PDA

View Full Version : But I like rolling dice



ClockShock
2015-03-06, 04:58 PM
How important is the act of rolling dice to you as a player?

In our regular shadowrun session I play a character who doesn't get involved in combat too much. They tend to keep their head down, plan things out, and handle the simple things that help everything else go smoothly (like driving). Last session that changed. There was an obstacle that needed to be removed with non-lethal force, and my character was the one with the taser.

Bar some freak accident, it was a forgone conclusion, but I was looking forward to rolling the dice and declaring just how tasered said obstacle was. Instead our GM handwaved the scene as a success and had everyone move on.

Later in the same session (after some substantial escalation), my character threw a grenade into an enclosed space. Again, instead of rolling for damage our GM ruled the contents of the room destroyed and moved us along.

Does anyone else feel like their actions have been relegated to the 'not interesting' pile when the GM decides the result?

Beta Centauri
2015-03-06, 05:21 PM
I like the Fate approach that if either success or failure isn't interesting, the dice should not be rolled. I don't like pointless rolls, and I guess I've played long enough that flavoring those pointless rolls has lost its enjoyment for me. I'd rather just choose to decide what the outcome looks like rather than rolling and trying to interpret what the dice say the outcome looks like.

That said, I have seen characters that simply love adding things up. In 4e D&D, if you roll above about 13, you've hit whatever they've got, so I'd rather you tell me the damage and we move on. But even after I say it's a hit (which they should be able to figure out), they still want to total everything up. That's fine, unless a debate breaks out.

Them: 19...
Me: Hit.
Them: Plus 5...
Me: What's the damage?
Them: Oh, plus 2 from that effect...
Me: Yes, you hit.
Them: No, wait, that effect ended...
Me:...
Them: Okay, *mumbles, consults calculator* 25!
Me: Their highest score is 16.

That's not my favorite use of game time.

Flickerdart
2015-03-06, 05:28 PM
There are foregone conclusions, and then there are foregone conclusions.

Rolling to climb up a cliff is boring. Yes, your characters all might have +100 to climb, or they might have +0, but either way the climbing isn't really the point. You want to get up to the top of the hill, where the enemies await.

Rolling to taze a dude or blow stuff up, even if you know you'll succeed, is awesome. Comparing your +50 check against the peasant's 10 AC just reinforces that you're here to kick ass and take names - and your name inventory is full.

Geddy2112
2015-03-06, 05:51 PM
+1 To what Flickerdart said.

Rolling dice should come up to represent random elements where success or failure can really matter, like a taser missing or the off chance your grenade is a dud/you drop it/throw it with the pin in. Rolling should not be for things that have reasonable chance of success, next to no chance of failure, don't matter, or could be retried ad nauseum till it succeeds. The take 10/20 system is good to handwaive things like tying your shoes, or seeing the obvious rosebush on the path, or taking a shower. When I DM, if a player picks up a dice I allow them to roll, unless its for something trivial as stated above. There is a fine line- talk to your DM to meet a compromise. You wanna know if the grenade really trashed the room or if it was not made right and just kinda flashed. Unless your playing in a game with a stupid amount of detail, you don't need to roll down to the level of "how much damage does each random item in the room" take, but it is fun to know if the contents are damaged vs turned to dust.

DigoDragon
2015-03-06, 06:08 PM
and your name inventory is full.

Get a Rolodex of holding. :3


I do like rolling dice. If success is guaranteed then okay, I'll skip it, but if there's a small chance of failure and I could get hurt doing the action, oh yeah, gimme the dice and let's see what happens! You never know what kind of interesting results you get. I once cut another PC's vein with a bottle of disinfectant.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-06, 06:20 PM
I do like rolling dice. If success is guaranteed then okay, I'll skip it, but if there's a small chance of failure and I could get hurt doing the action, oh yeah, gimme the dice and let's see what happens! You never know what kind of interesting results you get. I once cut another PC's vein with a bottle of disinfectant. Which brings up another issue: what's interesting for one is not interesting for another. I think fumbles are almost always ridiculous, and not in a good way. Other people really dig them. So, if the GM is saying there's no need to roll, it could be that they only failure they can imagine would just make the game too stupid or cartoonish. Perhaps if the player can see what outcomes they think might occur, the GM would be up for letting the dice determine which.

I generally like to say "Yes, and..." to players, so I'll go with whatever they want. I'll change the tone of the game entirely if they want. So if they want to know if their tazer just drops the guy, or makes him lose bowel control, sure, okay we can play a game that gives that sort of thing screen time if that's what people want.

oxybe
2015-03-07, 01:31 AM
Rolling dice is a means to an end.

As others said: adding a dice roll to an action where the consequences of failure are non-existent or would exist only to make a competent character look like a klutz, then I see no reason to roll.

But even when I do roll, I want to keep it short and succinct. The dice rolling itself doesn't matter me, it's the result that it gives that I care about, so the less rolling I do the better. If I have to roll, I make sure it's stacked in my favour or against my opponent.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-07, 02:26 AM
As others said: adding a dice roll to an action where the consequences of failure are non-existent or would exist only to make a competent character look like a klutz, then I see no reason to roll. The same should go for success: if success wouldn't be interesting, don't roll.

Gavran
2015-03-07, 05:19 AM
Perhaps rather than successes or failures, it's the stakes that should be interesting. Rolling in a take 20 situation - there's no stakes at all. Figuring out whether that last ditch arrow shot will dislodge the artifact from its pedestal, disrupting the apocalyptic ritual at the last possible second? Yeah that's a roll. But no, I don't think I or anyone else can tell when that is for every individual person. Frankly, I could make a pretty good argument for some (imaginary) characters not bothering to make attack rolls (ignoring the possibility of a crit, for the moment) - if they just have very high accuracy, rerolls and +X effects they can use to turn a miss into a hit. I would say they could be as likely to hit as, for example, a character who takes a really long time to search a room is likely to find everything in it. Yet the latter is commonly handwaved as a success, and I've only heard of the former being handwaved in situations where the attacker completely outclasses the defender. Though the fact that there's another actor is probably relevant here.

And of course randomness can be fun. I'm not sure I prefer "roll 2d6 for damage" to "do 7 damage", but I certainly prefer "you have a 66% chance to hit" to "your third attack always misses".

Maglubiyet
2015-03-07, 05:37 AM
IRL, when high-explosives are at play, there are no foregone conclusions. Roll the dice.

I also find IRL that the things I'm most confident about tend to be the ones that I flub. Characters should be no different, especially in high-stress situations. Roll the dice.

blacklight101
2015-03-07, 07:59 AM
I say roll em up. We wouldnt be here if that wasnt what we wanted to do to some greater or lesser degree. Handwaving now and then is fine, but sometines there should be that chance things dont go quite right whether or not they succeed anyway.

I like the flavor aspect the dice add, I figure the high and low rolls even when relative to success should mean something. Sometimes, I just want to roll way, way above what I need on that crafting check and maybe get a little bonus out of it.

I let my players roll if they want to, sometimes it gets them something pretty cool, if totally inconsequential. "You beat the craft check by quite a lot, the item is worth (x) more than the book says."

It does come down to that 'different strokes for different folks', but at the end of the day, give me a few frivolous dice rolls. Ill flavor my actions and have some fun while im at it.

goto124
2015-03-07, 08:13 AM
'You squat behind the crates when suddenly, you fart. Surprisingly, the pair of guards don't notice you. Instead, they wrinkle their noses, glare at each other, and simultaneously say, 'Did you fart?' They walk away from your hiding spot, continously trying to put the blame on her partner.'

How high did the player roll?

blacklight101
2015-03-07, 08:45 AM
High enough, but hiding from guards implies potential death for failure, requiring a roll.

Personally, I dont see success as a given in that situation, but to each their own. All that matters is that the roll was high enough,

if you just want to tell a story, write a book. Dice give the chance to fail and make life interesting. Use them if you want or dont, thats up to the individual. I think some rolling can make life fun, but some narrative handwaving has its place as well.

Jay R
2015-03-07, 09:56 AM
How important is the act of rolling dice to you as a player?

It's crucial, when it's needed at all, but meaningless when it's not needed. I shouldn't have to roll when opening an unlocked door, climbing a two-step ladder, etc.

I also don't need to roll damage when damage is a minimum of 12 points and the goblin only has 8.

Of course, I'm a poker player. Often the most interesting hands are when everybody else folds, and I don't even have to show them my hand. In that hand, it was my play, not my cards, that won.


Does anyone else feel like their actions have been relegated to the 'not interesting' pile when the GM decides the result?

Not at all. The game is a series of decisions - some of which matter, and some of which don't. Sometimes, but not always, we have to roll dice to see if your decision, and the resulting character action, succeeds. Whether or not we roll is not a function of how interesting the action is, but of how likely it is to succeed. If you don't have to roll, then it was your decision, not the dice, that won.

If the taser destroys the barrier, or the grenade destroys the whole room, then the action was crucial to the plot. Those are actions that matter. How much damage it does, once you know your character succeeded.

In short, if you don't even have to roll to determine its success, then it's the *most* effective, and therefore the most interesting, action of the moment, contrasting with the times when you had to roll to find out if there was an interesting result.

What you're missing isn't the die roll, but the description. Ideally, the GM should say, "The obstacle is blown into rubble. You all get a little dust in your eyes, as pieces of former obstacle fly around you. It takes about thirty seconds for the dust to clear." That's the interesting part that's missing, not "It does 23 hit points. You can move on."

The game is not the dice. The game is the series of decisions, and the translation of your actions into an immersive experience. The dice are merely tools that are sometimes needed.

Knaight
2015-03-07, 10:55 AM
How important is the act of rolling dice to you as a player?
...
Bar some freak accident, it was a forgone conclusion, but I was looking forward to rolling the dice and declaring just how tasered said obstacle was. Instead our GM handwaved the scene as a success and had everyone move on.
This looks like two things happening. One is that you aren't rolling the dice, and are missing the tactile element, the other is that it sounds like the scene was quickly moved through. Both of these can be issues for certain types of players. I don't really derive that much enjoyment from the dice rolling itself, but just about all my players at this point do ans I definitely get where you're coming from. On the other hand, you pulled off a near perfect tactic that was guaranteed to work - and that's one of the areas which warrants a bit of extra description and emphasis.

Mastikator
2015-03-07, 11:35 AM
It starts out as important because people tend to irrationally feel like they somehow control the outcome of the dice and feel like if the DM were to roll it would feel like the DM is taking control.
Which is absolutely wrong, 100% wrong, you don't control the outcome, and if you did you would actually be cheating in which case you shouldn't be allowed to roll the dice.

But in many cases it's totally fine to indulge this desire since there's no harm.

Except there is thing that is harmful to the game, that is that one player, the guy who rolls the dice weirdly and slowly and it always falls off the table in under the sofa and now we have to take a break to get the dice.

That one guy, he shouldn't be allowed to roll, and for fairness sake and for the sake of ease, might as well let the DM make all the rolls.

Pex
2015-03-08, 12:40 PM
It is irrelevant how unoptimal some people think the Fireball spell is (3E). It is a lot of fun rolling 10d6.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-08, 12:43 PM
if you just want to tell a story, write a book. Dice give the chance to fail and make life interesting. Use them if you want or dont, thats up to the individual. I think some rolling can make life fun, but some narrative handwaving has its place as well. And the place it has is when the chance to fail (or succeed) would not make life interesting. As in, some possible outcome of the roll would result in a lesser game for the players.

Totema
2015-03-08, 01:36 PM
One of my playgroup members hates rolling dice. He'll often build an RPG character to minimize dice rolls and maximize static bonuses instead. He says that he likes a very even distribution of his die results, as opposed to things that end up more like a bell curve.

Remmirath
2015-03-08, 05:06 PM
I like rolling dice. It can be quite satisfying. On the other hand, that's not at all the main draw of a roleplaying game to me -- that being, not too surprisingly, roleplaying my character. If the dice rolling helps with that, awesome; if it doesn't, but helps with game mechanics, also good. I generally prefer minimal dice rolling in social situations, but a good deal of it in combat situations.

High stakes are more important than simply rolling dice. There's no point in rolling for a foregone conclusion, a nearly foregone conclusion, or one where the outcome doesn't matter one way or the other anyhow. There's a lot to be said for rolling in a life or death situation. Things are riding on the roll now, on how well your character does. As a player, unless the dice are determining how well my character is doing at an interesting or important task, I don't much care for rolling them. As a GM, the utility of rolling extends to randomly determining things like weather and probabilities of NPCs being around or that sort of thing, but I still don't roll for every little thing.

I do tend to like fairly crunch-heavy systems and shy away from light systems, so that probably puts me fairly solidly in the pro-dice rolling camp, all things considered.

goto124
2015-03-08, 11:57 PM
'I try to convince the king.'

'The king, unable to decide, gets out a 1d20 die and rolls it.'

'Why are we rolling for Diplomancy ICly?'

Trevortni
2015-03-09, 03:43 PM
I was reading the Atomic Robo manual the other day, and something they said seems to apply here: basically, that while rolling for absolutely everything is pointless, the DM needs to consistently provide challenges where rolling actually matters. Have you been throwing grenades at a lot of enemies without needing to roll? Maybe the DM should retroactively fit them in blast armor or something. Need to taser something? Maybe it's covered in electrostatic shielding, and you need to hit the weak point.

The important thing that you might be missing in one sense, and your DM is missing in a different sense, is the feeling that you have worthy obstacles to overcome. If you only roll dice when it matters, but you never roll dice, that makes it feel like nothing you do matters; you might as well have just let a java scriplet run your character for you, it would have won everything just as easily. But you, as a live player, want to make decisions that matter, that have some possibility of success or failure, rather than just always hitting the "Easy" button.

The disconnect from the dice is just a manifestation of the disconnect from mattering.

DigoDragon
2015-03-09, 05:15 PM
you might as well have just let a java scriplet run your character for you, it would have won everything just as easily.

Not always true. Java doesn't have a latte options to correctly mimic my inherent desire to have my character pun. :smallbiggrin:


(But yeah, dice help make decisions that matter. I agree)

Beta Centauri
2015-03-09, 05:25 PM
I was reading the Atomic Robo manual the other day, and something they said seems to apply here: basically, that while rolling for absolutely everything is pointless, the DM needs to consistently provide challenges where rolling actually matters. Agreed.

I've run into people who don't agree with that, though. There are people who feel that if they have to roll dice then they are taking an unnecessary risk, and haven't adequately "solved" the situation.

Me, I won't force anyone to roll dice for any given situation, if they'd be unhappy about any of the possible outcomes. But then I'll ask them what sort of situation I could present in which they would be willing to roll dice, and I try to arrange to run that.

Flickerdart
2015-03-09, 06:38 PM
Not always true. Java doesn't have a latte options to correctly mimic my inherent desire to have my character pun. :smallbiggrin:
With a working knowledge of the language and this paper (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~binsted/papers/Binstedthesis.pdf), it should be possible to brew up something along those lines.

Maglubiyet
2015-03-10, 01:39 PM
Have you been throwing grenades at a lot of enemies without needing to roll?

You've gotta roll for grenades. I don't care how many you've thrown in your life. There are waaaay too many factors that can influence the outcome.

(8 years U.S. Army)

Beta Centauri
2015-03-10, 03:18 PM
You've gotta roll for grenades. I don't care how many you've thrown in your life. There are waaaay too many factors that can influence the outcome.

(8 years U.S. Army) What are some of the primary possible outcomes you might imagine seeing in a game when a grenade is thrown?

Trevortni
2015-03-10, 03:23 PM
I've run into people who don't agree with that, though. There are people who feel that if they have to roll dice then they are taking an unnecessary risk, and haven't adequately "solved" the situation.

Strangely enough, Atomic Robo's Inventing rules don't allow the characters to fail to make their inventions. The only thing they end up rolling for is whether it's the players or the DM who gets to decide what the drawbacks to the inventions are. The same goes for Brainstorming - figuring out what the bad guys are really up to. Apparently Action Scientists are always right, and always get the device made, the way they want it, on time.

As for equating rolling to unnecessary risks, I think this was brought up in another thread, where someone pointed out that they prefer to make their rolls (planning) before they are in danger, so that they don't have to take the risks when they might otherwise be in danger.

blacklight101
2015-03-10, 03:24 PM
What are some of the primary possible outcomes you might imagine seeing in a game when a grenade is thrown?





It slips out of your fingers and lands at your feet.
You fumble the throw and it goes no more than two or three feet.
You, in the heat of the moment, forget to yank the pin.
You smack your hand off the wall you're hiding behind as you try to toss the grenade, dropping it.
Stupid thing didn't go off.
Sh*t, I missed.
Factory-installed fuse was too short.


Always roll for grenades. They go boom.

Trevortni
2015-03-10, 03:37 PM
Also, sometimes you roll to see if you turn them into beef stroganoff. Sometimes you roll to see how much beef stroganoff you turn them into.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-10, 03:43 PM
Strangely enough, Atomic Robo's Inventing rules don't allow the characters to fail to make their inventions. The only thing they end up rolling for is whether it's the players or the DM who gets to decide what the drawbacks to the inventions are. The same goes for Brainstorming - figuring out what the bad guys are really up to. Apparently Action Scientists are always right, and always get the device made, the way they want it, on time. I like that. It sounds genre-appropriate. It's not interesting to see the hyper-competent scientist utterly flub. It's interesting to see the device work... mostly.


As for equating rolling to unnecessary risks, I think this was brought up in another thread, where someone pointed out that they prefer to make their rolls (planning) before they are in danger, so that they don't have to take the risks when they might otherwise be in danger. Interesting. I'm open to players rolling Jump or Climb checks as a form of "knowledge" check. If they succeed, then they are sure they can jump it. If they fail, they're either sure they can't, or doubt they can, and don't jump.


It slips out of your fingers and lands at your feet.
You fumble the throw and it goes no more than two or three feet.
You, in the heat of the moment, forget to yank the pin.
You smack your hand off the wall you're hiding behind as you try to toss the grenade, dropping it.
Stupid thing didn't go off.
Sh*t, I missed.
Factory-installed fuse was too short. Okay. Which of those would you be interested in seeing happen to your character?

I wouldn't mind a miss or a dud, but dropping it or failing to pull the pin, as realistic as they might be, aren't things that I'd necessarily want to see happen in a game, any more than I'd like to see them happen in an action movie. So, when I'm running a game, those simply aren't possible outcomes, unless the players really want them to. We might roll to see where it bounces, and we'd probably roll for damage, but not to see if the hero drops it.

blacklight101
2015-03-10, 04:06 PM
Considering the games I play? If you roll poorly, something bad happens. If you don't ever want your heroes to fail, thats you. I like the off chance of failure, my characters mean more to me if they actually have a chance to die. If they just "always win" to some degree with no real, serious chance of loss, it takes a lot of the fun out of it.

There should always be a chance to fail, when else could our actions have any meaning?

Beta Centauri
2015-03-10, 06:06 PM
If you don't ever want your heroes to fail, thats you. Where are you getting this? I said that I wouldn't mind a miss or a dud. Those are failures, and I'm fine with either of those. That doesn't mean that I think any conceivable form of failure would be appropriate to a given game.

Maglubiyet
2015-03-10, 06:54 PM
What are some of the primary possible outcomes you might imagine seeing in a game when a grenade is thrown?

With explosives, anything can happen. A freak bit of shrapnel travels directly back at you, even from over 50m away. The grenade lands in a natural depression and sends its energy upwards doing minimal damage to something standing right next to the explosion. Your palm inexplicably slips and you lob it too high and short. You go to drop it into a window and you bounce it off the sill straight back at your feet. You try to roll it through a doorway and you nail the door frame.

Go out and lob a baseball at different targets and see how many times you can get it exactly where you want it, without weird bounces or rolls. Now try it with something more clunky, like a croquet ball. Bear in mind that the situations you'd be doing it for real generally qualify as "high stress" and you'd be rushed, sleep-deprived, sensory-overloaded, under-fire, injured, or all of the above. And there are no do-overs.

And this doesn't take into account issues with the fuse. You need to time it so that you have time to get clear, but not enough time for the enemy to throw it back. Nowadays quality control is pretty good in the manufacturing of the fuse, but historically they could burn too long, short, or not at all. Sometimes a fuse is a dud. There are also the possible oddball mechanical problems, like the safety clip just bends and doesn't release, the pin snaps when you pull it, the spring on the spoon doesn't spring.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-10, 07:03 PM
With explosives, anything can happen. Again: which of those outcomes are you actually interested in a) the system modelling, and b) actually having a real chance of occurring?

A miss is fine. It happens. There are ways to model a miss other than "absolutely nothing happens" (and actually grenades often have scatter rules), but a miss is fine.

Do you want to play a game in which a character can blow themselves up with a grenade? Some people do. Others do not - which doesn't mean they don't want to fail just that they'd rather fail in some other plausible way. If it would make the game silly, or ridiculous or off theme to have a character blown up with their own grenade - which it will for some - then that possibility shouldn't be one of the ones that can occur as the result of a dice roll. There are other interesting outcomes that could be randomly determined, so dice might still be rolled, but the possible outcomes would be limited.

I get people want to player "realistic" games, but it's pretty common for people to want to play games that emulate movies and shows. Outside of Looney Tunes and other humorous shows, most characters don't completely flub grenade throws. They might fail to achieve what they wanted, but they didn't blow themselves up like a moron.

Maglubiyet
2015-03-10, 07:16 PM
Again: which of those outcomes are you actually interested in

Fumble or critical failure systems seem to be appropriate here.


but they didn't blow themselves up like a moron.

Perfectly competent people have killed themselves with explosives. A realistic system would incorporate this. I could even see it in a cinematic style game.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-10, 07:29 PM
Fumble or critical failure systems seem to be appropriate here. They're not appropriate for every game. Not every outcome will be.


Perfectly competent people have killed themselves with explosives. A realistic system would incorporate this. Have fun with that.


I could even see it in a cinematic style game. Emulating exactly what sort of cinematics? Characters in movies fail all the time, but when a movie isn't being deliberately goofy it's usually not due to a ridiculous (if tragic) accident. The stupidest part of John Carpenter's The Thing is when the guy goes to throw the grenade and blows up himself and his helicopter. I get that the guy had to die, but that's just goofy.

Maglubiyet
2015-03-10, 07:58 PM
Emulating exactly what sort of cinematics? Characters in movies fail all the time, but when a movie isn't being deliberately goofy it's usually not due to a ridiculous (if tragic) accident. The stupidest part of John Carpenter's The Thing is when the guy goes to throw the grenade and blows up himself and his helicopter. I get that the guy had to die, but that's just goofy.

Not sure why you're trying to pick a fight with me about this. If you don't agree then don't run your games that way, I don't care either way.

Are you disputing that people could actually drop a live grenade at their feet and kill themselves? That scene from the Thing was pretty realistic to me (especially when compared with an alien tentacle dog? -- come on). Explosive weapons in real life are horrible, horrible things because they don't discriminate, they just blow up. I get that that's not much fun to game and if you don't like reality, then skip it.

DigoDragon
2015-03-11, 07:35 AM
You fumble the throw and it goes no more than two or three feet.

My old Shadowrun group liked grenades, but often failed to throw them far enough when fighting inside enclosed spaces such as a house. Getting caught within the edge of the explosion tended to happen a lot. They kept using them though, cause just as hard as it was to throw a grenade effectively in between furniture, it was for the victim to dodge the explosion. Messy interior decorators, those Runners. :smalltongue:

blacklight101
2015-03-11, 08:16 AM
My old Shadowrun group liked grenades, but often failed to throw them far enough when fighting inside enclosed spaces such as a house. Getting caught within the edge of the explosion tended to happen a lot. They kept using them though, cause just as hard as it was to throw a grenade effectively in between furniture, it was for the victim to dodge the explosion. Messy interior decorators, those Runners. :smalltongue:


I have good fun with boomers in my groups too. For some reason, they seem to like hitting door jambs and windows and stupid little things. I think it can be fun going "Aah, my foot!" When I get zinged with a litte shrap though.

Good "botched" throws sometimes make the game though, sometimes that near miss will make more of an impression than a hit. I think its fun.

Broken Twin
2015-03-11, 08:51 AM
Some of my favorite moments in gaming have been the results of botched rolls. Whenever the chance for various results would be interesting, dice should be rolled.

In regards to grenades, I personally agree that there should always be a risk to using them. There's just so many things that can and do go wrong with them, and it all makes for engaging material. Bounce back, structural damage, failure... even when you don't succeed, they make things happen.

In regards to running cinematic games with grenades... I honestly can't think of off hand a cinematic movie where the hero is chucking grenades around willy-nilly like you'll find in some games. It's usually one-off scenes that seem more appropriate for a special stunt then continuous usage. Granted, my movie lore isn't what it used to be, so I could be totally wrong on this point.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-11, 09:07 AM
That scene from the Thing was pretty realistic to me (especially when compared with an alien tentacle dog? -- come on). Right: realistic, but off-putting.


I get that that's not much fun to game and if you don't like reality, then skip it. And that's the point that I'm hoping isn't getting missed: if there's an outcome that the people at the table wouldn't like, don't pin it to a dice roll, no matter how "realistic" the possibility of that outcome might be. If that somehow leaves only one outcome the people at the table would like, then don't roll at all, just have that outcome occur. If people still want to roll what amounts to the "damage" or "effect" of that outcome, cool, but the occurrence of that outcome wouldn't be in question.

Maglubiyet
2015-03-11, 09:15 AM
if there's an outcome that the people at the table wouldn't like, don't pin it to a dice roll, no matter how "realistic" the possibility of that outcome might be

I would venture that most players don't like to miss and yet that's something that happens in combat and is tied to a die roll.

Knaight
2015-03-11, 10:00 AM
I would venture that most players don't like to miss and yet that's something that happens in combat and is tied to a die roll.

I seriously doubt most players don't want combat to feature missing, even on their end. Character death due to grenade fumbles is an entirely different matter.

blacklight101
2015-03-11, 10:10 AM
If you dont want grenade fumbles, don't include them. Seems pretty simple to me.

Hell, nobody wants to miss either, but its part of the game.


Without potential consequence for the actions, they mean nothing. If I always seem to get whatever it is downrange, never drop it, it never messes up, then its not as fun as it could be. At least for me. Hell, speaking of that, where are the rulesets to pick up a thrown grenade and throw it back ?

Never mind fumbles, give me a roll to kick it out of the way if I drop it. If I dont kick it right, I should blow up. :smalltongue:

Flickerdart
2015-03-11, 10:21 AM
If you dont want grenade fumbles, don't include them. Seems pretty simple to me.

Hell, nobody wants to miss either, but its part of the game.
If you attack and miss, you get to try again next round.

If you throw a grenade and fumble, you blew up your own party, and none of you get to try again because you're dead. Also, everyone is now mad at you for killing them. The consequences of fumbling beyond "you missed, now it's Greg's turn" are destructive to the game dynamic.

Knaight
2015-03-11, 11:08 AM
Without potential consequence for the actions, they mean nothing. If I always seem to get whatever it is downrange, never drop it, it never messes up, then its not as fun as it could be. At least for me. Hell, speaking of that, where are the rulesets to pick up a thrown grenade and throw it back ?

Even if grenade throwing is absolutely perfect, there's still the matter of one grenade used now is one fewer for later, and the number of grenades is probably actually a bit of a limit. There's also the matter of damage done, attention attracted, etc. Sticking some fumble mechanic on top of this (for something that doesn't even happen all that often) is hardly necessary to create a potential consequence.

Though I will say that throwing grenades back should be part of more rules sets than it is.

Jay R
2015-03-11, 11:42 AM
If you attack and miss, you get to try again next round.

If you throw a grenade and fumble, you blew up your own party, and none of you get to try again because you're dead. Also, everyone is now mad at you for killing them. The consequences of fumbling beyond "you missed, now it's Greg's turn" are destructive to the game dynamic.

If this description were a true and fair description of the effects of critical fumbles, then not long after they were first introduced in The Dragon #39, everyone would have stopped using them.

Since some people are still using them after decades of experience with them, we can conclusively determine that your description is inaccurate.

Thanatos 51-50
2015-03-11, 12:09 PM
Shadowrun, which the OP mentioned playing, actually has comprehensive rules for the number of ways you can drek up a grenade throw. I once had a gunfighter Adept bounce a grenade off a wall at a bad angle and have to ricochet back towards her, which would have been disastrous, as we were in a narrow shipboard passageway.
The street samurai spent a whole ton of Edge to shoot the grenade and blow it up before we got within the blast radius.

Grenades (and the Chunky Salsa Rule) are no laughing or trivial matter in Shadowrun.
It is for those reasons precisely that most runner teams people I've met have played tend to only use gas or smoke grenades in everything but the most dire of circumstances. We broke that rule, deciding to use a frag for convenience and we almost all fin in the same tupperware container as a result. (I'm, personally, a big fan of Wireless-enabled Neruostun Gas Grenades, and doubly-especially a fan of using them as booby traps)
Grenades should always be rolled.
High-stress gun battles should always be rolled. Even if you're throwing twenty-five dice at your enemy, they're probably throwing a dozen back to not get murdered. That needs to resolve. (But I'd let Mr(s). 25 dice buys hits when they haven't been spotted, because come on.)


Even if grenade throwing is absolutely perfect, there's still the matter of one grenade used now is one fewer for later, and the number of grenades is probably actually a bit of a limit. There's also the matter of damage done, attention attracted, etc. Sticking some fumble mechanic on top of this (for something that doesn't even happen all that often) is hardly necessary to create a potential consequence.

Though I will say that throwing grenades back should be part of more rules sets than it is.

In the OP's Shadowrun, that depends on the grenade's mechanism.
Wireless Grenades, for example, are a *dumb* thing to try and throw back, because it takes the space of a brain-twitch to have it blow up in your hand.

Flickerdart
2015-03-11, 12:46 PM
If this description were a true and fair description of the effects of critical fumbles, then not long after they were first introduced in The Dragon #39, everyone would have stopped using them.

Since some people are still using them after decades of experience with them, we can conclusively determine that your description is inaccurate.
If this assessment were a true and fair assessment of human nature, we would have long since stopped doing a whole lot of things. Factors like DMs who like to see players suffer, novice players who don't know better, and so forth serve to propagate fumbles because PCs don't know that it's an alternative rule and that they're allowed to have better.

Lord Torath
2015-03-11, 01:53 PM
It slips out of your fingers and lands at your feet.
You fumble the throw and it goes no more than two or three feet.
You, in the heat of the moment, forget to yank the pin.
You smack your hand off the wall you're hiding behind as you try to toss the grenade, dropping it.
Stupid thing didn't go off.
Sh*t, I missed.
Factory-installed fuse was too short.


Always roll for grenades. They go boom.I had a buddy (5'-8", 160-ish pounds) who was trying to join the army. He was a southpaw (left handed) and his grenade instructor was right handed, as well as being very loud. At his 250-pound instructor's direction he held the grenade in his right hand. Then he pulled the pin with his left hand (as directed by his instructor), dropped the grenade in his right hand, and chucked the pin. His instructor picked him up, chucked him out of the bunker, then jumped out on top of him.


Shadowrun, which the OP mentioned playing, actually has comprehensive rules for the number of ways you can drek up a grenade throw. I once had a gunfighter Adept bounce a grenade off a wall at a bad angle and have to ricochet back towards her, which would have been disastrous, as we were in a narrow shipboard passageway.
The street samurai spent a whole ton of Edge to shoot the grenade and blow it up before we got within the blast radius.

Grenades (and the Chunky Salsa Rule) are no laughing or trivial matter in Shadowrun.
It is for those reasons precisely that most runner teams people I've met have played tend to only use gas or smoke grenades in everything but the most dire of circumstances. We broke that rule, deciding to use a frag for convenience and we almost all fin in the same tupperware container as a result. (I'm, personally, a big fan of Wireless-enabled Neruostun Gas Grenades, and doubly-especially a fan of using them as booby traps)
Grenades should always be rolled.)That's why I like concussive grenades. Only had the Chunky Salsa rule hit once: The bad guys were holed up in a small office with reinforced walls (panic room?). We used a little C-12 (like C-4, only more powerful)with a remote detonator on the lock, and as soon as that went off, chucked a pair of concussion grenades in. Result: Deadly wall of concussive force that killed both the bad guys. If they'd been frag grenades, they'd have been salsa for sure.

Jay R
2015-03-11, 04:07 PM
If this assessment were a true and fair assessment of human nature, we would have long since stopped doing a whole lot of things. Factors like DMs who like to see players suffer, novice players who don't know better, and so forth serve to propagate fumbles because PCs don't know that it's an alternative rule and that they're allowed to have better.

In the games I know that use fumbles:
1. The DMs don't like to see people suffer.
2. The players are not novices.
3. The players know better, have played many different ways for ten to forty years.
4. The players know that it's an alternative rule.
5. The players know that they can have what they prefer.

It's perfectly OK to say that you don't like to use critical fumbles. But making up falsehoods about the people who have different preferences and about the games that are different from yours cannot convince those of us who know the truth about the games we are playing and you aren't.

I get it - you think playing like we play is badwrongfun. Fine - play the way you like. You don't need to make up falsehoods for that.

blacklight101
2015-03-11, 05:49 PM
In the games I know that use fumbles:
1. The DMs don't like to see people suffer.
2. The players are not novices.
3. The players know better, have played many different ways for ten to forty years.
4. The players know that it's an alternative rule.
5. The players know that they can have what they prefer.

It's perfectly OK to say that you don't like to use critical fumbles. But making up falsehoods about the people who have different preferences and about the games that are different from yours cannot convince those of us who know the truth about the games we are playing and you aren't.

I get it - you think playing like we play is badwrongfun. Fine - play the way you like. You don't need to make up falsehoods for that.


I think you stated it quite clearly here. I agree with your point. I wish I had been articulate enough earlier to say the same.

Thanatos 51-50
2015-03-11, 05:55 PM
I had a buddy (5'-8", 160-ish pounds) who was trying to join the army. He was a southpaw (left handed) and his grenade instructor was right handed, as well as being very loud. At his 250-pound instructor's direction he held the grenade in his right hand. Then he pulled the pin with his left hand (as directed by his instructor), dropped the grenade in his right hand, and chucked the pin. His instructor picked him up, chucked him out of the bunker, then jumped out on top of him.

That's why I like concussive grenades. Only had the Chunky Salsa rule hit once: The bad guys were holed up in a small office with reinforced walls (panic room?). We used a little C-12 (like C-4, only more powerful)with a remote detonator on the lock, and as soon as that went off, chucked a pair of concussion grenades in. Result: Deadly wall of concussive force that killed both the bad guys. If they'd been frag grenades, they'd have been salsa for sure.

We once had a runner impersonate a corp suit's security detail and tuck a wireless frag grenade under the targets seat cushion in an armoured corporate helicopter.
Chunky Salsa is ridiculous, and we try to find ways to abuse it.

blacklight101
2015-03-11, 07:32 PM
We once had a runner impersonate a corp suit's security detail and tuck a wireless frag grenade under the targets seat cushion in an armoured corporate helicopter.
Chunky Salsa is ridiculous, and we try to find ways to abuse it.

This Shadowrun and Chunky Salsa rules interest me. I must look more into this. Seems like a pretty neat system.

Knaight
2015-03-11, 07:43 PM
This Shadowrun and Chunky Salsa rules interest me. I must look more into this. Seems like a pretty neat system.

There are a lot of cool things about Shadowrun, though it's a bit excessively rules complex in places. By which I mean most subsystems, of which there are a number. Still, there are individual parts of it that I cite all the time for elegant mechanical design, and it has a pretty slick setting in a lot of ways.

Thanatos 51-50
2015-03-11, 07:43 PM
This Shadowrun and Chunky Salsa rules interest me. I must look more into this. Seems like a pretty neat system.

The basics of the Chunky Salsa rule is: if a barrier has enough structure to withstand the explosion, the explosive energy "Bounces" off and keeps travelling, hitting whomever is in the space again. It does not trigger a separate resistance roll. Damage before soaking easily climbs into the 50s. This is a system where the hardiest metahumans on the planet have 10 HP, and Dragons maybe have 25. I don't remember how many dice dragons get to soak damage in their natural form, but I think it's below 25. On average, only about 1/3 of the dice you throw at a problem will be successful.

Grenades and explosions don't care. They reduce you to "the same consistency as Chunky Salsa".