Building fair encounters

[LucianoAr]

As a newbie DM, one, if not the, biggest challenge is making fair encounters. If i fail and make it too easy we can all forget about it, but what do you do if you make it a bit too hard and end up almost or downright tpking the group? how do you guys handle it?

maybe some event happens that lets them escape? maybe some npc comes to the rescue? ideas are so very welcome.

[Madfellow]

Well, the encounter building guidelines provided in the books are a good place to start. But if by chance you've misjudged an encounter and it's going badly for the party, then it's time to start fudging a few rolls in their favor. If the dragon's breath weapon just took out most of the party's HP and the sorcerer casts Polymorph on it, roll your dice behind your screen and then just ask the player what he wants the dragon to turn into. :smalltongue: If it's too late for that and the party gets wiped, then yeah I'd say they wake up later in a jail cell or something, with a chance to escape.

Hope this helps.

[Thrudd]

As a newbie DM, one, if not the, biggest challenge is making fair encounters. If i fail and make it too easy we can all forget about it, but what do you do if you make it a bit too hard and end up almost or downright tpking the group? how do you guys handle it?

maybe some event happens that lets them escape? maybe some npc comes to the rescue? ideas are so very welcome.

Give them a chance to escape before everyone is killed, if you can. Some outside event interrupts the fight, maybe. Npc rescuing them is something you should not use regularly, probably not more than once. If you find they have to be saved regularly, something is wrong either on your side or theirs.
If they don't take the chance to escape in the face of clearly overwhelming odds, then let them all die and roll up new characters. Next time, you'll know better what they can and can't handle. or even better, they will be more careful as players and will think of ways to avoid or overcome things that are more powerful than they are.
Do not fudge rolls under any circumstances. This is taking away the whole point of the game, for the players' actions to determine what happens.

[Cleverdan22]

Give them a chance to escape before everyone is killed, if you can. Some outside event interrupts the fight, maybe. Npc rescuing them is something you should not use regularly, probably not more than once. If you find they have to be saved regularly, something is wrong either on your side or theirs.
If they don't take the chance to escape in the face of clearly overwhelming odds, then let them all die and roll up new characters. Next time, you'll know better what they can and can't handle. or even better, they will be more careful as players and will think of ways to avoid or overcome things that are more powerful than they are.
Do not fudge rolls under any circumstances. This is taking away the whole point of the game, for the players' actions to determine what happens.

Gotta disagree with you there, you can absolutely fudge rolls.

Typically, if you find yourself doing it frequently, something is wrong, and it's probably on you.

But fudging a couple of rolls here and there (especially when you're a newbie DM) to prevent an early and obnoxious character death or something in that vein is not just allowed, it's encouraged.

But more in answer to your question, building fair encounters is just a matter of feeling it out. If you give them a few fights where they breeze right through it and only take damage once or twice, step it up a bit for the next encounter. If those next fights prove too challenging to the point of being unfun, scale it back again. You'll know almost exactly what to throw at your players in no time, it just takes some getting used to.

[Thrudd]

Players need to know that their characters can die, and that combat isn't the only, first, or best option in all cases. Preferably before the game starts and before their characters get killed repeatedly. Every encounter doesn't need to be balanced or winnable, the players just need the opportunity to analyze a situation and decide what to do before they get wiped out. If they make a risky decision and get killed, that is a learning experience for next time, it's how you become a better player.

I understand the fudging issue is contentious, and I know the manuals have suggested it since 2 or 3e. I deplore this, however, and think the authors are wrong about that.

[Sullivan]

Do not fudge rolls under any circumstances. This is taking away the whole point of the game, for the players' actions to determine what happens... Players need to know that their characters can die, and that combat isn't the only, first, or best option in all cases.

My thought exactly, success should be rewarded and failure punished. The only time I fudge die rolls is if I truly mess up and create a monster not thinking about xyz and it's a guaranteed TPK. This almost never happens in 5e, because of the monster creating guid in the dmg. I did it one or twice in 2e though. It makes for good story telling too, half the party is getting slow cooked over a fire and the other half now have to save them. I also gear my encounters towards deadly because my group varies from 5-7 pcs, so a deadly encounter for 5 is usually moderate to hard for 7 pc.

[Yagyujubei]

My group keeps coming up against impossible odds encounters....I think our DM just wants us all to die, or really hasn't grasped how to balance things at all.

My buddy and I have made a habit out of entering the enemies we face into a challenge rating calculator and 90% of the time we fight against stuff that would be difficult for a party 3 or 4 level higher...

just last night we had a fight (our group is level 8 across the board) against over 28 assassins who all started the battle with greater invisibility cast on them, and could cast up to level 3 spells for some reason.

I say "over" because we ended up retreating due to the fact that reinforcements just kept showing up every two rounds in groups of 4. The frustrating thing is that we entered the house as carefully and stealthily as possible but the second we encountered a single enemy even with surprise round to take him out an alarm went off somehow....

anyway this is just me venting my frustration at his poor encounter building. It also takes forever to finish fights because of the sheer amount of enemies he throws at us..anyone have any ideas for a diplomatic way to bring this up to him?

[pwykersotz]

The only thing that really helps with this is experience. Players have differing levels of immersion in the game and care about different things, no one can predict your table reaction.

If you accidentally TPK the party and realize it was your fault, laugh, say sorry, and either roll new characters or justify them coming back. But don't be too quick to fudge things or give free help, sometimes death can be fun.

I, for example, had a Barbarian who challenged an Adult Dragon at level 4. I didn't expect to win, but I did it anyway because one of my friends was threatened. What followed was epic combat. I lost, died, and rerolled, but it remains one of my favorite moments. I was very attached to the Barbarian too, I was sad to put him aside, but his death was worthy.

[MadBear]

Fudging dice is always debatable.

With that said, I'll point out that PC's usually see a fight as being harder then what you the DM will see as difficult.

If they took a few hits, and expended a few resources, they probably considered it a good fight.

[Xetheral]

If they make a risky decision and get killed, that is a learning experience for next time, it's how you become a better player.

What does being a "better player" mean in the context of a cooperative game?


I understand the fudging issue is contentious, and I know the manuals have suggested it since 2 or 3e. I deplore this, however, and think the authors are wrong about that.

Fudging dice is a DM tool for maximizing player enjoyment, and like any such tool its usefulness depends highly on the playstyle of the group in question.

For some groups, the very idea that the dice might be fudged will ruin their enjoyment, making the tool useless. For other groups, the illusion of impartiality is enough, allowing judicious fudging to be extremely effective at increasing enjoyment by decoupling the story from the randomness of the dice at key moments. (Note that key moments for maximizing enjoyment are frequently not key moments in the plot. In a group where fudging is acceptable, fudging an unimportant roll because a particular player is having a bad day can do a lot of good.)

By including fudging in the manuals, the designers apparently believe that fudging will not violate the social compact at some critical mass of tables. That belief may or may not be well-informed, but I don't think anyone is in a position to have enough data to dispute it.

[Rallicus]

Fudging dice is always debatable.

True that.

Personally, as a player, I feel cheated if a DM fudges a roll. Doesn't matter if it affects the outcome negatively or positively -- I feel the dice are there for a reason. They're the neutral aspect of the game, and if you can change the outcome willy-nilly then there's no real point in having them.

Therefore I never fudge as a DM. It actually makes me a better DM, I think, because I'm planning things out more thoroughly... thinking through multiple outcomes... etc.

That said, 5e handles death very well. Granted, the first few levels are tough and death is easy to come by, but it becomes increasingly difficult to die as the characters level. Death saving throws are great.

You shouldn't worry too much about the difficulty of encounters, so long as the PCs aren't in any danger of a one-hit auto-death (past level 2-3) barring a good critical hit.

[ProphetSword]

Encounters aren't always meant to be fair. It is totally justified to have the party die or be hurt badly if they are low level and decide to rush into battle with a huge dragon when they could have just as easily avoided it.

It used to be the fleeing from battle was a valid option in a tough fight. In the last decade, though, I've noticed that people do this less and less. Probably has a lot more to do with people seeing their characters as mere numbers on a sheet of paper instead of actually investing an interest in them.

[Guran]

There is indeed no reason to keep it fair all the time. Its not a final fantasy game where the monsters are always around their level. However, if they really get into trouble, you can always nerf the enemies mid battle or fudge your rolls a bit. There is a reaon why you have that DM screen.

[Safety Sword]

Do not fudge rolls under any circumstances. This is taking away the whole point of the game, for the players' actions to determine what happens.

This is some poor advice.

Fudging rolls is an art.

What you should never do is let your players know that you do it and not make a big deal about it when you have to.

Also, never fudge a roll against the characters unless it adds to the fun/drama/plot for the enjoyment of everyone.

And the point of the game is that everyone at the table is having fun, not that the players determine the course of the game.

[Xetheral]

There is indeed no reason to keep it fair all the time. Its not a final fantasy game where the monsters are always around their level. However, if they really get into trouble, you can always nerf the enemies mid battle or fudge your rolls a bit. There is a reaon why you have that DM screen.

Actually, I find fudging to be far more effective when you don't use a screen. Otherwise, players tend to assume that more rolls are fudged than actually are. Rolling "openly" on a messy table cluttered with books and dice works much better.

[pwykersotz]

Actually, I find fudging to be far more effective when you don't use a screen. Otherwise, players tend to assume that more rolls are fudged than actually are. Rolling "openly" on a messy table cluttered with books and dice works much better.

Agreed. They may know what you rolled on the die, but they don't have the statblock or know your situational modifiers.

I noticed a dramatic change in my players attitudes between rolling secretly and rolling openly. The funny thing is, they don't even realize it, even after I've mentioned it to them. When I had a string of good luck for enemies rolling secretly, they would direct disparagement toward me. Now rolling openly, they direct it at the dice. Instead of me being the enemy, the dice are now the enemy, and I like it that way.

[Thrudd]

What does being a "better player" mean in the context of a cooperative game?



Fudging dice is a DM tool for maximizing player enjoyment, and like any such tool its usefulness depends highly on the playstyle of the group in question.

For some groups, the very idea that the dice might be fudged will ruin their enjoyment, making the tool useless. For other groups, the illusion of impartiality is enough, allowing judicious fudging to be extremely effective at increasing enjoyment by decoupling the story from the randomness of the dice at key moments. (Note that key moments for maximizing enjoyment are frequently not key moments in the plot. In a group where fudging is acceptable, fudging an unimportant roll because a particular player is having a bad day can do a lot of good.)

By including fudging in the manuals, the designers apparently believe that fudging will not violate the social compact at some critical mass of tables. That belief may or may not be well-informed, but I don't think anyone is in a position to have enough data to dispute it.

Being a better player means being more capable of navigating the game, solving challenges, keeping your characters alive and having successful adventures. The DM should not have to fudge rolls or use deus ex machina events to save the players ( if the DM has been fair and balanced in adventure design).
Often when characters die, it is because the players used poor planning, bad tactics, or took too big of a risk. Any time the dice need to be rolled for something there is a risk of failure, and this fact can be planned for. As players become more skilled, they learn better tactics, plan more carefully, and minimize risks.

I feel like 25 years of being a DM and a player does put me in a position to have data and an opinion about whether or not fudging dice is justified. In D&D, I say absolutely not. Other games that might be more collaborative storytelling and narrative focused ( which D&D is not, at least not if you follow the rules) the dice may be less important.

[MadBear]

Being a better player means being more capable of navigating the game, solving challenges, keeping your characters alive and having successful adventures. The DM should not have to fudge rolls or use deus ex machina events to save the players ( if the DM has been fair and balanced in adventure design).
Often when characters die, it is because the players used poor planning, bad tactics, or took too big of a risk. Any time the dice need to be rolled for something there is a risk of failure, and this fact can be planned for. As players become more skilled, they learn better tactics, plan more carefully, and minimize risks.

I feel like 25 years of being a DM and a player does put me in a position to have data and an opinion about whether or not fudging dice is justified. In D&D, I say absolutely not. Other games that might be more collaborative storytelling and narrative focused ( which D&D is not, at least not if you follow the rules) the dice may be less important.

I think what you're oversimplifying here comes down to this phrase:

"Often when characters die, it is because the players used poor planning, bad tactics, or took too big of a risk. "

now, I agree, that when characters plan poorly, use poor tactics, or took too big of a risk they should reap what they sow. What isn't fun, and where I see fudging the dice as appropriate (in some not all games) is when the players did everything right and the game just got away from them anyway.

A BBEG who rolls natural 20's multiple times in a row on his attacks, and passes every save (even his worst ones), and then proceeds to wipe the entire party isn't always the game people are looking for. Sure, some groups prefer this, but others it just kills the fun of the game. At the end of the day, D&D is meant to be enjoyed, and if killing the entire party off because of a completely random event due to rolls, doesn't make the game fun, fudge the dice.

Now it sounds like your group prefers this style of game, and that's fine, btw my main group plays this way as well.

tl;dr, The game is meant to be fun. If fudging dice makes the game more fun do it. If it doesn't make it more fun, don't.

[Thrudd]

This is some poor advice.

Fudging rolls is an art.

What you should never do is let your players know that you do it and not make a big deal about it when you have to.

Also, never fudge a roll against the characters unless it adds to the fun/drama/plot for the enjoyment of everyone.

And the point of the game is that everyone at the table is having fun, not that the players determine the course of the game.

Fudging the dice and not letting your players know it is what I call cheating. Not letting you players know that you are really ignoring the dice and are manipulating the course of events regardless of their actions is called illusionism, and that is a play style I do not like. Of course, this is all my opinion and lots of people play that way, but I don't see the point.

"Having fun" is the point of every game, from checkers to monopoly to halo. Each game does that differently. If you have to cheat the game to make it fun for you, that probably isn't really a good game for you, and you aren't learning how to play it properly. I guess there are a certain number of people who do think that is fun, like always using a god mode cheat on a video game because they like running around blasting stuff and never have to think or risk losing.

In D&D, if the DM is secretly deciding if and when the characters live and die, instead of letting the players actions and the rules of the game decide, you aren't really playing the game. You're pretending to play the game in order to tell a story to your players, which happens to feature characters they invented.

[Thrudd]

I think what you're oversimplifying here comes down to this phrase:

"Often when characters die, it is because the players used poor planning, bad tactics, or took too big of a risk. "

now, I agree, that when characters plan poorly, use poor tactics, or took too big of a risk they should reap what they sow. What isn't fun, and where I see fudging the dice as appropriate (in some not all games) is when the players did everything right and the game just got away from them anyway.

A BBEG who rolls natural 20's multiple times in a row on his attacks, and passes every save (even his worst ones), and then proceeds to wipe the entire party isn't always the game people are looking for. Sure, some groups prefer this, but others it just kills the fun of the game. At the end of the day, D&D is meant to be enjoyed, and if killing the entire party off because of a completely random event due to rolls, doesn't make the game fun, fudge the dice.

Now it sounds like your group prefers this style of game, and that's fine, btw my main group plays this way as well.

tl;dr, The game is meant to be fun. If fudging dice makes the game more fun do it. If it doesn't make it more fun, don't.

There are very few situations, except at very low level, where the players don't have a chance to escape if things are going against them. Getting into a fight with a known powerful enemy in a place from which there is no retreat is a big risk, and if the DM rolls a bunch of 20s that's the chance you take every time you go into combat. So, still no need for fudging.

Yes, if your players only have fun when they are winning and pout if the game goes against them, then fudging rolls will make it more fun for them. If too much randomness is not fun for them, and they want more control over things, D&D isn't the greatest game for that.

[ProphetSword]

Fudging the dice and not letting your players know it is what I call cheating.

I don't agree with this at all. If this were the case, then anything the DM changed or created (monsters, magical items, etc) would be considered "cheating."

I once asked my players if they would prefer for me to roll all my monster attacks out in the open so that hey could witness them. I asked them that because I had read a couple of threads on boards like this where other DMs said they rolled in the open. They all decided that they did not want that under any circumstances.

Their reasoning, as they explained it to me, pretty much boiled down to this: They are involved in a roleplaying game, not a board game. The rules that apply to players don't apply to the DM. If the DM finds it necessary to change things, including die rolls, for the betterment of the game and all involved, the players trust the DM to do what needs to be done.

This is because my players trust me. Perhaps if you're used to having DMs you don't trust, I can see you taking this stand. But, if you have the trust of your players, they will not feel cheated in the slightest. Keep in mind, it should be done only rarely and only when important. But it definitely is not cheating, as the DM is not a player.

That's my opinion, simply presented to counter your own to give you a different perspective. I respect your right to have your own opinion in how to handle things, though, so let me be clear about that.

[MadBear]

There are very few situations, except at very low level, where the players don't have a chance to escape if things are going against them. Getting into a fight with a known powerful enemy in a place from which there is no retreat is a big risk, and if the DM rolls a bunch of 20s that's the chance you take every time you go into combat. So, still no need for fudging.

Yes, if your players only have fun when they are winning and pout if the game goes against them, then fudging rolls will make it more fun for them. If too much randomness is not fun for them, and they want more control over things, D&D isn't the greatest game for that.

Essentially what you're saying is that if people fudge dice their having BADWRONGFUN, and I'll just say that I disagree. It's fine if your group doesn't play it that way. It's even fine to recommend that it's what you find more preferential. Your stance seems to be taking it a step further and saying that if you fudge dice you're "doing it wrong", which is just not correct.

[Thrudd]

Essentially what you're saying is that if people fudge dice their having BADWRONGFUN, and I'll just say that I disagree. It's fine if your group doesn't play it that way. It's even fine to recommend that it's what you find more preferential. Your stance seems to be taking it a step further and saying that if you fudge dice you're "doing it wrong", which is just not correct.

Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound that way. It is fine and fun to play story games, where it is expected that the characters will survive from start to finish and the game is about acting and improv and uncovering the GM's plot. I don't believe D&D is inherently this type of game, though lots of people modify it to be used that way.

Encounter balance is an irrelevant issue in such a story game, because the DM will make sure something happens to save the characters and advance the story, regardless. Careful planning of challenges and adventures is something really important only if the DM plans on actually following the rules of the game and enforcing the results of the dice.

[Safety Sword]

Fudging the dice and not letting your players know it is what I call cheating. Not letting you players know that you are really ignoring the dice and are manipulating the course of events regardless of their actions is called illusionism, and that is a play style I do not like. Of course, this is all my opinion and lots of people play that way, but I don't see the point.

"Having fun" is the point of every game, from checkers to monopoly to halo. Each game does that differently. If you have to cheat the game to make it fun for you, that probably isn't really a good game for you, and you aren't learning how to play it properly. I guess there are a certain number of people who do think that is fun, like always using a god mode cheat on a video game because they like running around blasting stuff and never have to think or risk losing.

In D&D, if the DM is secretly deciding if and when the characters live and die, instead of letting the players actions and the rules of the game decide, you aren't really playing the game. You're pretending to play the game in order to tell a story to your players, which happens to feature characters they invented.

The DM can not cheat. That invalidates much of your argument.

DMing is not an adversarial role where you're out to "get" the characters at every turn. As I said before, I would never cheat to the detriment of a character or break the immersion of the story that I am quite careful in creating. Sometimes characters automatically notice things to give them plot hooks, is that cheating? No.
Sometimes characters die, it happens. But sometimes they shouldn't because randomness is just that. So sometimes I shave some damage off so the Wizard isn't dead from massive damage. Sometimes a 20 on my dice is just a normal hit.

You have to realise that your PCs are the target of many more attacks over time than they make against any encounter. randomness isn't always a good thing for PCs. I have been a DM for many years and never had complaints about fudging dice, because although some assume I do, they never actually know.

[Xetheral]

Being a better player means being more capable of navigating the game, solving challenges, keeping your characters alive and having successful adventures. The DM should not have to fudge rolls or use deus ex machina events to save the players ( if the DM has been fair and balanced in adventure design).

That sounds more like gameplay optimization to me than any measure of the worth of a player. To the extent that the phrase "better player" means anything, I'd look for one who recognizes and enjoys the social dynamic at the table, and actively chooses their own actions and their character's actions to maximize everyone's fun.


Often when characters die, it is because the players used poor planning, bad tactics, or took too big of a risk. Any time the dice need to be rolled for something there is a risk of failure, and this fact can be planned for. As players become more skilled, they learn better tactics, plan more carefully, and minimize risks.

Admittedly, most players play characters whose level of competence at dungeon-crawling exceeds their own, so there is something to be said for learning from experience to more accurately portray one's character. At the same time, at many tables, tactics, planning, and risk-taking are considered IC decisions that depend on characterization rather than "player skill".


I feel like 25 years of being a DM and a player does put me in a position to have data and an opinion about whether or not fudging dice is justified. In D&D, I say absolutely not. Other games that might be more collaborative storytelling and narrative focused ( which D&D is not, at least not if you follow the rules) the dice may be less important.

Since my point was that the acceptability of fudging depends on the table, any one person's experience (always, by definition, at their own table) isn't going to reveal anything about the playerbase as a whole.

[kaoskonfety]

Fudging the dice... always good for a laugh.

At a tactics table, with miniatures, grid paper. With players who have flashcards with the details on their pertinent abilities outlined in full. Where quite often the dungeon is a module designed to meat grinder the players. The only dice I might fudge are for random treasure that is dumb - not useless - stupid. No there is not a Sphere of Annihilation down here in the underwater adventure - that's dumb. A kobold high king (All Hail King Torg!) with a rod of lordly might? sure, that's hilarious. With a talisman of the planes? Probably kinda Dumb - would have used it to bail when you were less than 3/4 though his mooks, it gets a reroll - bag of tricks it is.

Players die to a drastically unlikely list of criticals and misses in the first 2 rounds? As long as the encounter was built on the rules and not actively twinked out for its CR? Well that kinda sucked.


At my standard table, where its as much dinner party as roleplaying game? where we break out 1st edition for a laugh from time to time? It's a story driven table - I'll fudge any roll that is dumb. I've TPK'd the group - but it was their choices that got them there, not a stack of foolishly unlikely criticals and a fireball that rolled an impressive number of 6's at the wrong time (and sometimes raised the bads HP totals to have a bit more tension in the fight when the crazy dice are with the players?). Heck I've had the bads do extra damage and hits when the player was being impressively stupid (and it didn't help they were *demanding* I roll out the volley of 100-ish archer attacks they blundered into rather then allowing me to apply the average result... which would have left them badly bloodied but still up... they were not still up, or alive. Don't waste the other players time please, we could be slaying dragons, eating lasagne and sipping wine instead of rolling 100d20 followed by 20d6.)

I recall the one line from the impressive "Wizards" roleplaying game that caught me while I was still a newer DM - based on the movie of the same title (impressive in that is exists, not in its execution) - "Dice are for when the DM says "I don't know"" - it proceeded to outline a few humorous examples showing this covers uncertain events in combat, honestly random events and sometimes what time of day it is.

This was a narrative game roleplay system that clearly gave the rule of cool sway over the day - how much you want to play DND this way is a clear personal choice - how much do you want to say "I don't know", and roll a die.

[Demonslayer666]

+1 to Madfellow for fudging dice rolls.

This isn't a board game where there are set rules on what you must do. It's your job as DM is to challenge the party and make the story fun.

I don't claim to be a great DM, or even a good one, but I do have a lot of experience running games and consider myself to be at least a mediocre DM. :) Here's my 2 cents.

If an encounter is designed to be life-threatening to the party and avoided, hopefully you use a good description that makes it clear that they are making a poor decision. Most players will go up against whatever you put in front of them unless you make it quite clear that some encounters are meant to be avoided.

Be careful when making easy encounters harder. Add more hit points or more monsters, but dial it up slowly. Keep in mind that lone monsters tend to go down very quickly when the entire party is on them, so adding in more monsters will add more targets. Where you need to be careful is upping AC. This can make an encounter downright deadly. It's better to let the monsters take more punishment, rather than making them too hard to hit.

If an encounter suddenly and unexpectedly becomes too hard for the party (half the party is dead or unconscious), have the baddies miss for a couple rounds (fudge their rolls), or use it as an opportunity for the baddies to flee. Not all encounters need to be suicidal or bent on death of the party. Or use it as an opportunity to open a dialogue - maybe have the monsters demand treasure, or let the remaining party members try and talk there way out of it. Maybe force the party to surrender, then just mess with them a bit and let them go. It's also perfectly acceptable to have foes make very poor tactical decisions to swing the advantage back to the party. Maybe a monster starts looting a body of a fallen party member, grabs the coin purse and runs, or have them check on one of their fallen.

Be familiar with the party's capabilities. When I am DM, I always have a spread sheet that has their basic info; to hit, HP, AC, init, perception, and saves. That way I know how often they can hit, or how likely they are to make their saves. Unfortunately, this doesn't help much with casters, but knowing what they can do will come with time.

Know the capabilities of your players. A great character on paper can be rendered inept by a player who doesn't know what they are doing. A wizard that never casts any spells fearing they will be crucial later on is not worth counting. Personally, this is the most difficult thing to handle as a DM. This too will come with time.

[Safety Sword]

SNIP!

You get it.

[Balor777]

Fudging the dice... always good for a laugh.

At a tactics table, with miniatures, grid paper. With players who have flashcards with the details on their pertinent abilities outlined in full. Where quite often the dungeon is a module designed to meat grinder the players. The only dice I might fudge are for random treasure that is dumb - not useless - stupid. No there is not a Sphere of Annihilation down here in the underwater adventure - that's dumb. A kobold high king (All Hail King Torg!) with a rod of lordly might? sure, that's hilarious. With a talisman of the planes? Probably kinda Dumb - would have used it to bail when you were less than 3/4 though his mooks, it gets a reroll - bag of tricks it is.

Players die to a drastically unlikely list of criticals and misses in the first 2 rounds? As long as the encounter was built on the rules and not actively twinked out for its CR? Well that kinda sucked.


At my standard table, where its as much dinner party as roleplaying game? where we break out 1st edition for a laugh from time to time? It's a story driven table - I'll fudge any roll that is dumb. I've TPK'd the group - but it was their choices that got them there, not a stack of foolishly unlikely criticals and a fireball that rolled an impressive number of 6's at the wrong time (and sometimes raised the bads HP totals to have a bit more tension in the fight when the crazy dice are with the players?). Heck I've had the bads do extra damage and hits when the player was being impressively stupid (and it didn't help they were *demanding* I roll out the volley of 100-ish archer attacks they blundered into rather then allowing me to apply the average result... which would have left them badly bloodied but still up... they were not still up, or alive. Don't waste the other players time please, we could be slaying dragons, eating lasagne and sipping wine instead of rolling 100d20 followed by 20d6.)

I recall the one line from the impressive "Wizards" roleplaying game that caught me while I was still a newer DM - based on the movie of the same title (impressive in that is exists, not in its execution) - "Dice are for when the DM says "I don't know"" - it proceeded to outline a few humorous examples showing this covers uncertain events in combat, honestly random events and sometimes what time of day it is.

This was a narrative game roleplay system that clearly gave the rule of cool sway over the day - how much you want to play DND this way is a clear personal choice - how much do you want to say "I don't know", and roll a die.

I agree with you sir.Players will evetualy realise that a DM is cheating on their favor.If this happens the game will never be the same for this players.It instantly loses the excitement and the thrill of realism that you are one tiny part of the DND world and that your are not the center of the universe.

I had a 4d6 drop lowest paladin with 18,16,18,13,18,18 die because of bad luck at the same moment with a very little bad choice.This guy had +10 firtitue SavThrow at level 1 to realise how strong this pala was...He died at level 8.Everyone in the table knew that they will NEVER see a character so strong again.Never.Yet the "harsh" DM didnt cheat on the die.I died.The death of this character gave a birth to the idea that this DM rns the DND world as harsch as real world could be for me....
EARN the win.If your DM take this out of your mind it destroys the joy of this game once and for all.

I played as a character with some different DMs.MANY times i was able to realise that the DM was cheating on our favour.Im not einstain but lets say i can unbderstand most of the times
if someone is "lying".Other players might not got it but i couldnt tell because it would ruin their game too.This made me become a DM too.

Im allways rolling things that players shouldnt see me roll, to avoid the unavoidalbe metagame, on a laptop with a die roller program so the cant see i actualy rolled for something.For example enemy stealth checks or even some player's spot/listen checks when they arent aware of the enemy being there.
I also allways roll damage dies in fron tof them but not attack roll dies so the wont undestand the attack bonus of the enemy.

Ill get a little of topic here but ill give you a tip.
When a character asks to search for hidden obj/door/ etc ALLWAYS make them to roll.If one time you say "You dont find anything" without a roll and the other time you say the same thing but wwith a roll, the player KNOWS its something there but he missed the roll.
Another trick:
The party goes through a place that they need a INT check to realise that lets say "this shouldnt be there" if you say to them make and INT check and they fail, thell know something is wrong there.
What can you do to solve this?Roll on the laptom with a program the INT checks for all of them.If one of them succeds, then tell them to roll INT check.Even if they roll lets say 5 as the highest, tell them they succeded.You see theyll never know the DC was actualy 15 and your roll was succensfull on the PC.They will assume "ok this was a very easy check".
If on the other hand all fail in you laptop hidden roll then dont ask them to roll and let them continue what they do.
the same trick can be used vs enemy stealth checks.Even the highest perception check when you tell them to roll is a 4 which is highly unlikely, the dont know if the guy trying to hidde rolled a 2.

[JAL_1138]

As someone who has lost characters to a barnyard goat and a housecat in older editions (in one round, no less), I'd like to paraphrase Russian philosopher Ivan Drago: "If they die, they die." :smalltongue:

People these days are way too afraid to kill characters. If you kill me, fine. Rolling a new character is not that big of a deal--and resurrection spells exist, at higher levels. In the event of a TPK that might not be an option, especially at low levels, but in the case of a single character, well, now there's an adventure hook to go find a high-enough-level cleric.

I get more annoyed at having not had relevant information that would have helped me make a better decision in the circumstances (e.g., if you tell me "you enter a 30'x30' room" and nothing more, then I get killed because you forgot to mention the blatantly-obvious, no-possible-justification-for-requiring-a-perception-check-to-see-them stack of foul-smelling, strange-liquid-oozing barrels along the walls that later explodes when someone casts a fire spell they wouldn't have cast otherwise, or if weapon attacks aren't having any effect because the monster has immunity to normal weapons and you don't say something like "your attacks ping off its hide harmlessly" or something that lets players know it doesn't just have a metric @#$%load of HP instead, I'm going to be aggravated) than I do at rolling a new character because the monster went through us like a buzzsaw.

I also get really bothered by one of the suggestions mentioned here--having an NPC come in to save my bacon if the fight is going badly. I'd rather roll up a new character than feel like I'm getting a patently-obvious safety net thrown under me. If there was setup to it--like, say, we saved some knight-errant's life earlier, he or she promised to repay us for it, and s/he shows up midway through the fight to help out--it might be okay, but if it's out of the blue and just because the monster was too tough, that irks the living daylights out of me.

[goto124]

I used to play a game with high lethality, and your character could die at any time.

After a while, I found myself unable to connect with my characters, simply because they kept dying and I couldn't stick with any one character. I was also afraid to do pretty much anything, and there was no way to really explore and enjoy the game. I felt rather railroaded, for stepping out of line meant starting over with a brand new character. Heck, even if I didn't go off the rails, my PCs would've died anyway, purely due to bad luck. Why play?

[kaoskonfety]

If you are not looking at fudging the rolls - or can't for various reasons - so long as the party is fighting intelligent foes capture is an option in many cases. Live adventurers may be worth ransom, know secrets or the big bad simply likes to torture people.

Don't be afraid to review the evil overlord list and hand your villain a short stack of the flaws listed - a deep pathological need to monologue about their evil schemes, face obscuring uniforms on the henchmen, prison guard duty is a punishment detail for incompetence and say a beautiful daughter/son who falls for the one of the dashing heroes and insists they be spared/helps them out (sure, the Kobold kings son takes a liking to the half-orc, who are you to judge his love?).

How straight or absurd you run this will vary from table to table - I toss in a bit of obvious cornball every few dozen sessions to keep the game a bit light but to keep the gags vaguely fresh.


For actually gauging relative power for your encounters? When I'm stumped on what to use (best example I have, I was co-dm'ing 3rd ed - an all monster group where everyone had built the characters wrong due to serious a misunderstanding of the monster level systems with the original DM, there was a stone giant with full Hit dice and stats and a level of fighter claiming to be level 6, a Rakshasa - again full hit dice and powers and 3 level Sorc claiming to be level 8?... t'was messed up - that parties actual ECL averaged in the 10-16 range but a wacky cross section of high HP, high damage, damage reduction and other powers) I toss low level threats at the party and slowly scale up - 1/2 a kobold per PC, 1 per PC, 1.5 per PC... in play it was explained as they were getting into the local kobold "nation" and running into scouts, small camps, a local cave, a defended encampment.... etc.
This let me get a handle on - how many to straight up: bore them, amuse them, wound them, hurt them, challenge them, scare them - from there its a matter of scattering in interest - traps and magic users, odd terrain, different monsters and so on (I opted to make the actual long term threat to the party starvation as a couple of the PC's were outright immune the the buggers standard attacks and any force big enough to be a real threat was visible at some distance - the kobolds were literally eating everything, including each other, fallen foes, tree bark, and they were overrunning everyone in the area on raw numbers, it was hilariously awful)