I personally  would allow it. It's a clever use of a seldom used spell. I encourage that.

Remember that the GM is on the players' side, they just don't want the players to know. Your goal, unless it's a Call of Cthulhu game, is to tell an interesting story, that ultimately is fun for the players. Not to kill or terrorize them.

It's just important to remember that (generally) the player doesn't control how effective an ability is, any more than they decide how much damage a spell or weapon does. In games with "called shots" in which a weapon can do tremendous damage if aimed properly, more skill is often required to land those shots. So, it's reasonable for a DM to require a higher roll (or a roll where one wasn't required before) in order to achieve a tremendous effect.

She and I talked and we agreed on the following...  I'm allowing it due to it being an extremely creative use of the spell but there will be a series of contested checks...

Her vs servant: intelligence - to see if it understood the instructions correctly *and* can find a "their" to target

Servant vs each target: perception - to see if they notice the floating tinderbox
This message was last edited by the player at 09:45, Wed 11 Jan 2023.

Remember to allow things that aren't as creative. Or help them to become more creative.


Good. There's a further step you can take this kind of thing, and it is to consider what failure looks like. Not all failure is equally interesting, and if failure isn't interesting, there's no point rolling a die to see if it will happen.

If, upon failure of the intelligence roll, the servant doesn't do anything at all that's simply boring. It also raises the question of whether the player can simply keep trying. Maybe, because getting impatient with one's own unseen servant could be funny. But if there's no downside to continuing to try, then there was no point to the roll.

If the player fails the intelligence roll and then the servant does something annoying, yet not entertaining to the players, that's just resulting in players who aren't entertained and who might not want to bother trying to get creative next time. If you know your players, you probably have a sense for what would be an entertaining way for the task to fail, but if you're stuck don't hesitate to ask your players what they think failure should be. They'll probably only tell you things they'd like to see.

If the servant fails its rolls (and I would suggest that the caster simply be the one to make those rolls, to save having to come up with stats for the conjuration, and to keep the player directly involved) more should happen than the effort simply being prevented. That could be any number of things, but hopefully something interesting.

I get around this issue of 'well I could just keep rolling' in 2 ways depending on the situation:

One is that I allow the party as a whole 2 attempts so they pick whoever they think is best at it to give the task a go, if they fail invariably the response will either be 'let me try again' or someone else similarly capable steps in and says 'let me take a crack at it'. If both results fail I will say something like 'clearly there's something you're missing' or 'you're now too frustrated to keep trying'.

The other is that the roll is your character's capability for the task rather than the result of a single attempt. For example if you're trying to climb something the roll represents checking various surfaces for handholds and the best place to ascend, making a few attempts and failing. Therefore the roll wasn't just you trying once and failing, but instead you have analysed the situation, approached it from multiple angles and have now determined it is beyond your capabilities.

In both situations though I will allow the players to leave and return at a later point if the they don't need to worry about whatever they're trying to do expiring. In order to attempt it again though circumstances have to have changed e.g. they've researched the task, leveled up, succeeded at other similar tasks. Then they can try again, using those rules again.

Those can work, but I'm not sure why the focus isn't on the stakes involved. Time is the easiest thing to put at stake: a guard is coming, or there are wandering monsters, or some other kind of danger is looming and every attempt makes the danger more likely to materialize. If nothing is at stake, there shouldn't be a roll.

I'm not a fan of 3.5 D&D, but I like it's idea of "taking 10" or "taking 20." If there wasn't some immediate, round-by-round stress, like combat or a chase, characters could just at 10 to their skill, rather than rolling. That's actually a lower than average result on 1d20, but enough for a wide range of tasks.

If the characters had lots and lots of time, they could just add 20 to their skill, ensuring success if it was at all possible.

Not all skills could be used this way, but it was a good reminder for players in any game that if there's no real reason why everyone in the party can just keep trying the roll, don't bother rolling.

And if you don't want that, add some actual stakes. Some D&D skill uses have that inherently, like dealing with a trap where failure can set it off. That should be the default for every skill: fail and something changes. You can try again but your failure matters.

Knowledge skills are the worst for this kind of thing, which is why I require knowledge checks to be about action. It's not what the character knows, it's how they apply what they know.

Sometimes time is not at stake, what if the party looted a small lockbox from somewhere, brought it home and tried to open it. By my rule if they fail then clearly the box is too hard for them to open, they need to seek an alternative like smashing it or hiring a locksmith.

And I completely disagree about knowledge checks. They are the perfect example of where I can apply my way.

Example:

Party encounters a situation where they want to do a knowledge check.
In this case I'd throw it open to everyone who wanted to roll a knowledge check.
Everyone rolls.
Those who succeed know something about the situation depending on how well they rolled, those who fail do not know (or may know disinformation if they rolled particularly badly, like a myth they heard when they were younger that doesn't have useful truth about the situation). You cannot roll again to see if you do better or take 10 to see if thinking for longer will help. It's just a matter of you know it or you don't and the roll is what tells us that.

This might make some people ask some questions:
Doesn't this cause some potentially silly situations like a wizard didn't understand how some magic worked because he rolled a 5 but the barbarian figured it out because he rolled 19?
Yes it can, and that has always led to amusement amongst the group as we all collectively come up with an explanation of why this is the case, such as maybe the wizard just didn't study this particular magic but the barbarian has a weird uncle who was the tribe shaman that excelled in this magic.

What's to stop people just asking someone or going to a library and finding out if they are able to?
Nothing, I encourage that and in those situations I follow exactly the same rule as the circumstances have now changed: roll and if you roll well you find someone/the right book to help you, or you roll badly and you failed to do so (usually they will split up to go with their strengths, the rogue asks his contacts if the know a guy - charisma, the wizard goes to the library  - intelligence). What if they then go to the next library and try again? If the players are gaming it I will tell them guys you checked this public library, the one on the other side of town isn't going to be much different. On the other hand if they go from the public library to wanting to go to Candlekeep, that is definitely a new roll because the circumstances have definitely changed (assuming they can get there and gain entry which can be an adventure all its own). The point is changing the circumstances to get another roll leads to interesting situations, the party might meet new people who could be useful allies or learn important info about other stuff as they try to find the answer to whatever they tried to knoweldge check. That part is my job as the DM to make sure they're no just getting a reroll they're getting the next part of their adventure and/or future plot hooks.

My point is: Failure is a storytelling tool, a very important one as I'm sure we can all agree. My method allows failure to have more ways to move the story forward than 'you ran out of time' or 'you caused the reverse of whatever you were trying to do - like set off the trap'.

Sometimes if the situation is right, I have them roll not for success or failure, but for how long it takes. If they succeed the task gets done quickly. Never instantly unless warranted, but if they fail it just takes a while. During which other things can happen.
This keeps the game flowing, and lets them get through the task but causes them to lose time. Or a wandering encounter could happen...
This message had punctuation tweaked by the GM at 02:48, Fri 13 Jan 2023.

Could you elaborate, and/or provide some examples? Sounds like an interesting approach, just trying to wrap my head around it better.

My questions are: if the players know they rolled badly, do they have to believe what they rolled? Do others who know they rolled well have an opportunity to convince them, or are they certain they're right? Some GMs will hide the rolls, so the players can't be swayed by the rolls, but in that case why should the character ever believe anything they think, without the game turning into an effort to prove every fact the party is told?


Not everyone finds that kind of thing amusing after the first few times.


Yes, and here's the thing: the roll itself can change the circumstances. In my view, it should, for every kind of skill checks. As your example demonstrates, knowledge rolls are problematic, because they don't inherently involve actually doing anything, just standing around and thinking about, or, at best, researching.


It allows it, but doesn't directly cause it. The players still have to change things. Some will, but as you point out you might have to block them from trying the most obvious thing, because nothing obvious and inherent has changed.

If GMs have an approach they like, and characters in their games can actually fail and the players still have fun when it happens, then that's all I can hope.

@A Voice in the Dark

Oh yes that's also a great one I like to use sometimes. The roll isn't if you succeed or fail but easy or hard success comes to you. A really bad roll could mean it takes far longer to succeed at something which could mean the bad guy gets further along in their plans or maybe the group draw the ire of someone in the process. A really good roll could mean they do it very quickly and they also accomplish something else by pure luck maybe they don't just find the info they're looking for but also some other important stuff they should know.

@Centauri



I do not hide my rolls but I trust my players to not meta-game, but the reason this does not fall apart is because of wording and tone of how the dis-information is delivered. Let's take 2 examples that actually happen quite frequently and how they will normally go. The first example is one where I am ok with or it makes sense for the high and low roller having clashing opinions:

Insight checks on someone who the party suspect to be lying:
1 rolls well - you can tell there's something off about the way he's speaking, he's doing his best to divert the conversation away from the subject
2 roll bad - you can't get a good read on him
1 rolls really bad - you don't see anything to suggest this guy might be lying, he's either got a really good poker face or he seems to be legit

The resulting in-character interaction will usually go one of 3 ways:
>bad roller will give good roller the benefit of the doubt because it's better to be suspicious than not
>bad roller will call out good roller and there may be a disagreement between the two of them on the way to go forward
>the group will excuse themselves from the person they're talking to for a moment if they can, step away from the character they're talking to, and discuss how they feel about it which will generally lead to them being able to analyse both view points and when pointed out they'll recognise - yeah he was kind of avoiding talking about the subject (which isn't meta-gaming it's a case of not noticing a thing until someone else points it out, it happens all the time)

None of these are unfavourable results since the story will move forward regardless and it's completely in line with how a group of people would interact.

The second example is when this is done more for flavour and it gives the character a way to rp their bad roll:

Say it's a knowledge check on a monster, same results 1 good, 2 bad, 1 really bad.

good roll - here's some relevant info like something they're weak to/resistant to, some cool trick they can do.
bad roll - no info
really bad roll - "Oh yeah this thing actually sounds familiar, you remember your mother reading you an old fairy tale about this monster when you were a kid. Well the way the story goes the brave knight was able to form a barrier from the love of his dearly beloved anxiously waiting for his return which protected him from the beast's dread gaze."

Is anyone going to take that seriously? Absolutely not but it will give everyone a chuckle and if they're in top form the player might put that into their character's words before the fight begins 'hey don't suppose anyone's got a true love back home to protect them?'.



Due to statistics it won't happen enough times for the amusement to drop. If the barbarian needs to be rolling say 16+ every time to succeed at those checks and the wizard needs only an 8+ then the chances of both results occurring are low enough that the amusement will not fade. Or if somehow there is an unusual luck streak then there may be some frustration at the wizard's inability to roll well but if you have a player who is upset that someone else rolled well when they failed that is a seperate issue which needs to be addressed.



The roll has not changed the circumstances, only the players' understanding of the circumstances. You might say this is knit-picking but that is just how I apply my reasoning to the situation. For example if the players are facing a locked door and the rogue fails to pick the lock the circumstances haven't changed i.e. there is still a locked door there. The understanding is the only thing that has changed i.e. this lock is too hard for the rogue to pick.

As for knowledge rolls I'm not sure I understand how what I explained demonstrated a problem?

Circumstance 1: You think about a thing. You either have an answer or you don't (the roll).
Circumstance 2: You go to a library to reasearch the thing. You either find the answer or you don't (the roll, or as Voice said just now, if the library contains such a book you do find it eventually it's just a matter of how long it takes).
Circumstance 3: The library was no help so you make a pilgrimage to the old sage who lives up in the mountains to see if he knows (now either the sage does or does not know, if it gets to this point he probably would know unless it makes no sense for him to know since it was probably a mini-adventure for the party to get to him).

Do you see how the circumstances change each step?



This does also have the benefit of encouraging the players to try other things when plan A fails. Sure plan A made the most sense but that doesn't mean it will always work. And if they are not willing to try something else or are unable to think of something else to try then they can accept the failure and move on, a failure in this regard will never cause the party to fail at the campaign. It might make things difficult later on but there are always alternatives or other things they could be doing which will help them out.

They didn't get the door open and they don't want to try something else like breaking it down. Ok they leave the door and go explore somewhere else. As a result they never get the evidence they can use to prove the evil senator's plan so they will have a hard time convincing people and will have to find another way to stop him.

Wow...  Who knew my question would generate this much discussion...   lol

I do want to thank everyone for their insights...  It played out very well in game...  As soon as I make the DM post, the servant will catch one bandit unawares and dump the tinderbox in his quiver but will be quickly killed afterward...  The player is happy with the outcome and even now is probably plotting something new to mess with my mind...   lol

Debating the various ways to DM and their benefits and drawbacks is one of the reasons I made this thing, it's great to get many different opinions and viewpoints!

And I'm happy to hear it worked out for you and your players.

Hahah Matt Colville just put out a video about this topic, is he in here seems sus

For play-by-post games, does anyone ever include music in their posts? (Combat? Tavern? Relaxing? Suspense?)
Ever played in a game where the GM used music? Thoughts?
Think it adds anything or not really?

Thoughts/advice on music in non-PbP games?

Personally I'm annoyed anytime a device makes noise at me. So I either wouldn't hear your music or would be annoyed if it suddenly started somehow.

I think I did have a GM that linked like a YouTube video of the campaign theme music.

I wish I could include music on RPOL for background, but there's no rea way to do it - aside from linking to an outside score, which is just too much effort for too little reward, as far as I am concerned.

I have had DMs play music during roll20 games and while I'm sure their choices were great I am not a fan in general and would turn it down. Sometimes I might turn it back on for a few moments to see if it helps the atmosphere but then I'd always turn it off again.

I'm not against it but it is an extra investment that not all players might be onboard with.

I find music in games too distracting. Especially if it's not setting specific. Playing a d&d game an having jpop come on during a fight scene, gm was an avid anime fan, just grates on me. Music is too subjective. Too many different tastes out there, and it becomes a negative when it's not your genre.

However, theme specific background music/sounds can be good additions when appropriate. Tavern music when in the tavern, city background sounds when out in a city, woodland sounds etc... Put it on low and let it play in the background can enhance the mood. I've played in a Cyberpunk game where a GM had heavy industrial/techno going when we were in a nightclub. It made it hard to talk, which was a real problem in the game so helped us RP it. Not suggesting it all the time, but when appropriate it can enhance things.

That said, I don't use it often due to technical issues, and I'm not even sure how you would in a PBP game.

In reply to A Voice in the Dark (msg # 72):



I was in a freeform game once, where one of the narrators kept posting links to 'background' links in postings. It'd be there, a different one mind, at the top of every post, and I had to keep ignoring it, because I could either listen to music, or post, but not both.

I have a player that got bitten by a werewolf and he wants to lean into the curse... I need some help finding source material that can be incorporated into D&D for a player fighting the curse of lycanthropy...  Any suggestions?

Well.

In 2e, there was a 'cure' that involved drinking wolfsbane (which, by the way, is toxic) for x-number of times to beat the curse.  You could possible allow the player to ingest a dose of wolfsbane (and survive the poisoning) to prevent themselves from turning wolf, or at least retain control when they turn.

In 3.5 a skill was introduced to allow infected lycanthropes to control themselves.  Details from the SRD available here: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lycanthrope.htm

That's very helpful, thanks... I can definitely use some of that for him...

Does anyone else have more source material or suggestions? I'm also fine with homebrew materials...

3.5 made a good set of rules for lycanthropy as affliction, but it's also heavy-handed with alignment change. Sure, you can build up that Control Shape skill, but the very first time you willingly change into either the hybrid or animal form? Your alignment permanently changes to match the lycanthrope.

If your player had been bitten by a werebear, well, he might have to get used to being CG instead of LN or something, but he's still potentially a PC. Werewolves, however, are CE and so unless his group is on the dark side, that's probably the point where he turns in his character sheet.

I changed this in my games, assuming the player wanted to keep his nifty new immunity to normal weapons. Usually, the players don't research ways to control it; they're off to get the village cleric to help with a remedy when they encounter lycanthropes. If they'd bother to ask, however, except in a horror setting like Ravenloft or Ustalav (Pathfinder-Golarion nation with the [Horror] tag), where I would *always* run lycanthropy as being a Very Bad Thing^(tm), I do allow them to fight the bestial nature as they build up their control skill.

In PF, I usually use Concentration or Autohypnosis for the control skill.

The character's on a very slippery alignment slope, however. Chaotic acts will push them toward chaotic alignment much faster than a normal character (in human or beast form). Evil acts will push them toward evil alignment faster as well. What the uncontrolled CE werewolf form does while the PC is unaware of it doesn't count for this, but does haunt them terribly, with dreams or a strong reaction to stimuli like fresh blood. "Why do I want to lick that up?" might be the initial response, followed by a Con check to keep from vomiting.

So with a lot of determination, one can master the beast in my game and continue to be a PC, and even keep their alignment if they watch their actions carefully.

But now you have to do something to boost the rest of the party a little. At low level, werewolves are immune to most creatures' attacks and weapons. At higher level, that DR/silver is not really important anymore; most creatures' attacks now cut through that type of DR like a hot knife through butter. Still, the character's stronger than the others, so you need to do something to balance that out.

Legacy weapon [one that grows with your leveling] for the paladin. Ancient religious tome for the cleric that adds some druidic powers to their character. Ring that allows the wizard to apply metamagic spontaneously like sorcerers, or lets the sorcerer expend spell slots to cast some kind of spontaneous magic (e.g., summon monster I through IX for each spell level).

Something cool but not game-breaking that balances out the lycanthropy of the first character, esp. because those cool lycanthrope abilities fade in importance as you go up levels (see the notes on lowering the CR as the character levels up in "Monsters as PCs" in the PF rules).

He and I already discussed that he won't gain immunity right away for all forms...  If, after he realizes he is cursed, he chooses not to get cured then he will slowly gain the immunities as he learns to control the transformations