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  =)