I have this rule when I GM that I'd sum up as "what the players don't know won't hurt them". I don't hide rolls but any information players aren't aware of is subject to change if I feel like it will improve the experience, I don't use it too often and no one has suspected it so far. For example, if an enemy wizard casts a spell they will reveal their caster level and that's set in stone, but all the unused spell slots are subject to change if the fight is turning out too hard/easy for what I've had in mind. This goes for every single variable like feats, pre-casted spells, maximum hp, literally anything where the hand hasn't been shown yet.Would you be angry and feel like you've lived a lie if you knew your GM did this or do you think it's fine? I wonder how many others do this, I prefer it a lot more to fudging rolls, you also need quite good system mastery to make large impacts in fights with subtle changes.
>>98368584... ok?So we are in "GMing 101" thread? This is literally the most basic shit to do at the table, no idea what you are expecting here, OP.
>>98368584You realise that this is counter-productive... right?I mean you are a never-game (your entire "issue" and example is completely retarded) theorycrafting to post another frog threat, but here is the gist of your "problem":Unless you have really good hang of the system you are running, you are needlessly adding busywork to yourself by re-inventing enemies every single fucking turn, rather than sticking to what's in theiir sheet.On top of that, your "issue" doesn't exist. It literally factors nothing and you aren't crafty or inventive by changing enemy stats or abilities. You are punishing yourself, while affecting nothing for the playersIn other words: they have nothing to be angry about, because what you are doing doesn't affect them at fucking all, while overloading you with needless busywork
>>98368584That's just basic stuff. Things becone real when they actually happen or are otherwise established in-game, not sooner. There's nothing to get angry about that.
>>98368606The weird part is most people who GM'd for me seem to have no concept of this. The amount of times I've seen people get stumped over their important fights getting rolled, or 90% of their hard worked on lore not getting used because the players didn't talk to the right NPCs, or players missing optional encounters which they spent time statting out that will now never get used, or players dying in campaigns where replacements are hard to justify, or how their campaign is now ruined because players murderehobo'd some important NPC(who wasn't revealed to be important yet). It's not just a combat thing either as you can see with the other examples, like if players miss some relevant lore, dump it from another source, if an NPC who was supposed to be important dies sweep it under the rug and move his role to some other NPC, if they don't do an optional fight repurpose it for a future fight, everything and everyone the players aren't aware of are replaceable. It should be GMing 101 but I have yet to see one GM out of 10ish I've had that didn't run into some of the issues they could have avoided by tweaking things on the fly.>>98368609>I mean you are a never-gameI'm in a game currently, GMed plenty too.>your entire "issue" and example is completely retarded) theorycrafting to post another frog threatAh yes, protect us all from the frog threat please dumb midwit sir.>adding busywork to yourself by re-inventing enemies every single fucking turn, rather than sticking to what's in theiir sheetIf you're anything past a beginner or you ever play anything besides D&D from time to time you will use non-bestiary enemies and it is literally LESS busywork to have flexible stats for your enemies and decide on them based on the situation and how badly you feel like murdering your players. That you seem to think every enemy should have a fully written out sheet means you're either a projecting nogames, a newbie GM or a terrible GM.
>>98368584noone is ever going to look at the module, or just notice that previously difficult encounters seem to get much easier about half way in?
>>98368758Not if running modules, duh, but I find those boring to run myself. And no, because encounters that weren't meant to be very difficult being so are usually the result of terrible rolls on one end and good ones on the other, so softening them by removing some elements that aren't even in play yet but would put the nail in the coffin is not really noticeable.
>>98368674>Going full retardIt's nice you didn't address either of posts you are replying to, so nobody can doubt what's going on
>>98368809You really like to project huh? First you project nogames while showing you have no idea how games are actually played, now I apparently didn't address the post(?) when I clearly addressed all your retarded drivel. You also conveniently seem to ignore that the other guy I quoted just considers what I do common sense so he also doesn't align with your retardation.
Quantum ogres suck.
>>98368584>Guys, what if water was wet?More news at 11!
>>98368877>>98368890>the duality of man
>>98368584>Would you be angry and feel like you've lived a lie if you knew your GM did this or do you think it's fine?Yes. You're a shitty person who lies to their friends because you think you know better than them. "People" who think like this are usually impossible to convince otherwise because they fundamentally lack the capacity to admit error when its raised by someone else. You're fucked and you won't be able to fix it.
>>98368994Is it a lie if no one asked? People have their preconceptions of how GMing should be done, if they were actually capable of noticing it and asked me not to fudge things I'd stop, but as this thread shows it's clearly not as clear cut of an issue as everyone so far presents it as. Literally every reply has been an extreme position of "duh it's the most obvious thing to do" to "actually this is shit, and you're a liar and not a real person, also I enjoy penis in and around my mouth". Also I'm perfectly capable of admitting error, you're just going to need to convince me as to why your idea of GMing is the correct one as you've not given an argument for it aside for labeling mine as lying when it's clear a lot of people even expect it. Do you think I should give a disclaimer on it every time I GM? I mean this unironically, like I said people don't actually think about this facet of GMing enough, so I'm curious how many people are straight up insulted by it like you are.
>>98369029Yes, That you're trying to convince yourself is clear evidence its a lie but you're going to try and dissolve it in solipsism. Try hitting yourself. Did it happen? Yes. Again, you won't accept this. You're a narcissist who thinks they can control everything around them with lies. That everyone is telling you to not do this and you insist on continuing and justifying it as the right thing would be indicative enough for anyone with an ounce of self awareness.
>>98368994One of us misread OP, but isnt OP just refactoring the world in his head instead of just improvising? There is no lying, the facts have not been said.>>98368877Not a quantum ogre, by definition changing something based on the actions of the players is the opposite of a quantum ogre.Is this the OP trying to create bait to create engagement and i am falling for it?
>>98369046>you're going to try and dissolve it in solipsismThis thread is proof to the contrary unless you're going to accuse me of samefagging half the people in the thread who called me captain obvious.>You're a narcissist who thinks they can control everything around them with lies.I actually almost never lie irl, it's just my GMing style, but thanks for the psychoanalysis mr. wannabe midwit Froid.>That everyone is telling you to not do thisAgain, read the thread. My tally so far is 3 people calling it an obvious thing to do, 1 utter retard who didn't understand the premise in the first place, 1 who only addresses modules, and 2 who are against it, counting you. And I'm the one in denial here?
>>98368584K faggot, here's a lust-provoking image
>>98369060Their example of undecided spell slots is an open invitation to make shit up to adjust the challenge to suit his perception of the player's desires. That's a lie. Its a shit game and he's a fuckwit so it lines up, but they're still a liar. Watch them cope about it like >>98369063
>>98369075If I'm the coper why are you seething and ignoring the observable truth? Are you that incapable of honest discussion?Also the smartest person in the world can't psychoanalyze someone from a fucking 4chan post about ttrpgs so it's obvious you're turbo butthurt and trolling from the first post while trying to maintain a moral highground, at least try to argue in good faith if you're all about honesty you fucking gaping pussy.
>>98369060>the spellcasters spell slots are always open to changeQuantum ogre. Your spellcaster npcs should have predetermined spellslots just like players. For instance if your players prepare a spell that will negate the encounter and your NPC spellcaster did not have a spell prepared to counter that then the players should be rewarded by negating the encounter. Having npc spellcasters able to cast anything at anytime to ease or harden an encounter is no different than having two doors and a Quantum ogre hiding behind both doors.L2GM.
>>98369091lmao that got you so hard you'll seethe about it all weekend.
>>98368985Those statements aren't in any way contradictionary, faggot
>>98369124Quantum ogre is one way to put it, but goes to an extreme. It's more of a quantum goblin, small changes not spells that un-negate an encounter, if your whole encounter that was meant to be hard gets negated by a single spell that is a skill issue on the part of the GM. More like the difference between the caster having the rest of his slots filled with less or more dangerous spells, not direct counters out the ass.
>>98369145My nigger I've argued with so many retards on the internet you are less than a drop in an ocean. Have this last (you) unless you actually want to discuss your point.
>>98369164>I said good day sir! lmao get bent
>>98369153>let me quibble about the definition My example was extreme to point out why its wrong. It dosen't matter if its small, It's taking away from player agency and dumbing the game down. Players should be rewarded for preparing for encounters well with spells, items, tactics, recon, etc... they should also be punished for preparing badly, having bad tactics, not looking ahead and being poorly supplied. Changing anything to make an encounter easier or harder for the players just lessens the experience for the players and the GM. I couldn't imagine how bored and over worked I would be as a GM if I moderated my players experience to this level.
>>98369198It does not "take away from player agency and dumb the game down" by definition unless you use it as such. It's obviously not the only balancing factor, just an added one, you can reward players for preparing for encounters well with spells, items, tactics, recon, etc. regardless of this, it's not mutually exclusive. I mainly use it as a way to offset extremely swingy rolls which most d20 games have, so I guess it comes down to the preference of how much RNG you are a fan of. And as I said as far as workload goes it's actually less if you're not using the bestiary for everything. I had a friend who would overwork himself statting out every enemy to death, giving them skill points and shit, fully detailed sheets in situations where he'd give us a quest to murder said NPC and like 20% of their sheet would come into play. It did not increase the quality of his game but it sure did burn out the shit out of him.
>>98368584>quandum ogreing spell slotsUnless you have the entire spell book fully memorised, I can't see the gain from this. Your players won't be angry at all, but you will be paging through the book every single turn, which slows shit down and then you will have to re-adjust amyway
>>98369259For systems I'm savvy with I'll definitely know the good options from the bad, not just with spells, various class features. And I only GM systems I am savvy with so it's not really a problem at all to pull out of my head or find the spell on an online srd during player turn without slowing anything down.
>>98369284You are missing my point:I'm not asking if you know which spells are good. I'm asking if you have the whole book memorised, which is unlikely. And that means you would have to keep searching for the spells each time you adjust.The big benefit of having this shit pre-written is that you don't have to look for replacement.
>>98369294You're missing the point yourself though, you don't need to know every single spell in order to make a caster easier or harder to fight, just some good spells and some bad spells. And like I said I can remember/search for those extremely quickly, especially since this is something to do in reaction to how a fight is developing, I'm not gonna be waiting for the caster's turn to be finding a replacement if I feel like it's needed.
>>98369246>it's a balancing factorIt's bad no matter what you call it. If a player prepares a spell that negates something the NPC caster would do but the GM didn't have the npc have the spell prepared, having the NPC caster suddenly have the spell needed is taking away player agency. NPCs should have prepared spell slots determined before the encounter just like the players. This is no different than having 20 more goblins materialize in a goblin encounter because your players are having an easier time with the encounter then the GM thought they would.>I use it to offset swingy rollsLol? So you are just fudging dice rolls in a roundabout way. Lame.>the work load? Literally 99% of everything thing you need for monsters/npcs is pre figured in a book in almost every ttrpg or has a simple roll table to create your own. It takes little to no effort to stat a generic monster/npc. Creating unique or modifying a NPC is likewise piss easy. Modifying a spellcasters spell list in a game prep before a session starts would take me literally 10 seconds. You save no time or effort Quantum ogreing their spell list. It's as simple as "hmmmm what would this high level necromancer have as in his spell book. Did he expect to be attacked? Etc..." and add spells accordingly. You acting like this is an insurmountable amount of work just makes me think you've never actually prepped anything before and your just white boarding a thing you've never done.
>>98369381>If a player prepares a spell that negates something the NPC caster would doYou're repeating yourself, asked and answered>This is no different than having 20 more goblins materializeYou keep using extreme examples to support your point as the right one, why not an example of cancelling reinforcements of another 5 bandits if the original group is proving to be more than a handful and you don't want things to drag/TPK? Is that also always unacceptable to you?>Lol? So you are just fudging dice rolls in a roundabout way. Lame.I consider it strictly superior to fudging dice because 1.it doesn't deprive players of seeing the opponent dice rolls 2.it rewards system mastery 3.you're not actually backtracking anything, you're just leaving space to tailor what isn't set in stone to the situation>You acting like this is an insurmountable amount of workMy nigger, you're the one who can't stop talking about how much work my method is and bringing up work not me I could make everything static easily if I wanted to, ahem "I couldn't imagine how BORED AND OVER WORKED I would be as a GM if I moderated my players experience to this level."
>>98368584I'd be annoyed.It suggests you're not prepared to commit to your decisions having consequences, which is bad for the game and makes my decisions seem less meaningful.I also dislike the implication that you know how to "improve the experience" in a way that's not simply playing the game I agreed to play. In particular the implication that you'd make things easier so I can win and feel better is maternalistic and gross. Just play the game instead of trying to manage my feelings.
>>98369458Oh, it's not about the player's feelings per se, I love murdering players. It's more about smoothing out the edge cases of a meaningless fight becoming jarring due to rolls and taking too long, or in what probably would be pretty controversial if you knew about it, toning down difficult/boss encounters to just hard from a TPK. Some groups like frequent TPKs but ours mostly did not, so when my friends GM'd most of the encounters would be on the too easy and boring side for me. So my method is to usually start with an assault rifle then tone it down if it's looking like everyone's gonna die, though even in my games TPK is still a possibility with bad enough rolls, I just get a higher than normal amount of gruesome fights that end up not wiping.
>>98369436>You keep using extreme examples to support your point as the right one, why not an example of cancelling reinforcements of another 5 bandits if the original group is proving to be more than a handful and you don't want things to drag/TPK? Is that also always unacceptable to you?As already stated. Yes. Can you read?>they should also be punished for preparing badly, having bad tactics, not looking ahead and being poorly supplied.You've never prepped a game in your life. You've never played a game in your life. You are just a shit posting frog spammer.
>>98369503As already stated. Yes. Can you read?Interesting question from someone repeating themselves so much, you did not state why it is unacceptable though. As I said it has nothing to do with player agency unless you specifically make up examples that remove it. Toning down an encounter behind the scenes =/= complete agency removal.>they should also be punished for preparing badly, having bad tactics, not looking ahead and being poorly supplied.The example did not state they did any of those badly, you can prepare for anything and still get fucked by dice. Preparation just affects the expected difficulty, not how it will play out in every situation.>You've never prepped a game in your life. You've never played a game in your life. You are just a shit posting frog spammer.I already knew you were the guy I humiliated in a reply chain before then came back pretending to be a new person btw, thanks for confirming it.
>>98368584You are right to do this and anyone who says you are wrong is dumb. I've bee doing this for over 20 years and it works great and everyone at the table is happy.
>>98369491>tone down fights to avoid TPK>because players don't like itHow is that not about your players' feelings?Your response doesn't really address my issues with the idea.
>>98369559Nonononononono you don't get it, they're fake happy, they need to take the red pill and live in the world of shitty games where a fun campaign ends to a random orc beheading two party members and his planned reinforcements hunting down the rest.
>>98369566Because feelings in this case are secondary to game integrity. Everything is about feelings if you broaden it enough, but my point was it's not there to mother them, it's there to prevent the campaign from ending while being able to have more challenging fights and soften d20 rng a bit without rewriting the systems.
>>98369528Changing an encounter is directly taking away player agency. Hardening it or weakening it on the fly takes away from their choices of how they got there for better or worse. No matter how you are doing it, be it changing spells, pulling ogres out of your asshole, or having bandit reinforcements disappear. How is this hard to understand?>but TPK!!!Don't play games where players can die? Why have the illusion of it to begin with? just have your players be invulnerable juggernauts who don't have to worry about death. >the dice!!!Use a better system? Or don't use dice at all if you don't want unexpected outcomes? >your some other guyNot him you schizo shitposting retard.
>>98368584I wouldn't be angry, per definition. But I would probably start looking for a different GM. I GM myself, and this type of "solution" is something beginners often pull to make sure their challenges are, well, challenging, but also to prevent their own mistakes in world building from being a TPK. In short, you shouldn't need to do this, and doing this fosters a behaviour in your players where they will eventually learn that they can never really outsmart an NPC (because you will adapt their skills and abilities so it stays challenging) with their own characters, and they are never in any real risk (because you will swap out game ending stuff for milder versions). The challenge and the rush is gone. Players must be allowed to triumph when their characters outshine the NPCs, and they must be allowed to die when they fail. That is the nature of the game, and bypassing it does neither you nor your players any favours.
>>98368805Personally i notice it. Especially since we're talking about 5e, a DPS race game. If an enemy rolls a couple of big hits early on and suspiciously cant replicate it three turns later AND has a statistically unusual number of failures to restore a breath weapon, and that happens across three or four encounters? I'll notice the pattern. I cant speak for everyone, but i dont like it. If you'll change fate to ensure i win you really dont need to string me along and have me fill a seat for that, its a waste of both our times. Slightly insulting too
>>98369654>Changing an encounter is directly taking away player agency.What gives more of a feeling of player agency, TPKing to a random encounter you took every precaution for or having it pass without too much fanfare, maybe having a bit of a scare because of some terrible rolls? The player agency is rewarded by the initial intended difficulty of the encounter being easier/harder. Like I keep saying, later modifications are mutually exclusive from the initial situation/stats which is impacted by player agency.>Don't play games where players can die? Why have the illusion of it to begin with? just have your players be invulnerable juggernauts who don't have to worry about death.Because ironically in practice every campaign where the GM/players are attached to it turns into your players being invulnerable juggernauts who don't have to worry about death. This has been my experience with the vast majority of them. This way you can actually add more player danger/deaths without straight up ending the campaign. But the danger is STILL there only LESS LIKELY because the established stats can still end up getting everyone killed if the rolls get really bad.>Use a better system? Or don't use dice at all if you don't want unexpected outcomes? No such thing as a perfect system.>Not him you schizo shitposting retard.Nah you just bring up the exact same things he did multiple times, but it's okay since I can never prove it, so I don't really care. If I'm right you will know and that's good enough for me.
>>98369595But changing things in the middle of the game works against game integrity.>it's there to prevent the campaign from endingWhy do you want to prevent that if not to spare feelings? How is it not mothering them?
>>98369671Weapon attacks set numbers in stone though, like I said I don't hide dice rolls. But you could never know how dangerous the big hitter's friend is if he hasn't even acted yet. If done well you have to be psychic to know.
>>98369667>they will eventually learn that they can never really outsmart an NPCThis would only really happen if you're way to overt with it, I don't mind if players want to outsmart a difficult encounter to make it easier, if anything I'd encourage it since it isn't something people usually go for.>and they are never in any real riskCorrection, they are at less risk, but what is established is established, you can get TPK'd by a house cat in theory if you roll bad enough.>>98369739Oh, I meant integrity in the sense of the game literally ending. I don't really believe in absolute "integrity" in the other sense when it comes to collaborative roleplaying games where everyone is meant to have fun. You can't really divorce feelings from a hobby like this unless you're wargaming instead. And I personally wouldn't mind playing a low commitment high campaign turnover for a while where lethality is huge and TPKs are frequent but I haven't had a group that would prefer something like that yet.
>>98369786>You can't really divorce feelings from a hobby like this unless you're wargaming insteadThat's not the point. Your motivation for breaking - or at least bending - the rules is to manage people's feelings. You're mothering them.If you want a campaign that can't randomly end, design so it can't. Play a system where failure in combat isn't necessarily lethal, and design scenarios where enemies aren't fighting to the death. Let failure exist.
>>98368606Due to the way the hobby grew.exploaively from one shit edition of one game, much of the common wisdom is now rare. I keep running into new gamers saying things like "I get my players to throw damage and to hit dice at the same time!" Or "Hey, before you start your campaign, check what characters the players are bringing and make sure they fit!" As if they've devised the next step in human evolution.
>>98369730>TPK to a random encounter L2prep. I don't need to read anymore. All your problems stem from not knowing how to prep a game properly. If you prep properly you won't have such major issues where your players need you to modify the game in play for them to make it harder or easier.>all games turn into Your "games" turn into that.>no such thing as a perfect system Never said that. I said find a better system that fits you and your "players" play style. There are an infinite number of them. You'd know this if you actually ran and played games.>I can never prove it.Because you have zero prep material because you don't run games.
>>98369834>You're mothering them.I wouldn't really go that far with it as you implied at the start, I don't micromanage their feelings, plural, and fuss over every little thing, the only feeling that matters in the situation is they prefer more stable campaigns that have a low chance of ending. Would it not be mothering all the same if I just made all encounters easy as most people do for groups like this? My motivation as stated is to have encounters that put the party through the grinder but have about the same lethality rate as the average chill adventure path.>If you want a campaign that can't randomly end, design so it can't. Play a system where failure in combat isn't necessarily lethal, and design scenarios where enemies aren't fighting to the death. Let failure exist.I do when I can but it's not always an option, and as I said failure is always an option, just less than what first impressions might give, I just try to keep it on the level of the average planned to be long-term game.
>>98369850>L2prep. I don't need to read anymore.You are retarded and went from talking about player prep to GM session prep with no apparent reason? What are you even talking about, what prep?>Your "games" turn into that.Pray tell how do you get a consistently long-term, say D&D campaign where the players aren't amazing at cooperation or decision making without making the combat a cake walk? Your batman prep work? I would wager that most people prefer stable campaigns to slaughterhouse ones at this point. And a big reason I dislike adventure paths is for this reason, they're all cake walks aside for sadistic 2e and earlier stuff.>Never said that. I said find a better system that fits you and your "players" play style. Yeah well I can't choose what the whole group plays. It's funny you keep projecting with this nogames shit when if you actually played you'd know this isn't how things work.>Because you have zero prep material because you don't run games.What are you even schizoing about now, I was talking about your obvious samefagging.
>>98369880>I wouldn't really go that far with itThat's a difference of degree, not of kind.>failure is always an optionNot what I meant. Failure in your game is still a possibility, but it's a design failure rather than a play failure; crash to desktop rather than game over. Being willing to live with it does not change that.
>>98369949>you are retarded Random encounters shouldn't result in TPK in 90% of cases. They should be rolled ahead of time using your approximate understanding of how hard you and your players want the game to be. If your players TPK due to random encounters and you have to fudge things for them not to die then its a prep problem. >how do you run a long term campaign. Specifically d&d? Prep. You can easily prep every encounter to whatever degree of difficulty for your players. Your players are low IQ? Make the encounters straight forward and simple. You also don't need to make every encounter a life and death encounter or a combat dependent one. A goblin ambush could be about trying to enslave or rob the players and not specifically kill them. I Prep that kind of stuff for my kid and nephews. How do you not know this? This is GMing 101. Fudging and quantum ogreing things is something a newbie GM does.
>>98369998Yes, but isn't that all the difference? Can't not mother your players even a tiny bit if they're the kind of group that acts like kids a lot of the time. Which I guess we kind of are compared to most ttrpg players who are like 40+.>>98370009>Random encounters shouldn't result in TPK in 90% of casesYou do realize 10% is an extremely high rate right? Average D&D games don't have a life expectancy of only 10 combat encounters.>Your players are low IQ? Make the encounters straight forward and simple.I wouldn't call them high IQ but they're actually pretty good at optimizing. Which is the issue because optimized combat is like rocket tag, and the more optimized the higher the variance if you want the fights to ever not be extremely easy.
>>98370109>Can't not mother your playersSure you can. You don't want to. Maybe they don't want you to. But don't pretend it's impossible. Don't tell me that's not what you're doing. Don't get defensive when you asked how people here would react and I told you how I think I would react, and why.I'm not trying to tell you what you must do to play True RPGs, just that I think you and your players would be better off acknowledging that you don't want the campaign to end because they lost a fight and playing so it can't. Whether that's having them captured, injured, robbed, or just left for dead while the enemy achieves something, I think making a "TPK" into something that doesn't end the campaign is a better solution than trying to adjust the difficulty to avoid one.
>>98370282Never said it's impossible, and I agree that I should try to have people captured, injured, robbed, etc. more, I thought about this before. Didn't plan around this when I started the longest running campaign I did though. Also I still think it's kind of limiting in terms of encounter setup to never ever make use of what I described, but even then I said in the OP I used it rarely, it isn't necessary most of the time. I still think it's an alright tool to use from time to time as a difficulty adjustment if you're not always using it as a crutch or being blatant.
>>98370109Lol. Lmao. Do you think a 1/6 chance to get a single number on a d6 means when you roll it 6 times youll get each number once?Anyways you should only be pulling random encounters once or twice a session and those shouldn't always be combat encounters.>I wouldn't call them high IQ but they're actually pretty good at optimizing. Which is the issue because optimized combat is like rocket tag, and the more optimized the higher the variance if you want the fights to ever not be extremely easy.Prep harder encounters? Why do you need to fudge anything? Heres a novel idea to make encounters harder and stump players. Don't stick to RAW monster stats. Give an orc plate armor. Give skeletons poisoned blades. Give a wizard a wand of fireball. Little tricks like that will cause even very optimized players (5e players) give pause. Just be sure to describe it well to your players when they encounter that kind of stuff. Kind of a rug pull to describe mundane skeletons only to then let them know they actually have +5 life draining vampire blades when damage is rolled.Anyways I'm done arguing with your obviously engagement starved ass. I hope my tips might actually be of use to you if you actually run a game or to anyone who might happen upon them.
>>98370563>Lol. Lmao. Do you think a 1/6 chance to get a single number on a d6 means when you roll it 6 times youll get each number once?I... what? No tpk in 90% of cases means 1 in 10 is a tpk, what in the failed elementary school math am I even reading with those d6's?>Prep harder encounters?I do, which causes much bigger variance, your level of optimization doesn't matter much if you went last and ate shit. And I rarely stick to raw stats anyway, prefer to use PC class levels for enemies since know their numbers and features well enough.
>>98368584i have this rule while driving to pay attention to other traffic
>>98368890I'd be scared if water was wet.
>>98369786>This would only really happenIt doesn't matter if it happens or not. Not being fair is not being fair regardless if someone finds out about it. Do you not understand these things? If I fuck your girlfriend and she never tells you, did she then somehow not cheat because she compensates by blowing you regularly? You're a shitty GM if you're not fair and you should fix that. You won't of course, because people like you never accepts culpability for anything. Always deflecting, or motte and bailey arguments.
>>98371276Do you have any reading comprehension? You quoted me replying about NPCs outsmarting PCs which makes no sense and is in no way a consequence of doing what I do unless I go out of my way to do it, which I do not.Learn to read or stop injecting yourself in hours old arguments.
>>98369746what are the odds that EVERY fight we mog has a powerful assistant, and every fight we struggle with has a bitch assistant, and that it's revealed midway through EVERY time? its not magic, its pattern recognition
>>98368606OP just wanted to argue.
>>98368584This is fine for beginner DM with beginner party. Everyone does it, it's normal.You might set the difficulty of an encounter lower or higher than you had intended. Your players are likely too retarded to understand that some encounters are too difficult or that they can break off a combat if it's going poorly.Once you have a good enough grasp of how to set power levels of encounters and you have a party that can actually think and take responsibility for the consequences of their actions then it' no longer required.
>>98369317The point, you retard, is that unless you know the spell book by heart, you are going to act like every single fucking faggot paging through the rulebook when trying to cast spells, except you are the GM.You would know that, if you ever played any-fucking-thing, rather than talking about purely hypotetical shit
>>98372793I wanted to collect opinions, and my conclusion is that the majority of people see it as common sense while there is a very vocal minority of uh, neurodivergents, who will get very angry and/or insulted at anything less than having a magically pre-genned set in stone setting like they're playing a module (never mind that modules often require you to improvise as well if players go a bit off script). Obviously I'm willing to argue my position but how do you explain most people calling what I do common sense if I'm only here to argue, I'd pick a hipster minority opinion to argue if that's my goal.>>98372730That is a single example out of possible hundreds where you can change a factor that has not been established yet. I used it to demonstrate what one would be since you used an example that would already be set in stone and thus not qualify.
>>98373064I don't care about your PTSD with caster players, I told you 17 times that I do not need to page through fucking anything to know enough wizard spells off the top of my head. If you find this feat of system mastery too far fetched to believe you might be retarded and we have nothing more to talk about.
>>98373072Nta, but ask me how I know you don't play anything at all and don't know any spells either.Go on, ask me this
>>98373068>I wanted to collect opinionsYou wanted to have a shouting match with people on the internet which is pretty common and understandable way to spend one's free time, so I don't know why do you try to hide it's been your goal.
>>98373068>there is a very vocal minority of uh, neurodivergents, who will get very angry and/or insultedI take offense at that!I'm neurodivergent and I GM in exactly the same way as you. >>98372730Use your imagination. There's always SOME variable you can tweak.And it's not cheating, either. The GM is a game designer, and they're not perfect, and so game design doesn't end when the session starts.
>>98373149I don't need to ask you anything, I've played various ttrpgs for like 10 years now. If your big gotcha was gonna be that wizards cast from the arcane spell list not their own list it's just phrasing you stupid sperg.>>98373154You ignore actual arguments and just repeat yourself like a broken record, so even if my goal was to argue it would still be better than yours which is to pretend to argue and just be a retard.
>>98372509>You quoted me replying about NPCs outsmarting PCs which makes no senseRetarded reddit tourist. Is there no rope you find yourself inexplicably attracted to?
>>98373784>lelelele lebbitYou do know there's a reason people ask "who are you quoting?" at random greentext right?Anyway, it appears your brain is broken and you've resorted to the primal response of screeching reddit, and the only rope I'm attracted to is the one I'd use to whip you like a dog which your parents should have done so you didn't turn out like this.
>>98368758>Rawdogging a moduleUtterly fatherless.
>It'a nother frogshit thread about nothing in particular, existing solely so OP can argue with everyone over nothing... and then fags like you wonder why frogposting is a sign of mental disability
>>98374546>wah wah the thread angers and confuses meCope, Apu is more /tg/ than you'll ever be.
>>98368584What the fuck, you don't fully populate the entire breadth and depth of the world flawlessly on the first try???
>>98373842>people askYes, the reason is that they are tourists, just like you. Lurk moar and learn chan culture, or go back to wherever you came from. Greentexts is not and has never ever been a way to precision quote, and anyone who demands it to be used that instantly out themselves.>you've resorted toI have pointed out that you do not belong. No one will take anything you say seriously until you learn how to when in Rome.
>>98368584In theory I don't think this a problem, but in practice many GMs overestimate their ability to hide the trick. You might think you're slick for changing max HP on the fly, but players might silently pick up that fights with a lot of crits and nova spells end at the same time as fights with bad rolls and almost no resources used. Trying to be be consistent, even when the players aren't looking, just makes it easier on GM (for the same reason that telling the truth is usually easier than lying on the flying).
>>98368606This is a board full of 5e players
>>98378786then why do people keep talking about other things
>>98378508>Yes, the reason is that they are tourists, just like you.It's been a meme longer than you've been alive, and before /jp/ became a board.>Lurk moar and learn chan culture, or go back to wherever you came fromOh the irony, back to your minecraft youtubers junior.
>>98375049... and so you posted Battle Brothers image?Much of a tourist one can be to confuse /tg/ with /vst/?
>>98378828We've lost a bunch of regular threads in the last 6 months.
>>98384723prove that the 10 years before that were any different
>>98383548cope and sneed
