This is for people to ask questions and for advice that is short and easy to deal with. If you feel like the situation can be dealt with in a few lines then put it here. If you feel like what you're asking will end up provoking an indepth discussion then pm me and I'll set up a new thread for you.

I'm in a game with an absentee, well, an absentee GM and several absentee players. It's pretty much just me and one other player keeping the ship afloat. Should just start my own game, having it be a re-boot of the original, or volunteer to be the primary GM?

Hi Liz, I guess it depends on a few factors.  In the current game are you already a co-GM?  If you are not the you won't have the GM functionality of adding new players, creating threads etc.

The next thing I would be interested in is your plans for the game.  Does the game work GM-less (as you are doing now)?  Does it work with two players or would more players work?

I'd also sound out the other player and ascertain their interest in carrying on elsewhere.  And there is also the current GM to consider.  Have they just abandoned your game or abandoned rpol altogether?

I also think you need to consider your own enjoyment if you want to be a player still in the game if you GM as well.  Depending on the game you may lose the ability to be surprised!

I am sorry if I have given you more questions than answers!  To sum up, if the game works between the two of you as-is then it may be better to carry on.  Your biggest risk is the original GM turning up and deleting the game / threads, changing the direction you want to go in.

If you want control over the scope of the game then starting again may be best although you lose the history of your current game (unless you already are a co-gm then you can download the history and save somewhere).

I'm not coming from a position of massive experience but I hope this helps Liz.

Rather than parrot everything Barry's said. I'll simply say that he's got the right idea.
First you need to try to contact the GM, via rmail probably and see what their status is.
Then get a head count on the players and what they'd like to do.

Until you have those you won't really know what your options are.

Alright, thanks for the info. ^_^

The above have covered most of it.
I'd emphasize the point of "will you still have fun as the GM rather than a player?"

You'll also want to see if the game is marked as "personal and intellectual property," since if it is, you're technically not supposed to continue it.
You can look for the P in front of the game from the main menu, but also check above roster in The Cast to see if it says anything.
(I've noticed some games say they're IP in The Cast, but don't have the P in the main menu. Anyone know how or why?)

If you do end up rebooting or something, it's a good opportunity to correct any flaws of the game. Namely, what might have caused the game to die in the first place (though in this case it might have just been an inactive GM).

How do you make images look like images, instead of links?  I feel silly asking.

Copied and pasted from a game I'm in....

Also, feel free to upload pictures into your character description. You may upload four pictures if you desire. It seems Photobucket is a good venue and its free! simply upload your portrait to their site and then copy from the bar that's labeled 'IMG' into your character description.

 Use what's written here and after album/ incorporate the rest of the link from your IMG tab.

(example)

   <.img src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/     ">

(add the last quotation and bracket after inserting your link! Also, so the link would show up in this, a period was added before img, remove the period to correctly upload your photos.)

 (The above is what you'd use to prepare to upload your link into your character description)

 (then paste whatever the IMG link is)

 n205/peanutspo/Peanuts.jpg[/IMG]

(Combine the two together)

 <.img src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n205/peanutspo/Peanuts.jpg[/IMG]">

(

Note: Photobucket is no longer a good suggestion but there are others available like imgur.
This message was last edited by the GM at 17:05, Thu 02 Nov 2017.

Aw, thanks man!

Note: this is not the place for that question. Rpol has that info already detailed I believe. Please keep things in focus.

I have a question about the apparently high attrition rate among players.  I have tried to be more strict about my acceptance policy, and have started requiring new players to show high initial investment for the first 2 weeks after joining a game to show that they are actually interested in participating in the game, and not just sitting around like dead weight.

Other than stricter application processes, does anyone have any advice on how they have dealt with this?

I find that being active in your game helps a lot.  Chatting up folks in OOC threads, for example, gives the impression that you're around, and approachable.  By seeing the game "active", players are more encouraged to participate.

Sadly I have not always been as active as I should have been, as GM. >.>

One thing to be mindful of hemophage is extensive RTJ's put prospective players off.  Of course it's the GM's game but I find several paragraphs of rtj requirements to be off putting and I won't bother.

In part I guess it comes into the way I play.  If something seems more rules than fun it probably will be and might suggest something about GM style.

Still, if you find a good way to retain players please share it!

Something I did when I was still GMing, to help make players feel like they were contributing, is have a thread that allowed them to request threads if they wanted their characters to go someplace I hadn't thought of, but still makes sense for the game's setting.

In reply to Liz (msg # 14):

Yeah, that is a good idea.  And that premise is the basis of the "West Marches" style of campaign.  You give the players a whole bunch of rumours and information, and let them decide where they want to go.  Some info might be of interest to certain characters, who could then invite others to go with them.

It cuts down on the amount of GM work you need to prepare.  It also allows you to have a larger group of players, and multiple GMs.

Adviser, can we please have a separate thread pertaining to "player attrition?"  I feel like it's one of the worst hurtles to deal with as a GM on rPol.

I agree with a lot of the responses.  Another thing that can help is to "overstaff."  Invariably, no matter how good a game is, some players will fall off.  If you have more players involved in the game than you otherwise would, you already have enough people to keep things moving.  I agree with pdboddy about being active;  I've been in games where a player will drop, and the GM let the pace drag while finding a replacement.  Once the GM lets the pace falter, the attrition rate starts to compound.

Personally I think you're on the right track with the extensive RTJ process.  If a player falls off because they're getting bored during the RTJ, I would assume they weren't going to be the most committed player, and any time you can get rid of a player who's likely to drop before they even integrate themselves into the game, you've nipped the problem in the bud.

Sounds like a good idea, there's a new thread for it now. So go nuts.

In reply to Barry (msg # 3):

Okay, it's been nine days sent I sent the GM an rMail, no reply, and it's still just two players, and the game's starting to get really boring really fast.

In reply to Liz (msg # 18):

Well, it's up to you.  Has the game been good?  Enjoyable?  Worth letting it sit on the backburner a bit?

All you have to do is pop into that idle game every day, maybe message from time to time in ooc threads.  Eventually the GM may return from whatever emergency or thing took away their free time, and they'll see (hopefully) some folks are still about and perhaps willing to jumpstart the game again.

There's nothing stopping you from joining active games, though.  You don't have to sit around bored. ;)

   That's true, you don't have to sit in a game and wait - I've joined several to keep my attention while some of the others are sitting back and the post rate has slowed. Some of the other games are fast-paced and are keeping my interest, so I can let the slower ones slack a little.

   But even in those, I poke in twice a week, post if necessary, and move on. I've been here about a year, and I've only dropped out of 2 games in all of that time - both of them having GM absence issues.

I think Liz, in the context of your original post it maybe time to move on and just start your own game.  You were very much in a 'stick or twist' situation with the GM disappearing.  I think that since you have sent the message and if you feel the game needs more players and you want some control over the game it is time to start your own game off.

Good luck with it Liz, if that is what you choose to pursue.

From a GM POV, Liz, 9 days isn't a huge amount of time for a GM (or anyone) to be missing. There are a good many RL events that can keep someone off-balance for that sort of time.

To put it in perspective, the Mods will not transfer game ownership until a GM has been missing for three months. So even if you were a co-GM (and if you're not, the Mods won't transfer ownership at all) there's no way you could take over anytime soon.

But OTOH, you're under no obligation to stick with a game, or a GM, if you're bored.
The best thing you can do, as Barry suggested, is to chat with the other player and see what the two of you prefer. If you decide between you that you'd like to set up on your own, do it.

Liz,

I am currently in a game now where the GM has disappeared on 2 different occasions without warning.  The RTJ thread was set up Oct 26, 2013.  Real life emergencies happen.  I have been lucky both times as the GM has returned.  If the game has been fun for you, let the game be idle and post every now and then to keep it active.  Your GM may show back up.  But only do this if the game has been fun.  You might get lucky too.  My GM has an advantage as this is a game using the system I GM, which every GM wants, to play in their chosen system as a player.  I requested this GM to run the game.  And the character concept is one I have been wanting to play for over 20 years.  So his chances of losing me as a player are slim to none.  If he needs a break, then so be it, I can wait.

I'm considering running a Mage the Ascension game (M20, specifically), but it's likely to be heavy on combat. I am... not known for my strength when it comes to combat-heavy games, particularly at the snail's pace that RPOL can sometimes run at. Does anyone have any suggestions for making M20 combat work in this setting? Or am I doomed to a Discord game? :/

What is the problem you are running into specifically?

General advice for any combat is never expect players to post in initiative order and do as much as you can to pre-declare reactions if possible. But I don't know the details of M20 other than where they cross with V20.

I'm less concerned with the rules themselves and more the speed slow-down that occurs when battle occurs. Unless it's a one-round battle, which I dont think I've ever encountered, this sort of slowdown can be a game-killer.

Several options: 1, accept the slow down. 2, have everyone send you the declaration of their actions. This allows you to post the description of actions all at once in an interesting fashion, but requires a lot more work. The 3rd option is to mix a bit of both but cut it down to three phases. Opening midpoint and endgame. This speeds things up and also keeps it somewhat cinematic, without causing the players to feel like they aren't in control. Those last two do require more work for the GM, but they do make the game more enjoyable.

In reply to Storyteller (msg # 26):

It depends why the slow down is actually occuring. There are several possible reasons.

This might warrant its own thread.
Hopefully get things flowing here again.


Have an Unstable Setting

I forget where I heard this one, probably a YouTube video.

But yeah, the idea is to have a setting that is unstable. A brewing conflict may be on the verge of erupting, or already has. A drawn out conflict is close to a deciding point. A safe place is no longer safe, or just never was. Whoever was in charge is no longer in charge, and others vie for power, affecting everyone. The setting may be an unknown frontier (to the players).

This is opposed to say a peaceful village with no real troubles, a well fortified base camp, or a powerful kingdom that’s been ruling peacefully for some time.
Now, you might have a peaceful setting that is then thrown into chaos shortly into the game. However, I would make the case to have the setting in disarray from the get go. I think there would be more for the players to build off of during character creation, they can have more meaningful goals, etc. I also think there would be more for the GM to build their world up from.

Having a stable setting can make the players unnecessary. If the setting has been handling itself and its problems for some time, what’s to say it can’t continue to do so? The players are more replaceable. Also, it’s hard for players to change something that’s been secure for a long time.
In an unstable, more dangerous setting, the players are more necessary because they’re all that’s available. They also have more influence on how things play out, more able to cause change.

An unstable world also invokes more uncertainty, more risk, more danger, which is generally more exciting. In a stable setting, if you fail, you might be pulled to safety to recover, or even if you die, backup can just come in and solve the problem.

I think an unstable world would cut down on aimless wandering too, since players won’t be waiting for something to happen, meandering. The GM will have more to work off of too, more to throw at the players.

That’s my string of thoughts on the matter. It’s advice I wish I had heard earlier, because I’ve run into problems when running relatively peaceful settings.

Good advice, WW. Only thing I'll add is maybe starting with only a few rumors of coming trouble. Example: your small peaceful farming village has heard from the traveling merchants that the kingdom to the north has been in disarray from their king dying and the dispute over the succession. Recently bandit raids at the border have increased as people have been fleeing their homes due to the war. They are desperate, and they are heading towards the village.

This gives you the best of both worlds. Your PCs have a semi-stable base to operate from, their village, yet there is a reason for them to adventure. The war and bandits to the north are threatening their friends and family. You could even have their ruler calling up the levy for defending the country.

This doesn't just have to be a war, it could be an increase in (insert monster here) attacks in the area. Or rumors of a dragon being seen. There are many places to take this.

Mm, yeah, foreshadowing, good idea.
Might give some flexibility to tweak things before they actually hit too (or discard them if plans change).

---

I'm usually of the mentality of letting players (as opposed to allied NPC's) do the heavy lifting when it comes to solving whatever problem is at hand, be it fighting, planning, etc.

I may have taken this idea too far by trying to have players do everything and NPC's little to nothing. A player pointed out to me that if an allied NPC is useless (either not performing the role they ought to, or worse, they're detrimental to the players), they can be frustrating to have around. Especially if the players are calling on them to help.

I figure there's a balance to be struck.
One solution I've heard is have NPC's be competent but a step or so below PC capability. And/or filling the roles the players don't want to fill themselves (healer).
Alternatively, the PC's might be given a task only they are suited for while the NPC's handle other business. (E.g. the NPC's hold back a horde while the PC tries to pick a lock open.)

So i'm having a power vacuum issue. I have 1 player who can't roll for squat. While the other players have normal rolls.

Do any of you have recommendations on how to handle this. The god roller is one shotting stuff all the time. Last session he took down 2 boss type characters on his own. The other 4 players took on the last 2 bosses.

I just do not know how to handle this without specifically targeting the god roller.

This is almost certainly an imagined problem. Don't take any action. Luck is luck.

I'm with Sir Swindle. This isn't a problem. Today it's excellent rolls for one character, tomorrow the rolls are against him. Hell, as far as I can tell, the only time I get a successful dice roll on RPOL's dice roller is if the roll is entirely unnecessary. When it's a roll I really need to succeed at it's 1s all the way down.

In reply to Limey (msg # 32):

I guarantee that it's not about their rolling ability. If rolls are the only issue and it's not character design or just give it time. Things will revert to the mean.

One general solution to players tearing through monsters, or failing to tear through them, is to make the goal something other than harming the other side directly. If the goal is to get in, grab a McGuffin and get out, of example, rolling to hit isn't necessarily the primary method of victory.

When statistics are involved, the reason why large data sets are used (thousands of data entries) is to even out the 'streaks'.  The 'god roller's' luck is only temporary.

Also to be clear "rolling ability" really means cheating. Since no one is 'better' at rolling dice than anyone else. If you suspect that the god-roller is actually cheating then it's a different issue.

If you actually take action to curb the god-roller's genuine good luck then you as the GM are cheating. You aren't being fair to your players. You are being a dick.

Slightly more helpful solutions...
If you are playing d20 and you don't like how swingy the dice are you can damn near convert to 3d6 or 2d10 without taking any other action, not even changing the system just hacking it on. Like you have to change the Crit success and crit failure ranges if they exist in your system but otherwise everything works as normally.

That has the effect of normalizing the rolls. Basically they are always going to be rolling 11's and 12's 2 or 3 times as often as normal.

Or you could use the final solution and move to a diceless system.

I'm looking at starting a new Discord game, but the only days I can actually game are Saturdays - and two of the three remaining Saturdays this month are Christmas and New Year's Eve. I do not live in a Christian country, so for me, it means nothing - they're just another day. But most of the folks I expect to involve will likely be from Europe (and possibly the US), thanks to my availability. Would you play a game on either or both of those days? Should I wait until after the new year to start the game?

And on an unrelated note, if you were in a Discord game, would you prefer to play weekly or bi-weekly (i.e., every other week)? I was thinking of bi-weekly, but I'm open to advice in this.

First. Saturdays are both hard and easier to get people for. Easier to get people to join, harder to be consistent. I run a Saturday game and have often had the players have to call off due to RL events with family. But Saturday is often a non work day so more people will have it off.

As for the Holidays. Start it after the new year. Certain months are just harder to get games in. End of October through New Years are the busiest, with June through August being often vacations. Expect the delays and just plan for them. If you have the majority of players available go ahead and run it. Just don't penalize those that can't make it.

As far as your question on weekly or bi-weekly, I find that Weekly works best for me since bi-weekly I always wonder if it's the on week or off week.

Thank you.

Hi all  =)  Just joined so it is great to see everyone  =)

I have a bit of a question...  I know the direction I am leaning for a ruling but I'd like to get opinions from other DMs...

My players are currently in a fight where they are hiding in/around some wagons while the bandits are hidden in the trees.. One of the characters had the idea to send her Unseen Servant into the woods with her tinderbox and the following instructions...




I see several ways to rule this...

1) The command is considered an attack and the Servant cannot perform attack instructions

2) The Servant can only accept one instruction at a time and there are 3 instructions in the post ("Go", "Set their arrows on fire with this", and "Be quiet"). Therefore "Be quiet" overrides the other two commands

3) "Go" and "Set their arrows on fire with this" are the same command but is still overridden by the last command of "Be quiet"

4) It is all one command but too complex for the Unseen Servant to accomplish

5) It is all one command that is able to be performed but is unspecific as to whom "their" refers so it lights the closest arrows, which are her fellow PCs

6) It is all one command and is able to be performed as instructed

Am I missing something or just totally overthinking it?
This message was last edited by the player at 15:52, Sun 08 Jan 2023.

I cant answer most of those things, but I would say that is most definitely not an attack. It's not an attack to set kindling on fire, right? Or a match? So why is an arrow any different? (That said, a flaming arrow isn't an ideal situation in a forest...)

My thought would be to just let it happen it seems cool and like a fun use of the spell. By let it happen I don't mean it works, I mean give them a roll like a stealth check for the unseen servant against the perception of the bandits (I'd probably give the servant a flat d20 roll  since it has no stats and the fact that it's invisible is what gives it the chance to sneak up on them in the first place). If it works then maybe one of the bandits takes a little fire damage as the arrows light up before they manage to put it out. From there there will probably be a short panic/distraction as the bandits try to figure out what happened, hear the unseen servant and destroy it which would give the party a chance to act/escape if they're smart.

In reply to Advisor (msg # 43):

I think the bandits would get a pretty good bonus since there would be tinderbox floating through the air at them...   lol

You'd be saddened and disturbed by how oblivious people can be. I shaved over the weekend (I teach in a country with Friday and Saturday off, rather than Saturday and Sunday), and the first of my students to notice didn't realize it until dinner. *facepalm*

I agree with Storyteller, I doubt most people would notice a floating tinderbox in those circumstance. There's a lot of foliage in the way and they're more interested in what the armed people over there behind the wagons are doing.

I wouldn't reject the idea based on rules lawyering. They could rephrase the command ("Sneakily set the enemies' arrows on fire."), or break the steps up over rounds.
There seems to be enough wiggle room on the servant's capability to get it done.
Also, "...you can mentally command the servant to move up to 15 feet and interact with an object."

Plus the logic of "say 'yes' more," and it sounds like it might be a fun idea.
I'd agree in a life or death fight with concealment involved, a little floating tinderbox, even a little growing fire, could go unnoticed (maybe d20 with advantage?). Dropping flaming tinder into someone's quiver (unnoticed) might be a bit tougher.
Rolls could determine just how well/poorly the plan goes. (How many people he sabotages before being noticed. Maybe the smoke ruins the enemies' stealth.)

Maybe the servant holds a little fire or waves a little flag behind the enemy to give away their position. :-P

Now that I have a few opinions from others...  I had debated all of the options above at one point or another and was leaning towards #5...  Allowing it but ruling it not specific enough of a command for the servant to get right...  I had thought to light the arrows of the two archers right next to her...  or, since the bard can't see the "their" whose arrows she wants lit, to have it light "their" arrows that had just missed and thunked into the wagon behind on her during the last round...   lol

I do like some of the ideas y'all tossed out as well... I'm waiting on 2 others to post actions for the next round so I still have a bit of time to ponder if anyone has other thoughts/ideas they want to toss out..

I wouldn't do #5, personally; at the very least the spellcaster (?) is probably looking in the direction of the target, or pointing, or something. That said, there's no reason it couldn't light arrows on fire that have already missed (or even hit), as those still qualify as "their arrows."

I worry something backfiring like that could frustrate the players (wasted turn and spell slot). Especially since it's a matter of rules interpretation.

My inclination would be to read the player's intent and try to help it happen, rather than nitpick reasons for it not to work, or worse, backfire. Work with the players, not against them.
If there are problems with the plan, bring them up, see if the players can address them, maybe put your own solutions in too.
If a plan is totally against the rules though, or utterly doomed to fail, then yeah, say as much. Leading them down a doomed path without warning could be frustrating for them.

The exception might be if the plan backfiring would be funny hijinks. That depends on the group, game tone and general situation. What may be funny for the GM might not be so funny for the players.

Yeah exactly, the idea is for everyone to have fun and to tell a good story together, without breaking everyone's suspension of disbelief - I'd say getting an unseen servant to light a couple of arrows on fire falls into that category. The other thing to consider is the players are not their characters and we need to allow some leeway for that. What I mean is the player is not a spellcaster who has studied how things work and practiced with those spells seeing the limits of what can and can't be done. So I would never say to anyone 'oh you didn't word this exactl right therefore it does not work or it backfires horribly' (the exception would be obvious monkey's paw effects that the players know ahead of time like using the wish spell for something oher than its stated abilities or trying to make a deal with a devil). Instead I would work with the player to determine the intent as Window Watcher said and tell that player if their character would or would not be able to accomplish their intent.

In reply to LissaAzules (msg # 41):

Allow it, but talk with the player: what is their overall goal?

I'd base their progress toward success on the level of the spell and the level of their opposition. Is the goal to destroy their ability to fight back? That's more than a simple spell can accomplish, but it can certainly make progress toward that. I'd say on success they could reduce the number of opposing archers by some percentage, or give all archers a penalty on their damage rolls. If the effort fails (and I'd call for a roll related to the use of magic, or stealth or leadership, or maybe several, possibly with cooperation from allies) the desired effect still happens, maybe to a lesser degree, and the enemy is alerted, gaining an initiative, perception or defense bonus.

The point is that I would allow a clever idea, but not allow a resource to have a disproportionate effect, without a lot of skill, coordination and luck backing it up.

Thanks for all the advice...  Gonna talk to later about it  =)

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