surprised by how events unfold. Don't override your players lightly.
*Mage Armor doesn't stack with Martial Arts, but the point still stands, and the rolls could've missed purely due to luck.
Aside from the mechanical goof Emmber pointed out, I think the best rule of thumb is: if you feel bad about it, don’t do it. I get the impulse to nudge the players in the direction of what you had planned, but in my experience it’s not worth it. If they take a different path, roll with it. It’s like improv - your reaction should be ‘yes, and...’ You take what they offer and you add to it.
Without knowing any further details, it doesn’t seem like your storyline would have been affected all that much if your BBEG had not defeated the complete party but left after laying most of them out. The message could have been the same, really. Just leave the monk conscious, tell him you’ll leave him standing to make sure the others live and to pass on to not interfere anymore. Even if the party had managed to drive off the BBEG it wouldn’t have hurt your story, other than the players feeling better about what went down. I mean, I assume you don’t really want them to back off - the only real difference would have been whether the PCs felt they’d have to up their game or not.
I mean you can fudge rolls if you want. As the DM you're pretty much allowed to do anything as long as your players agree to continue playing. But if it weighs on your soul, then perhaps be ready to either think on your feet, or have contingencies ready. Your wizard and monk came up with a very good idea for combating your threat, and even though they don't know it, you punished them for it. Why not just laugh at the monk, congratulate them for being scrappy, and leave? Why not threaten to kill a party member if they don't yield? If they are all of a sudden confidant that they just stood toe-to-toe with the BBEG, doesn't that just set them up for a bigger fall? I find that the problem with planning too far head is that you can never plan for the crazy things that players do, so it'll never come out exactly the way you expected.
Ember rightly pointing out a need to maybe be more on top of the mechanics side of things aside, at the end of the day, what do your players think of the session?
I mean it's ok, I guess, to leave the party with 1 hp collectively so the BBEG can monologue and make their getaway; but if that sandbags them mechanically so they'll have to burn through healing resources or precious travel time because the need to take a long rest to get back into fighting or pursuit shape. But when you're fudging rolls for specific story moments, you're basically rail roading. So depending on the nature of your players what's going to come into play, so to speak, is whether your story is that good that the players are willing to be taken along for the ride (which is one style of DMing and isn't necessarily a perjorative one if the DM is in fact a skilled story teller that players want to keep going back to to see what happens next), rather than you providing a setting an antagonist and a set of events that sets the players off to decide how they'll go about facing challenges. It's more a spectrum than a dichotomy, but if you're seriously plotting out a hundred sessions, that's sounding more like a story with some interactivity to it than a campaign with player agency. New players, just getting used to the mechanics tend to enjoy the former. More experienced players with an idea of a character they want to articulate, and want to have a role in telling the story would be more put off by the mode.
So again, it really comes down to not what a bunch of people non immersed in your campaign says, it's what your players thinks. I alway end my sessions with fifteen minutes where I ask the group something to the effect of "so how did that go?" or "where do you see this going?" and in the hour or two I spend between sessions take that feedback into consideration as I prep the ground, so to speak, for the next one. Usually the debrief is story oriented, though sometimes a player wants to go mechanical about using a class feature or why that zombie just wouldn't die ("CON checks, my friend, sometimes the dead don't die... but I'll admit I was running out of vital areas to be hanging by a thread when we got to the fifth should have been killing blow").
If the players like the drama of getting mopped all over the floor, keep it up, but if there was frustration in more than one or two players in that session, rethink the sort of table you got. Really, you're just a player too, you just have the burden of having to be literally more considerate of the other players so they engage.
Why is everyone so smart? Next couple encounters will not be rail roaded for storyline! Thank you all for the reminders of DND is interactive, not reading a book
I am currently running a campaign that has roughly 100 sessions lined out.
I think this may be the heart of the problem. You have mapped out exactly what you want to happen, and the die rolls would have prevented it so you overruled them.
I have nothing against fudging rolls. I have done it myself over the years from time to time. But if you find yourself fudging rolls to make sure your next plot point happens the way you wanted, to me, something is wrong.
Try not to be to married to your cool plot. And definitely don't plot things out 100 episodes in advance. Even professional TV series writers do not do this because they know that there are too many unknowns between now and episode 100.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Think of the game as improv. The DM has the role of being more and less improvisational than the players. They have to have a story structure, but also need to be able to be nimble enough on their feet to guide the players to the story without railroading them. This can be by fudging a roll on occasion... But optimally it is more about shifting the narrative to react to the players actions.
Players though of an ingenious way to succeed? Let the, but have a back up plan (or make one on the fly) that allows their win to stand but keeps the story going. So BBEG cannot touch the monk? Well now you have an opportunity to show how ruthless they are by having them threaten the unconscious wizard. Or you can show that they're a negotiator at heart and they instead try to bargain with the monk who refuses to fall. Or they are so confident in their own strength that they find it amusing to bat and miss the monk again and again, monologuing the entire time.
Especially when you are near the end of the session, remember that not everything needs be settled in a single session. "Alright, so it is BBEG vs the dodge-a-matic Monk in a one on one showdown... We'll see who wins this battle next week!" Nothing like a cliffhanger to keep the players anxious to play again! And it gives you time to adjust, rethink, replan. Not always available if you get into a sticky spot just 10 minutes into a session but definitely an option near the end.
Heck... as a player I would have absolutely no problem if the DM just up and said "Alrighty... Totally did not plan for things to turn out this way. Sorry but I'm going to need some time to adjust my planning."
Personally, I feel a DM always has the right to fudge rolls though. I feel it is a power they need so as to keep the game interesting and competitive sometimes, be it because they totally under powered a foe, or over powered one. It's the same as a DM deciding on the fly if a door is locked or unlocked, if the players overhear a piece of gossip that gives them a clue they missed earlier, or if there is a boat at the dock they can steal or not... A DM cannot possibly have every single thing planned to perfection and must be able to pull some stuff out of left field now and again for the greater narrative. So long as you are fudging rolls, or storylines or whatever, for the enjoyment of all then do so when necessary!
It is when you are adjusting things out of spite because your upset the players beat you, or you are favoring one player over another or other such selfish reasons that I have an issue with it... But all in all, I figure the DM screen is there for a reason. Not everything needs to be seen by the players!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am currently running a campaign that has roughly 100 sessions lined out. I just have a very basic general outline of what I want the story to be. I left PLENTY of room for the players to do whatever crazy stuff they want to do. But it most definitely is something I am very proud of. The only thing, is sometimes I will ignore the results of roles, just so that I can get to the end goal. For example, our wizard casted Mage Armor on our monk, which brought his AC up to 20. The goal of this session was to have the BBEG get all the PC's really low, then tell the PC's to stop getting in the way. The monk was the last guy conscious, he was only alive due to his AC. I had to rap up the session so what I did was, I had the BBEG role to hit, (he failed) then I said he hit, put the monk to 1hp, said his threats, then dipped. I feel really bad for spoofing the role that way. But it also really progresses the storyline.
And thats not the only thing. Sometimes I create or ignore rules on the fly, which also makes me feel bad. I am still a fairly new DM (6 months). I am very comfortable with running the game. But not so much with the rules.
What is the defining line?
A New DM up against the World
Whoops *rolls
A New DM up against the World
The only thing I can really comment on is the Mage Armour on the Monk. The Monk uses Unarmoured Defence which is an AC calculation of 10+Dex+Wis. Mage Armour is an AC calculation of 13+Dex. You can't use multiple AC calculations at the same time - they don't stack. So their AC likely wouldn't have been 20 - unless their Dex modifier is +7 (a Dexterity score of 24 or 25).
Edit: Added the rule:
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
The DM can always choose to ignore the rules if that's what'll produce the most fun outcome, but if you find yourself constantly trying to ensure encounters play out a certain way you're being a bit too rigid in your planning and overriding your player's role in the story.
Case in point, if you hadn't broken the rules the monk player might've walked away from that session proud to have been the only character that wasn't beaten down, and the wizard would've felt like they contributed to that*. You missed out on an opportunity to show how the villain acts when they underestimate an opponent, or a chance to start a more personal rivalry between them and the monk.
Remember, D&D is a shared storytelling game and part of the point of using dice is that even the DM can be surprised by how events unfold. Don't override your players lightly.
*Mage Armor doesn't stack with
Martial ArtsUnarmored Defense, but the point still stands, and the rolls could've missed purely due to luck.The Forum Infestation (TM)
I mean you can fudge rolls if you want. As the DM you're pretty much allowed to do anything as long as your players agree to continue playing. But if it weighs on your soul, then perhaps be ready to either think on your feet, or have contingencies ready. Your wizard and monk came up with a very good idea for combating your threat, and even though they don't know it, you punished them for it. Why not just laugh at the monk, congratulate them for being scrappy, and leave? Why not threaten to kill a party member if they don't yield? If they are all of a sudden confidant that they just stood toe-to-toe with the BBEG, doesn't that just set them up for a bigger fall? I find that the problem with planning too far head is that you can never plan for the crazy things that players do, so it'll never come out exactly the way you expected.
Thank you so much! His modifier is +3 and his original ac is 16, if mage armor was casted on him, would he just have the same AC?
A New DM up against the World
Ember rightly pointing out a need to maybe be more on top of the mechanics side of things aside, at the end of the day, what do your players think of the session?
I mean it's ok, I guess, to leave the party with 1 hp collectively so the BBEG can monologue and make their getaway; but if that sandbags them mechanically so they'll have to burn through healing resources or precious travel time because the need to take a long rest to get back into fighting or pursuit shape. But when you're fudging rolls for specific story moments, you're basically rail roading. So depending on the nature of your players what's going to come into play, so to speak, is whether your story is that good that the players are willing to be taken along for the ride (which is one style of DMing and isn't necessarily a perjorative one if the DM is in fact a skilled story teller that players want to keep going back to to see what happens next), rather than you providing a setting an antagonist and a set of events that sets the players off to decide how they'll go about facing challenges. It's more a spectrum than a dichotomy, but if you're seriously plotting out a hundred sessions, that's sounding more like a story with some interactivity to it than a campaign with player agency. New players, just getting used to the mechanics tend to enjoy the former. More experienced players with an idea of a character they want to articulate, and want to have a role in telling the story would be more put off by the mode.
So again, it really comes down to not what a bunch of people non immersed in your campaign says, it's what your players thinks. I alway end my sessions with fifteen minutes where I ask the group something to the effect of "so how did that go?" or "where do you see this going?" and in the hour or two I spend between sessions take that feedback into consideration as I prep the ground, so to speak, for the next one. Usually the debrief is story oriented, though sometimes a player wants to go mechanical about using a class feature or why that zombie just wouldn't die ("CON checks, my friend, sometimes the dead don't die... but I'll admit I was running out of vital areas to be hanging by a thread when we got to the fifth should have been killing blow").
If the players like the drama of getting mopped all over the floor, keep it up, but if there was frustration in more than one or two players in that session, rethink the sort of table you got. Really, you're just a player too, you just have the burden of having to be literally more considerate of the other players so they engage.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Totally! This is making me rethink my encounters!
A New DM up against the World
Aside from the mechanical goof Emmber pointed out, I think the best rule of thumb is: if you feel bad about it, don’t do it. I get the impulse to nudge the players in the direction of what you had planned, but in my experience it’s not worth it. If they take a different path, roll with it. It’s like improv - your reaction should be ‘yes, and...’ You take what they offer and you add to it.
Without knowing any further details, it doesn’t seem like your storyline would have been affected all that much if your BBEG had not defeated the complete party but left after laying most of them out. The message could have been the same, really. Just leave the monk conscious, tell him you’ll leave him standing to make sure the others live and to pass on to not interfere anymore. Even if the party had managed to drive off the BBEG it wouldn’t have hurt your story, other than the players feeling better about what went down. I mean, I assume you don’t really want them to back off - the only real difference would have been whether the PCs felt they’d have to up their game or not.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
DANG! Such good ideas! Thank you all!
A New DM up against the World
Why is everyone so smart? Next couple encounters will not be rail roaded for storyline! Thank you all for the reminders of DND is interactive, not reading a book
A New DM up against the World
I think this may be the heart of the problem. You have mapped out exactly what you want to happen, and the die rolls would have prevented it so you overruled them.
I have nothing against fudging rolls. I have done it myself over the years from time to time. But if you find yourself fudging rolls to make sure your next plot point happens the way you wanted, to me, something is wrong.
Try not to be to married to your cool plot. And definitely don't plot things out 100 episodes in advance. Even professional TV series writers do not do this because they know that there are too many unknowns between now and episode 100.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Most definitely. Thanks all of you!
A New DM up against the World
https://youtu.be/XhFxsaSh0kQ
Definitely don't want to do this
A New DM up against the World
Think of the game as improv. The DM has the role of being more and less improvisational than the players. They have to have a story structure, but also need to be able to be nimble enough on their feet to guide the players to the story without railroading them. This can be by fudging a roll on occasion... But optimally it is more about shifting the narrative to react to the players actions.
Players though of an ingenious way to succeed? Let the, but have a back up plan (or make one on the fly) that allows their win to stand but keeps the story going. So BBEG cannot touch the monk? Well now you have an opportunity to show how ruthless they are by having them threaten the unconscious wizard. Or you can show that they're a negotiator at heart and they instead try to bargain with the monk who refuses to fall. Or they are so confident in their own strength that they find it amusing to bat and miss the monk again and again, monologuing the entire time.
Especially when you are near the end of the session, remember that not everything needs be settled in a single session. "Alright, so it is BBEG vs the dodge-a-matic Monk in a one on one showdown... We'll see who wins this battle next week!" Nothing like a cliffhanger to keep the players anxious to play again! And it gives you time to adjust, rethink, replan. Not always available if you get into a sticky spot just 10 minutes into a session but definitely an option near the end.
Heck... as a player I would have absolutely no problem if the DM just up and said "Alrighty... Totally did not plan for things to turn out this way. Sorry but I'm going to need some time to adjust my planning."
Personally, I feel a DM always has the right to fudge rolls though. I feel it is a power they need so as to keep the game interesting and competitive sometimes, be it because they totally under powered a foe, or over powered one. It's the same as a DM deciding on the fly if a door is locked or unlocked, if the players overhear a piece of gossip that gives them a clue they missed earlier, or if there is a boat at the dock they can steal or not... A DM cannot possibly have every single thing planned to perfection and must be able to pull some stuff out of left field now and again for the greater narrative. So long as you are fudging rolls, or storylines or whatever, for the enjoyment of all then do so when necessary!
It is when you are adjusting things out of spite because your upset the players beat you, or you are favoring one player over another or other such selfish reasons that I have an issue with it... But all in all, I figure the DM screen is there for a reason. Not everything needs to be seen by the players!