pointless rolling

>>45031088
He sounds like a fag

He's wrong to argue with you, but his arguments themselves aren't wrong. You sound like a pretty awful DM to play with.

>>45031088

So you took 15 minutes to make him do three rolls that didn't matter at all, and you're mad at him?

>I make a camp site
>Okay, you find a nice campsite up a slope, with cover, etc.
>I catch fish for the party

aaaaaand we're done here. gg@gm

It absolutely sounds like you were just slowing shit down for pointless randomization. Take 10 is a rule for a reason, and rolls should be pivotal and important for sure. That's what gives them weight and excitement.

If you want to see what kind of campsite he gets and you can't just make it up, then YOU make the roll behind your screen. All the arguing you did was distracting and childish. Did you learn how to play this game from Big Bang Theory reruns or some shit?

>>45031088
You sound like an awful fucking GM.

>>45031204
>>45031284

This. "more things to do" is not equivalent to "roll more dice," it means GIVE HIM MORE, MEANINGFUL THINGS TO DO. Things that MATTER, not tabulating how many fucking tuna he can fit on his dick.

>>45031088
Did he lecture you afterwards, or in front of everyone? If afterwards, then he's actually fairly respectful.

If in front of everyone, then he's a cunt.

He still abided by everything you said, and his charges about you being uncreative aren't true, if he's talking about the die rolling, but you're slowing down the group and holding the action hostage to the die rolls, which is bad GM'ing. You should only have people roll die when it's interesting, or when there's a chance for meaningful failure.

>>45031462

Have you seen a tuna? Balancing one on your dick would be borderline superhuman, let alone multiple.

>>45031088
Rolling for this sort of shit should occur in 2 scenarios.

1) The party is in a highly dangerous area, such as the Underdark, where campsite choice is pivotal to ensure survival.
2) The party have got something on their trail or are transporting something valuable, wherein they can reasonably expect to be attacked during the night and thus campsite choice and preparation can be valuable to them

Beyond these 2 scenarios, all you're doing is wasting time with maths that doesn't add to the experience. Now, some parties might like that but if your party doesn't then limit it to the 2 instances above.

Some people say to do it to add tension. I say that if theres no cause for the party to be tense about it they'll just be confused and possibly annoyed.

>>45031088
Why would you make people waste so much time with dumb dicerolling that affects nothing? I'd have hated your GMing too.

File: 1440788035242.jpg (156KB, 705x1056px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 705x1056px

You both sound insufferable to play with kek

>>45031088
Players are mollycoddled unimaginative, unappreciative cunts. Back in my day, your DM didn't have to serve your every whim, you made your own damn fun with what you were given.

>>45031088
3.5 is also a simulationist system, if your player doesn't like roleplaying downtime activities and fieldcraft, then I can suggest that he plays Diablo in his basement where nobody can hear his neckbeard.

>>45032123

>dnd is simulationist

2/10 made me reply

>>45032540
http://www.scholastic.com/parents/resources/article/developing-reading-skills/improve-reading-comprehension

Arguably 3.x/Pathfinder is when compared to its peers.

>>45032609

Which peers are you comparing it to?

>>45031088
Reading your story I kept thinking the Ranger would be the one on 4chan complaining about his idiot GM. First few lines gave me such cognitive dissonance with the rest.

Ranger guy is right, sometimes you're the retard.

>>45031722
To be fair, he's level 6 and most regular humans are level 0. I think he could balance a tuna on his dick if he took the right feats.

>>45031196
Man this guys contrarion viewpoints really make me rethink my tastes

>>45031088

When my players take a crap I make them roll a d20 to see how many turds come out.

>>45032540
It is. It just does it very badly. One of the big problems 3.5/PF has (aside from a terrible class balance) is the designers trying to make a simulationist system and insisting on there being skills and mechanics for any possible situation (if you can do it, there should be a mechanic to represent it). But they failed to make the mechanics actually, you know, simulate reality with any accuracy.

The end result is enormous amount of skill- ad ability bloat where you have a ton of really niche skills and the stablock of every high level monster contains half a page worth of skills and abilities (do we really need to know that an Illithid Elder Brain has like +30 on a disquise check? What the fuck would it even disquise itself as?), and situations like an assassin being unable to slit the throat of a sleeping victim unless he turns the lights on because you can't make sneak attacks against a concealed target and being in a dark room grants you concealment.

>>45033174
>situations like an assassin being unable to slit the throat of a sleeping victim unless he turns the lights on because you can't make sneak attacks against a concealed target and being in a dark room grants you concealment.
That's some grade A bullshit right there.

>>45033225
And that's why 3.5 RAW is such bullshit.

>>45033225
OK, if the target is sleeping you cna argue that you're doing a coup de grace instead of a sneak attack, which would work, but you still can't sneak up to an unsuspecting victim on a dark alley and slit their throat because concelment.

>>45033225
Welcome to the 3e experience.

>>45033336
Yeah, since that's when the alley's so dark you can't see them properly, even standing next to them. 'dim light' in dnd is a misnomer.

On top of that, you'd be able to kill an average commoner with or without sneak attack, and a decent level person wouldn't die to it anyway (unless you're playing an assassin). Whether that's good or not is a matter of your opinion.

>>45033336
>but you still can't sneak up to an unsuspecting victim on a dark alley and slit their throat because concelment.
Appendum: unless you're an elf, dwarf, tiefling or one of the other races that has darkvision (or have a spell or magical item that grants darkvision). In that case it's fine since you ignore concelment granted by darkness.

>>45032960
What feats would that require? Come on /tg/, you're supposed to be good at this.

Apply yourself.

Some players love rolling for every nonsense thing. If you like that randomization and that sort of level of player interaction then that's great.
I'm glad you are all on the same page.
However, some people don't and often this sort of person prefers to have more interaction with the story. Allow them to describe the sort of camp they make, what sort of fish they catch, how they are thinking and so on. Don't be afraid to let players contribute to the world and to their experience of it.
A third type are those who are literally only in to kill monsters and collect fat loot. If they seem to be this type, don't bother with them outside of combat encounters. Try to make the combat encounters interesting for them, if you are interested in keeping them down. Rarely a subtype of this who only exists to win social combat encounters. You see this sometimes in WoD or CoC or Eclipse Phase and stuff.

>>45031088
>"Do you not understand? I can automatically succeed because it's such a basic task."
The player sounds like he's burned before by GMs going "LOL you rolled a 2 you fall into the stream and lose your supplies" when he could have taken 10 and got "a reasonable camp" going.

I've seen too many GMs asking for pointless rolling, and the more things you ask for rolls for the more likely that person will get a 1 and you can point and say "now something terrible happens to you."

>>45031750
>that doesn't add to the experience.

Subjective

>>45032008
>so much time with dumb dicerolling that affects nothing? I

You mean dice rolling that isn't COMBAT COMBAT COMBAT? Oh shit sorry, forgot that was wrong to do.

>>45033139

Except this was camping stuff, not taking a shit. It's how we've run rangers for a while. I see no purpose to playing a class, then complaining when you get to actually do the stuff that class is good at.

Or we can just remove skill checks altogether and freeform everything that isn't a fucking combat encounter.

>>45033643
You did read the next sentence, right? I literally said ''If ye like that stuff, though, go for it.''

>>45031462
Maybe the GM was seeing if he'd roll a 1 and have to fight a dire tuna.

>>45033622

I didn't know flavorful camping description was nonsense.

I was hoping to make it more interesting as I had with the party in the past, but unfortunately I got cockblocked at every turn.

>>45033638

Except he had +8 so the lowest he could've rolled was a 9; which would find him a crappy campsite that might get a bit wet, but nothing truly abominable.

> I've seen too many GMs asking for pointless rolling, and the more things you ask for rolls for the more likely that person will get a 1 and you can point and say "now something terrible happens to you."

Well, I don't do that. At the very least, you have to roll again and get another natural 1. Which is a 1 in 400 chance of happening. And even *then*, it's likely to be only a minor fuckup, like dropping your dagger in the stream and having to swim down to get it. And maybe there's a stream-bed barnacle-type monster waiting to try to grab you. Who knows.

>>45033695

Well, that was the problem. We all liked it but this guy seemed to hate it. I don't see why he wanted to play a ranger in a low-powered 3.5 campaign if all he wanted to do was be a second-rate combatant and track on occasion.

I even had a specific encounter set up so he could use his favored enemy. I dunno what his problem was.

>>45033760
He was in the wrong group and ended up being That Guy, though he seemed to have good intentions.

Talk with the whole group about it next session, get the general consensus and adapt if needed. If the majority say to stick with it, say to yer man that he might want to find a different group.

>>45031088
Sounds like a playstyle mismatch. At a guess, storydude may have played with a DM that required trivial rolls and punished him for low results, or a DM that spent waaaay too much time on them, so now he gets grumpy about trivial rolls. Or it might just be a preference.

Neither approach is wrong, IMO. Trivial rolls can add a sense of interactivity to the setting and give contrast to the high-stakes stuff that important rolls are for, but if you gloss over them, it saves time and can give the players a greater sense of agency, especially if you let them narrate.

If storydude shows up next session, I suggest you keep doing what you're doing--since the rest of your plays like it--but let him Take 10 and don't question it. If he gets snippy about being asked to make a trivial roll, immediately assume he's Taking 10 and move on.

>>45031462
If the party had no other food, I'd make the player roll to fish, because then it's a matter of life or freaking death.

Finding a campsite and trying to fish and all that shit is so second nature that my players just immediately roll and give me the result. They understand that their character is using their skills to do the thing they want to accomplish, there is never any "my character can just DO that"

That's why there are skill rolls. Because there are bad rangers and good rangers. Bad rangers all have survival, but good ones may have 5 in survival instead of 1.

Anyways, DM, you don't tell the person to roll survival to catch fish. You put him on watch for anything in the area, and make sure random shit stands out so it puts him on edge.

The
>You notice a red bird staring at you

Works well.

As well as

>The ground where you're standing is starting to feel a little unstable

And

>You think you hear something in the trees, but it fades

>The water nearby makes an odd splashing, not like a fish

Anything other than

>You find a campsite
>You fish

>>45033705
Or a half-tuna half-candiru

>>45033920
I have developed an entire runaway campaign based on a players suspicion of a bear that kept following them through the woods.
It was originally just a bear, but I made up a bunch of shit about it being an evil druid and went along with his paranoia. In the end, he felt vindicated because he "caught my plan," and said I was really good at planning and shit. When in reality, I was just creating situations based on what he would've expected I planned.

It's great fucking with players expectations and looking like a great planner.

>>45033920
>there is never any "my character can just DO that"

You can when you take 10. So you don't fuck up doing something in 1 every 20 rolls even after spending 9 skill points in a damn thing.

>>45033952
Taking 10 is the exact opposite of "my character can just DO that"

It's implied he's doing it, but very average, and can be outdone.

Taking 10 is what you do when you want the most basic, average and expected result from your skills.

The "make people roll 20 trivial rolls per session so they eventually roll a 1 and I can fuck with them" thing is pretty common among bad GMs, even if they don't phrase it like that.

Reassure him that's not what you're doing, because I almost guaruntee that's what he's worried about.

>>45033952
As a DM I reward players for rolling, BIG time. None of my players take 10 because of this.

The Half-Dwarf (Mule) wanted to fish and fuck around with a net, and he rolled a 25 Survival instead of taking 10. I made sure he knew he caught onto something heavy, and with the help of the others, they ended up hauling out a chest.

I would have never given them a treasure if they "took 10"

OP is a shit DM and has probably never gone camping IRL

>>45033890
>Roll
Most animals barely have surviva, they also don't have rations, are you assuming they roll? so half the population of animals die of starvation everyday (because half roll above 10 and the other half roll below 10 ergo don't find food)?

Life and death situations don't work like that btw.

>>45034032
Animals don't need survival because they walk in one direction in their movement speed until they find something to attack, deal enough damage to, and eat.

>>45033822

Oh I agree, and I'd be willing to just chuck the wilderness survival shit. But the fact that he got in my face about narrativist GMing and telling me how I should read John Wick shit just pissed me off. I'm starting to wonder if he's worth accommodating at all.

>>45033855

I agree. This is an important point. Not everything that might fail, is a fucking defuse the nuclear weapon roll. Also rolls are there for more than pass / fail, as 90% of /tg/ likes to harp on about all the time.

>>45031462

They were in the wilderness living off of rations. Should they get lost they might NEED that food for later. Which this idiot denied to my face because he said "there's no way we can starve to death because we only take nonlethal damage which can't kill you."

I wanted to bring up that every day without food or water in my houseruled 3.5 drained 1 point from all physical ability scores, but I figured it'd just seem reactionary at that point.

>>45031426
Be honest OP, do you have horrible critical failures on skill checks?

I bet you do you asshole

>>45034007
Are you implying that you need to go camping to be qualified to DM?

>>45033996
Nice. That'd be pretty cool.

If it was a ''we need food or we'll die'' scenario, would you give them an assload of fish instead or something?

File: british_satisfaction.png (283KB, 472x530px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 472x530px

>>45033991
>Reassure him that's not what you're doing, because I almost guaruntee that's what he's worried about.

Alright this is good advice. Thank you, I will be sure to mention it to them.

>>45034007

Kek. I've been camping three times in my life, which isn't many but it's some. Yes real camping in a tent. With bear bags and shit.

If I'm such a shit DM why have three people been putting up with it for years and in fact encouraging me to DM more?

>>45034032
>so half the population of animals die of starvation everyday

You're a fucking idiot. Nothing starves to death in one day, save for maybe a chipmunk.

When I was 8 I trapped a mouse in a box in my room and tried to see how long it would take it to die of starvation. It lasted 3 days.

> Life and death situations don't work like that btw.

No, but they can be important later.

>>45034047
Did he do it in front of the rest of the group? If so, he has no respect for you as the DM and should be kicked. Its one thing to ask why you need to do something, its another to outright ignore Rule 0 and shit talk the DM in front of the group.

Beyond that, he needs to chill the fuck out. Is he oldschool? He seems to have that ''the DM is the enemy of the players'' attitude that I've seen in a lot of oldschool players.

>>45033973
>Taking 10 is what you do when you want the most basic, average and expected result from your skills.

Except it isn't when there are just binary results of did you succeed or did you fail.

>>45034059
"we need food or we'll die" doesn't happen, really. Starvation in DnD takes weeks.

Maybe, thirst. That's possible, and occurred on a desert planet they were on.

I randomize loot, so, if there's a chest in the water to be fished up, it stays a chest. I don't cheat like that. They'd be happy enough with the chest that they'd forget about food/water for a while.

If you just give them what they need it can become obvious you're not actually planning. You just subvert their expectations and reward them for actually rolling, because, they are risking something instead of "TAKING 10"

I really don't like taking 10, unless it's a specific racial ability like those apes from 3.5 have where they can always take 10 on climb even in dangerous situations or something.

>>45033973
When you have a +8 on a skill "taking 10" is actually an 18, and that gives you food for you and 4 more people without problems.

Also an 18 on "finding a campsite" means you have the ritz of campsites.

Rolling for useless shit is useless, I bet you people think rolling for climbing (when taking 10 gets the job more than done is awesome) it isn't, I lost a couple of characters because my GM thought it was funny rolling to climb, guess what, when you have to roll 20+ times is probable you will roll a nat1 which means you fall, which means, depending on when you rolled the nat1, death.

>>45034055
>Be honest OP, do you have horrible critical failures on skill checks?

Nope. See above where I talk about how a nat 1 on a skill check is just a reroll, and another nat 1 MIGHT have some effect. But certainly never an instant suicide.

> I bet you do you asshole

K.

Keep beating that strawman.

>>45033920

Interesting. So if there are bad rangers, who have survival 1 or whatever, and its a level 6 ranger with +8 top roll, what's the point? What does this do when you can just say they notice something unusual and have an encounter because its interesting? Why make a roll and decide to go from there or not? Why not just have the encounter, or if they're a good at rangering, give them the option of avoiding an encounter, setting up an ambush, etc?

Dramatic tension is good, but it doesn't just have to come from the off chance that a guy good at in the woodsing has a 10% chance of having a bad day.

>>45034032
What, you think animals don't sometimes starve to death?

If the player was RPing a mountain lion in the wild, he'd be rolling Survival once a day.

It's a matter of life or death. That's part of what makes playing a mountain lion interesting.

>>45034113
>you only have a DM that gives binary results
>your DM doesn't reward you and give extra candy for really succeeding versus just succeeding

Sorry. Maybe you can play monopoly.

>>45034135
>going this closely to the book
Why roleplay

When my players get in the 20s, they find epic shit and get stuff they didn't expect that you won't find listed in the book, because that's what good rolls deserve.

Roll for climb, yeah. You may succeed faster, find a quicker root, find different hand holds, find a new path before others climb up, who knows.

But you probably have an uncreative DM too.

>>45034101
>You're a fucking idiot. Nothing starves to death in one day, save for maybe a chipmunk.
If nothing dies of starvation in one day then the "you can't take 10 because is life or death situation" is stupid, so guess who is the stupid here? (you)

OP confirmed shit GM with shit houserules.

>>45034146
>Why make a roll and decide to go from there or not?


This question...

Just throw out dice altogether.

>>45034160
>"why roleplay"
>Rolling means roleplaying
You heard it here, guys.

>>45034187
No, I meant that literally. Why play a Tabletop Roleplaying game, not "why roleplay a character."

And, by the way, because I'm entertaining you as a moron, ROLLING is what leads to ROLEPLAYING in Dungeons and Dragons.

>>45034115
>Starvation in DnD takes weeks.

Starvation is 21 days tops, a DC 15 Con check each day or lose 1 point from all physical ability scores.

The "you killed some more monsters so now you can go way longer without food" HP-based starvation is absolutely idiotic.

>>45034135

>when you have to roll 20+ times

Okay 2 things:

1) I told him beforehand that success was basically guaranteed. It was a fucking MoS roll for gods sake.

2) Rolling TWENTY times for climbing is obviously going to result in a natural 1. And a natural 1 is not an automatic failure on a skill check.

>>45034209
>>Starvation in DnD takes weeks.
>Starvation is 21 days tops

So, weeks.

>>45034138
>OH NO
>someone called me a shit GM!
>Better lie out my ass and call them a strawman!

You're not fooling anyone.

>>45034160
>When my players get in the 20s, they find epic shit and get stuff they didn't expect that you won't find listed in the book, because that's what good rolls deserve.

That's nice, except... just don't let them do that over and over and suddenly all the streams in the world are full of treasure chests with 1000 gp.

I know that isn't what you are doing, I am just saying that can go out of control.

>>45034209
>DC 15 Con check each day or lose 1 point from all physical ability scores.

That is not what the fucking rule is for lack of food. You don't even start STARVING until you reach a certain number of days.

>>45034055
People who don't like critical failures on skills are pussies.

At the same time, a 5% crit fail chance is too high.

So if someone rolls a 1 on a skill, I make them roll a fumble check: they roll again, and if they still fail, something bad happens. If they roll a 1 again they make a fumble check or something even worse happens.

>>45034237
They are rewarded for rolling high, every time. It's not always loot, it's not always good fortune. But in some way, they will benefit from rolling. Over the course of playing in 7 or 8 month long campaigns, they definitely notice their benefits versus "taking 10"

Any good DM should be able to reward good rolling and properly, IE, not HORRIBLY fuck over players for bad rolling.

>>45034164

Oh shit I didn't know my GMing wasn't up to your satisfaction, dumb-ass. I said IF they fail to find enough food then they might starve LATER. See that's called fucking planning ahead. Some groups actually do it and think past the masturbatory "kill goblins take stuff seduce barmaids" shit. I've played in so many groups that didn't even make a fucking survival roll to do anything because they were too busy wanking to their backstories and basing their characters off of gay-ass anime and warframe characters.

Excuse me for trying to make the wilderness an actual challenge. It's an entire chapter in the DMG right up to the first edition of D&D. Do you know what OD&D recommended you have? a fucking copy of wilderness survival board game.

>>45033973
>It's implied he's doing it, but very average, and can be outdone.

And you don't NEED to have a goddamn masterwork nail every time you craft a nail, do you? You just need a nail.

Unless you want to have each nail give a +1 bonus to the cart it gets placed in due to how fantastic the nails are. I guess I can craft 400 nails and get a +1 nail for the 20 times I rolled a 20 and got a masterwork nail, and then the cart can get a +20 to its normal move speed.

>>45033996
Call me Mr Grumpy but I don't always think getting a campsite requires the off chance for SUDDEN LOOT on a 1 in 20 roll. That's just rewarding someone for being lucky.

I would rather actually hear in a tavern "and there was a big treasure lost in the river with lots of gold in it" and then fuck about with a search grid and a plan after gathering intel, and THEN get loot. That's earning it with player actions, not just luck.

Call me Mr Annoyed but if someone had 15 ranks in survival and he took 10, and got a result of 25 Survival then as you mentioned, no sudden loot is to be had.

What's the point of improving skills when you can take a couple of ranks and then rely on rolls to get better results or ok results than someone who's put 100 ranks in the same skill, and will not see any increase in loot or better things happening?

>>45034261
>fumble house rule
It's okay, but it seriously weakens the effect around the table of when everyone witnesses a player roll a 1, especially in critical or key moments of tension
>IT'S JUST A FUMBL IT'S OKAY
is not a good play style.

>>45034181

Nice post. All assertions, no points to back it up.

>>45034226

Three weeks. Maximum. And faster without water.

>>45034230

You said something actually false and I called you out on it. Deal with it.

>>45034209
>And a natural 1 is not an automatic failure on a skill check.
It's if the DC is 15 and you "only" have +9. If you fail for 5 or less you stop climbing, but don't fall, if you fail by 5 or more you fall, and as a 3rd level character I died.

>>45034101
>When I was 8 I trapped a mouse in a box in my room and tried to see how long it would take it to die of starvation. It lasted 3 days.
id imagine it was dehydration?

>>45031088
This had better be bait because this is like textbook shitty DMing and I can't believe anyone would honestly defend it.

>>45034246

That's what my rule is. It makes it so that someone with 100 hit points can't just go "lol I don't need to eat" and go on living forever.

The game had fairly realistic rules for suffocation and other shit, I figured hunger should get the same treament.

>>45034261

This is the way to do it.

>>45034300

Every post you have made is a point to backup the fact your a shit GM. I don't need to make a case since your doing it for me.

>>45034209
>And a natural 1 is not an automatic failure on a skill check.
It's actually a variant rule, don't act as is bullshit.

>>45034287
>And you don't NEED to have a goddamn masterwork nail every time you craft a nail, do you? You just need a nail.

Says who? Not the god of crafting or the best craftsmen in the land, no. Definitely not someone who is going to go down in legend as the blacksmith for an epic party.

>I just make normal nails, I don't need masterwork nails.

>I guess we'll buy the DISCOUNTED enchanted houseboat...

>Call me Mr Grumpy but I don't always think getting a campsite requires the off chance for SUDDEN LOOT on a 1 in 20 roll. That's just rewarding someone for being lucky.

That's all DnD is. Reward for luck.
If finding a campsite isn't adventurous, the game isn't really fun. You have to make every single mundane task have some element of surprise based on the dice.

>>45034300

You're a dumb lel so randum xD GM who essentially uses dice rolls to substitute for narrative

>>45034300
See, we only have your word to go on. And you've proven yourself to be a general unlikable asshole, which makes us not really want to believe you. So until you can provide solid proof to the contrary, I'm just going to assume you're lying.

Which you probably are.

You cunt.

>>45034265

That's good. Keep that up anon. You're a good DM.

>>45034291

>is not a good play style.

To you. Why can't you handle your character having a -minor- failure?

>>45034274
>See that's called fucking planning ahead.
My group does it, it's called all spending ranks on survival to be able to find shelter and food, we actually never pick rations because micromanaging equipment is tedious.

>>45034300
>Three weeks. Maximum. And faster without water.

SO, AGAIN

WEEKS.

You're a fucking idiot, and I feel bad for anyone playing with you.

>>45034344
>Why can't you handle your character having a -minor- failure?

Because a 1 is not a minor failure. Just like a 20 is an automatic hit, confirm the critical, a 1 is an automatic failure. You don't "roll again" to confirm the failure or confirm you fail even worse. That's really stupid and makes shit very complicated.

Just give them a hero point or two for doing good shit, and knock off this fumble thing.

>>45034320
>This had better be bait because this is like textbook shitty DMing and I can't believe anyone would honestly defend it.

Why, because you don't like it? There is no "textbook" on DMing, faggot, quit jacking off to Play Dirty and accept different people like different games. My group enjoyed our style of playing for years and will continue to enjoy it. It's wankers like you who have a fucking sperg rage the second the game isn't 100% related to MUH EPIC STORY and flip out at any roll that isn't directly related to saving the universe.

>>45034314
This.
it's the 3 rule, without food 3 weeks, without water 3 days, without air 3 minutes. It can vary though, but you get what I mean.

New guy sounds like the only one who knows what he's doing.

>>45034374
No but it's pretty clear

>ROLL TO FIND A CAMPSITE
>OKAY YOU FIND A GOOD LITTLE SPOT...

>ROLL TO FISH.

>YOU GET 2 FISH, BUT YOU COULD'VE GOT MORE

Is the literal worst way to DM.

>>45034323
>I don't need to make a case since your doing it for me.

Okay, then don't, But if you don't make a compelling logical argument then you have no ground to stand on.

>>45034326
>It's actually a variant rule, don't act as is bullshit.

It is, but it's better to do a confirm roll against another natural 1.

>>45034164
One of my most memorable sessions was spent almost starving to death in a mangrove swamp.

You just don't know how to have fun.

>>45034330

More projecting. I use the dice rolls to help drive the narrative, fuckface. If you have an issue with us describing something other than constant epic action, go watch a Michael Bay movie. I don't give a shit. Stop acting like your style of playing is objectively the best one.

File: 1452620246777.jpg (69KB, 640x720px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x720px

>>45033890
> it's a matter of life or freaking death
What's the most you ever went without food? I only start noticing the effects when I don't eat for close to two days, and still then eating grass or leaves helps to not feel weakened.

>>45034403
>One of my most memorable sessions was spent almost starving to death in a mangrove swamp.

And when my player rolled a 26 survival, in the same situation, he found mangoes. After two sessions of rolling poorly. And it was the most celebrated find. It beat out the gold later.

>>45034387
He has stated its what his group usually goes for though. Hes trying to run simulationist.

D&D is a shitty system for that but still.

At the end of the day, the new guy should find a new party if hes opposed to this approach and its what the rest of the group wants

>>45034341
>So until you can provide solid proof to the contrary, I'm just going to assume you're lying.

You're the one making the assertion that I have nat1=death bullshit. Even though I specifically said I don't here: >>45033741. Which was before your original post complaining about it, I'm pretty sure.

> You cunt.

Nice insult. Grow up.

>>45034412

>projecting

What inner psychosis am I projecting on you, Freud.

>playstyle

You can be replaced with a dice roller and random encounter tables. You're a bad GM

>>45031088
You sound boring as shit which is exactly what I'd expect out of an E6 player. Ranger finds a camp, catches fish, and we move along with the fucking game. Do you have them roll fort saves to see how long they sleep?

Dude is totally in the right; dumbshit rolls like that slow the game down and don't add a damn thing. Try adding content to your games instead of adding 50% useless slogging. No one cares how many fucking fish their character catches in the river.

>>45034374
>halting the game to force a player to do something pointless that he doesn't want to do
The Worst

D&D is supposed to be about adventure, not boring minutia. That's why shit like "Survival" is abstracted.

>I USE DICE ROLLS TO HELP DRIVE THE NARRATIVE

>AND I HAVE A SHITTY HOUSE RULE THAT YOU SUFFER HORRIBLY EACH DAY OF NOT EATING

>>45031088
Have to side with supposed fat neckbeard guy here.

Pointless rolling does slow down the game. Pointlessly, in fact.

>>45034448
Unless the survival roll, you know, yielded something. Like a defensible cavern littered with crystals in a dense brush of jungle vines that was previously obscured by fog until the hunter focused his senses.

But no. This
>"Okay you find a nice campsite up the slope, stream nearby, nice cover from wind because of pine trees, etc."

>>45034354

Three weeks.

Maximum.

And faster without water.

So more like three days without water.

You do understand that MAXIMUM implies <= 3 weeks which includes a range of numbers much less than that, correct? Or perhaps you just skip over numbers to go back to rabidly attacking me because I triggered some hidden resentment toward a past DM. That would explain all the bullshit projecting about "lol nat1 auto fail" that I repeatedly said I don't do.

>>45034370
>Just give them a hero point or two for doing good shit, and knock off this fumble thing.

Yes, never EVER punish the players, they are only good and only do good things and we should give them extra reroll meta-narrative points to make sure they never fail at anything! Because that would hurt MUH NARRATIVE.

Why do you even roll dice? To give false credibility to your shitty freeform? I don't mind freeform but people who roll dice and ignore them 50% of the time (i.e. every time they fail) are just idiots.

>>45034135
I would ask a roll for climbing in one of two situations: either the players can't afford to take time to climb slowly and safely (say, there's a monster charging after them and they have to quickly climb over a wall before it gets to them), or the climb is extremely difficult and can't be done without risk.

>>45034476
No, I understand WEEKS means 1-3 weeks, and I wanted to type WEEKS instead of 1-3 weeks because just WEEKS is easier.

Now fuck yourself, you're such a dumbass.

>>45034387

>Is the literal worst way to DM.

Okay. Prove it.

My group's been enjoying it for a long time. As did several outsiders who came to play before then.

>>45034414

WTF anon....

>>45034476
Nothing I said implied not punishing the player. I said if they roll a 1, they fuck up. Too bad. If they have a hero point, they can use it to reroll. If they don't, they fuck up.

This is DnD, yes? These are heroes, yes? Beyond level 1 heroes, right? They are probably somewhat gifted and fates have conspired to make them, you know, survive a few dangerous situations even if the dice aren't cooperating.

File: 1449872549658.jpg (46KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1280x720px

>>45034501
> WTF anon....

>>45034421
>Hes trying to run simulationist.

No, I'm trying to run vaguely realistic. Simulationist would be breaking your leg every time you fall and rolling to see if you can take a shit.


You can have realistic starvation rules that actually make sense, in the same game as heroic fantasy. It does work. For fuck's sake I remember them running out of food in the Hobbit at least once. It drove the plot. But I forget, anything that isn't either COMBAT CMOBAT COMBAT or deep political narrative, is a shitty way of driving plot because it's not constant epic explosion michael bay shit.

>>45034495
>No, I understand WEEKS means 1-3 weeks

1 week isn't weeks.

2+ weeks is.

Can you not do ANYTHING correctly?

>>45034501
>
My group's been enjoying it for a long time. As did several outsiders who came to play before then.

Because they have no clue you're a shit DM and you're probably their only DM.

>>45034425

>nice insult, grow up

Mr hypocrite pls look >>45034412
>fuckface

Pls

>>45034429
>You can be replaced with a dice roller and random encounter tables.

Except I can't? And I don't do random encounters anymore. Nice try.

> You're a bad GM

Prove how what I did was objectively bad in all cases. Explain why me doing something the ENTIRE GROUP enjoyed for years, and suddenly getting shit from a newcomer, justifies him being a shit in a group he's both a newcomer to and a minority in.

>>45034534
>You can survive without food for 1 to 3 week.

>>45034431
>Do you have them roll fort saves to see how long they sleep?

Will saves to avoid nightmares.

>roll 8
>"Ooooh... sorry anon, looks like you were restless and tossing a lot in your sleeping bag. Guess you don't gain any HP back from last night!"

>>45034532
Dude, Im on your side here. Calm your tits, you ain't doing your argument any help.

>>45034431
>Do you have them roll fort saves to see how long they sleep?

No, because that IS boring.

> Dude is totally in the right; dumbshit rolls like that slow the game down and don't add a damn thing.

They do add something, you're just too much of an action-obsessed pleb to see it. People play survival video games all the time, there's nothing wrong with expecting the player who's playing a FUCKING RANGER to do a little roleplaying of his fucking class.

>>45034300
>Three weeks. Maximum. And faster without water.
There was that one guy a few decades ago who survived almost two months with no food.

>>45034555
Sorry, but if your ENTIRE GROUP enjoys
>You find a nice little campsite. You can go fishing now. You find 5 fish.

Enjoys that, they are fucking retarded.

>>45034434
>D&D is supposed to be about adventure, not boring minutia.

And it was. The food gathering was part of the adventure. I'm pretty sure if you actually timed how long it took it would be barely 30 seconds; a fucking eye blink compared to the half hour you all spend jacking off in combat that IRL lasts about 20 seconds.

>>45034555

The fact everyone in this thread is telling you how bad of a GM you are and everything you are doing is badwrong is more than enough evidence that you are a bad GM.

No one cares to prove it to you because nothing would come of it anyway, you would probably still be a bad GM.

This thread solely exists to make fun of you now, no other reason.

>>45034532
>Simulationist would be breaking your leg every time you fall and rolling to see if you can take a shit.

Except that's not what simulationist would be at all, and those starvation rules are not realistic and will vary heavily upon build, race, class, and what kind of person the character is, as well as their mental resolve.

>>45031088

As a rule, I don't make players roll to do mundane shit unless they're in the middle of an encounter where failure would actually have consequences.

Making someone to roll to catch fish is fucking retarded, because what are you going to do if he doesn't catch any fish? Make the group fucking starve? What are you going to do if they don't find a "good" campsite? Make the group die of exposure?

If you don't have a quantifiable consequence for failure, don't make them roll.

>>45034467

Kill yourself. You kind of entitled shits are what's killing gaming. Oh I rolled somewhat high, I NEED to find a crystal-studded cavern with fucking 5000 hp inside so I can buy another +1 longsword.

A comfortable and defensible campsite has actual value as well, something you would realize if you had an ounce of subtlety. For example, cover, favorable wind, etc.

>>45034448
>Pointlessly, in fact.

The entire game is literally pointless, dumbass. It is about the experience, and we happen to enjoy that part of the experience as well. We don't "bog down" the game, we roleplay setting up camp on occasion because it's enjoyable to us. Sorry if it doesn't meet your requirements of everything being related to le important plot of allying the villages of the northern vale or whatever political intrigue shit you want. We have that too, but we also add detail to things beyond combat.

>>45034682
>Oh I rolled somewhat high, I NEED to find a crystal-studded cavern with fucking 5000 hp inside so I can buy another +1 longsword.

I didn't say any of this, but okay. I can see your DM skills at work in this epic narrative you're creating out of my words.

>>45034495

WEEKS could be 3 fucking DAYS if you don't also drink water. And even with water it's rare to survive more than 2.5 weeks without food. And high activity levels can make that go faster because you are burning more calories.

> Now fuck yourself, you're such a dumbass.

No I don't think I will. You made a giant temper tantrum over a minor detail that you could have gleaned by actually googling something instead of just yelling at me like a child.

>>45034612
You realise not everyone in here is against him entirely, right?

Like honestly, I like the idea of that sort of shit offering some benefits. In general it should be unnecessary imo but its still cool in concept.

Also, why would you say ''I go fishing'' and not expect to roll to see how well you do? If yer in a game where you track food supplies, that shit can be important.

>>45033664
If you made me roll an actual combat as level 6 fighter to beat a single typical household spider I'd also be mad as you, you stupid cunt.

>>45034580
How are dice the same as roleplaying? In fact the OP example is exactly the opposite; instead of describing what his character does, the player did an outline and a dice roll, with the DM doing the rest.

>>45034682
>I NEED to find a crystal-studded cavern with fucking 5000 hp inside so I can buy another +1 longsword.

>I found something exciting I can explore and learn about, maybe the crystals are connected to magical energy in the area or some kind of creature, maybe the cave goes further, maybe there is a unique pond or formation in the cave, maybe there's an animal that is rare and sought after, maybe there's a person, maybe someone owns the cave, maybe the cave is a creature

>I found flat land and I can go fish

>>45034682
My favorite part about this whole ordeal is you painting the neckbeard as the unreasonable one, and then you yourself acting like a petulant child when people call you out on your shit. You're a big fucking baby, tell the player to leave your game so he doesn't have to endure your reckless faggotry.

Only roll when the result will matter, never roll for unimportant stuff.

If he still gets things done with a fucking 1 DONT FUCKING MAKE HIM ROLL!.

>>45034518

The "fates" haven't conspired to do shit. Either provide an actual fluff-based reason that comes up in the game, or admit you are running narrativist shit. Which is fine, but you have to actually admit it.

In non-narrativist shit where the PCs' success is actually based off of their SKILLS not arbitrary "we're the heroes" crap, a natural 1 means no matter how good you get you always fail 1 in 20 times. This is important for balancing combat but for skill checks? Not really. Fumbles should be present but RARE, and MUCH rarer than 1 in 20. 1 in 400 means they come up once every few sessions, not several times per.

>>45034753
>In non-narrativist shit where the PCs' success is actually based off of their SKILLS not arbitrary "we're the heroes" crap

In DnD the fact your heroes survived to become level 1 adventurers is narrative.

Sorry.

>>45034721
Not even that dude but come on man.

Squashing a spider and trying to find a good campsite and fish to save on using rations are not comparable. One is every day bullshit, the other 2 are dependent on outside conditions, luck and the players skill.

>>45034714

Yes it is cool in concept, not only in concept but in actual practice for many RPGs, many RPGs that are NOT D&D.

If he wants consequences for poor rolls and exceptionally good rolls for mundane shit then play a fucking game that incorporates it correctly, not one that just wastes players time.

>>45034753
>In non-narrativist shit where the PCs' success is actually based off of their SKILLS not arbitrary "we're the heroes" crap

I don't know what setting you're using, but this is the same universe where humans can become gods. There is a god of fumbling associated with your fumbles.

>>45034539
>Because they have no clue you're a shit DM and you're probably their only DM.

Again, not true.

Also,

> they have no clue you're a shit DM

Hahahaha. As if they are just ignorant idiots who don't know what they want, and YOUR superior methods will surely show them the light. Just fuck off.

And they do DM with several others and they still prefer my DMing. And I've never heard a complaint about the RPing of camping stuff, it rarely lasts more than 30 seconds and helps add flavor to travel. You're just an ADD-riddled faggot who can't stand to go one minute without a major plot twist or horde of nameless baddies to kill.

>>45034543

Except I provided actual content response in addition. That's the difference.

>>45034789
>I'm such a good DM ur an liar! Not true!!!

>>45034713
So yes, it's weeks to starve, vs days to die of thirst. Didn't this start with you being pedantic over the length of time taken to starve, while now you're going back and admitting it's weeks?

>>45031088
You sound like the problem, not him.

>>45034579

I know, anon, I was using it to prove a point to the hordes of shitmongers who can't stand rolling for anything other than epik moaments :^) because they were raised on Michael Bay movies. Thank you for your support.

>>45034561

See that's the line between "Oh I am trying to add to the narrative with flavor" and "lol you get nightmares because fuck you"

>>45034789
>it rarely lasts more than 30 seconds and helps add flavor to travel.

Sounds like a waste of fucking time, then.

>>45034814
Just ignore him. I already stopped replying to him when he went on and on about the fact I said it takes weeks to starve. This guy is a young entitled DM who has no idea what he's doing and got told off by an older person.

>>45034580

>They do add something, you're just too much of an action-obsessed pleb to see it

Holy shit, please be a fucking troll. Not everything needs to be ROLLED for. It's sounds to me like you're more of a rolling-obsessed pleb. There are plenty of things you can do outside of combat, that constitute decent role-play, that DON'T require rolling for every mundane action.

Let's put it like this, people play D&D because they want to be heroes. They want to do cool shit (which isn't always combat). Nothing in the world is going to make someone feel uncool faster than getting them to fail on a roll that any normal person could do with relative ease.

It would be pretty fucking lame if a hero couldn't catch some damn fish? It's not called role-play at that point, you're just robbing the players of their fantasy. Who the fuck wants to role play a character that's so incompetent that they can't even start a fire, or catch some fish? You're just introducing the risk of failure where there doesn't need to be any.

Go fuck yourself.

>>45034593
>Enjoys that, they are fucking retarded.

No they aren't. They just enjoy flavor beyond constantly jacking off to killing shit or meeting new NPCs.

I'd love for you to show up for one of my sessions and waste a half hour driving there only to find it's a group of adults who enjoy ROLEPLAYING not baby murderhobo shit. If 30 seconds without a major plot event can't hold your attention you really need to get the fuck out of RPGs.

>>45031088
After reading this I expected to read everyone ripping your player apart and am surprised to see how many people are insulting you. I'm relatively new to TTRPGS (only been in 3 campaigns) but I prefer things the way you do them. Rolling for things like that makes survival a skill that actually seems worth investing in. I hate it when I invest in a utility or knowledge skill and it never comes into play. I also hate it when party downtime is just skipped entirely. I guess I'm just a role player as opposed to a roll player.

>>45034771
Ive been saying that, actually.

Honestly, I'd make it happen in like the Underdark where a good campsite could be the difference between waking up safe and being murdered in your sleep or accidentally eating poisonous fish. Bar that, its pointless imo and it doesn't jive well with D&D

Survival rolls are for exceptional circumstances, not mundane shit.

>>45034854
>They just enjoy flavor beyond constantly jacking off to killing shit or meeting new NPCs.

Nothing anyone has said implies their campaigns do not have flavor.

You're the only one stroking your cock over how detailed your 30 second campsite stops are during travel.

>>45034854
>If 30 seconds without a major plot event can't hold your attention you really need to get the fuck out of RPGs.

You sound like you suck ass at writing story, then, if your characters just go off to random places with nothing guiding their actions or desires.

>>45034612

Everyone? Really? You have IDs on everyone here? Nice.

> everything you are doing is badwrong is more than enough evidence that you are a bad GM.

You've shown no evidence. My group enjoys it. If that is justification for you having any nat 20 autosucceed on stupid Los Tiburnos-tier bullshit, then it is justification for what I do as well. You don't like it? Too bad, loads of people do, who don't have fucking ADD and can't stand 30 seconds without a major goddamn plot twist. Watch a movie that ISN'T incredibly hyperactive one day. I bet you won't even finish it because "wah it's boring it wasn't constantly feeding massive amounts of tension into my face."

In a fucking horror game I'd agree but in a long running fantasy campaign you can break the tension for five fucking minutes, god damn.

>>45034789
>And I've never heard a complaint about the RPing of camping stuff, it rarely lasts more than 30 seconds and helps add flavor to travel.

This thread isn't about that though. The OP gave a scenario where a player tried to say what his character did (roleplaying) and the DM, rather than asking him to elaborate, instead made him roll so the DM could roleplay for him.

>>45034855
It's basic stuff though, and something explained by his investing in survival (in essence, the player saying 'I can just take 10'). Survival is used when you're trying to feed multiple people in a low-food environment, or for when you're trying to track a group of enemies, not for just setting up camp.

>>45034889
Yeah, everyone except this dumbass >>45034855
who literally didn't read the OP where he said he forced his player to ROLL.

File: 1387052369895.jpg (150KB, 333x500px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 333x500px

>>45034823
You see the man in this picture? Your argument has thoroughly wrecked his anus. Congratulations on your superior debate skills, and uncanny ability to shoot down arguments that were never made.

One can extrapolate your idiocy even further. I like to make my players roll to walk to their destinations. I feel it makes the experience more immersive. Perhaps they get there faster, maybe they trip over a pothole and take 1d2 points nonlethal damage. Sure, some would argue that this grinds the experience to a screeching halt, but I believe it makes it more immersive. Furthermore, when I find a player who finds this style to be abrasive, I will go on /tg/ and try to paint them as an unreasonable petty neckbeard slob, and then I will proceed to defend my GM style by acting like a huge bitch and getting overly defensive.

>>45034618

Fine. Semi-realistic. Or at least more realistic than the idiotic ones in D&D which base your ability to survive without food on how many umber hulks you have slaughtered.

>>45034907
I make my players roll survival when they breathe, and if they roll low, they have to make a fortitude check to see if they can survive losing their breath.

Also, when they walk out of the city, I make them roll a lot of survival checks to make sure they can navigate the land for nice even spots to step, it adds flavor to the world. And if they fail, they break their ankle.

>>45034706

Nah our narrative actually has to do with allying several kingdoms. It's mostly them meeting with kings and shit, but there are also wilderness sections and I like to add flavor to them. Just because I like to incorporate the player's actual skill and an element of randomness into it, doesn't mean my game is automatically shit. Just don't play in it.

File: 1437826025780.jpg (161KB, 900x510px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 900x510px

>>45031088
Inform him of rule 0 and provide sauce, then kick him if he argues.

>>45031088
The player probably shouldn't have fussed about it as much, but I agree with him. On the other hand, if it's a survival focused campaign it's not too bad to roll for fish. Or if the GM had some surprise in the water. Should def. have let him take 10 on setting up camp though.

>>45034945
>meeting with kings

Holy shit I literally fell asleep reading that.

>>45034855
>Rolling for things like that makes survival a skill that actually seems worth investing in. I hate it when I invest in a utility or knowledge skill and it never comes into play. I also hate it when party downtime is just skipped entirely. I guess I'm just a role player as opposed to a roll player.

What people are ripping OP about is the idea that an extremely competent person would have a 5% chance to fail at a task they perform every day. There's nothing wrong with using skills, but making players roll for mundane tasks when there's no pressure to complete them quickly can rub some people the wrong way.

Honestly, I understand OP's point of view, and often use the results of players' rolls to fluff out the situation a little, but what people seem to be upset about is the 5% chance of utter failure.

>>45034767
I think your spiders aren't the same as me. Anyways for a lvl4 ranger eith +8survival finding a campsite in a non-preasure, non-dangerous situation (it's not the Underdark or something like that) should be quite easy. But okay, let's not say spider. Let's say a single house cat.

Inb4 the cat slays the wizard.

>>45034660
>Make the group fucking starve?

If they run out of rations, yes.

> Make the group die of exposure?

No but they may be fatigued the next morning.

> If you don't have a quantifiable consequence for failure, don't make them roll.

Sorry, I didn't know that if it isn't a fucking concrete bonus or penalty to your fucking combat stats, it doesn't count. How about your character being wet in the morning because you camped at the bottom of a hill? Or having a bear harass you because you slept next to a bush full of berries and accidentally surprised it? Both these things have come up in games.

>>45034984
>No but they may be fatigued the next morning.

Holy fuck you're an asshole. Fatigue is something you hold for falling asleep with armor on or NOT sleeping at all.

>>45034721

Except that's not what I'm doing. Also depending on why you wanted to hit the spider you might have to roll to hit it. I have no idea why you would fight a spider at all though, except maybe for comedic effect.

>>45034730

He described what he wanted to do and rolled, and I described the result. That's how it usually goes, anon. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit your narrow-ass definition of roleplaying.

>>45034984
>How about your character being wet in the morning because you camped at the bottom of a hill? Or having a bear harass you because you slept next to a bush full of berries and accidentally surprised it? Both these things have come up in games.

>Character being wet
What the fuck does that matter? He's a fucking adventurer.

> Or having a bear harass you because you slept next to a bush full of berries and accidentally surprised it?

Then it gets a surprise round because you were asleep and combat ensues.

What the fuck are these situations you're posting like they're good or fun or something.

>>45034749

No I am telling him to leave because he tried to force his tastes when everyone else was having fun with it.

> you yourself acting like a petulant child when people call you out on your shit.

Nah I'm just explaining why I do things the way I do. You're the one telling me I'm a shit DM for doing something my players enjoy, then making baseless claims and accusations.

>>45034984
>you get wet!
>a bear attacks!

>you fall asleep in poison ivy!
>you fall asleep by a dead raccoon and flies bite you!

Jesus Christ this DM sucks.

>>45034975
The fight probably ends on the first turn seeing as a housecat has the same stats as a commoner.

I mean, half the time Id hand wave it anyway but if the shit keeps happening because players are attacking random housecats for xp or something I'll make em actually fight it. And Id probably get the local guards after their ass since murdering peoples pets, especially in a period where a housecat is a valuable possession, is pretty illegal.

>>45034764
>In DnD the fact your heroes survived to become level 1 adventurers is narrative.

They trained to do so? A level 1 adventurer really isn't that special, just particularly talented and well trained. Often they don't even have any prior combat experience, so I don't know what you're on about?

>>45034966
>but what people seem to be upset about is the 5% chance of utter failure.
That's part of the issue. The problem with crit failure rules is that they seem to naturally go hand-in-hand with "roll a d20 to take a shit", and when you're rolling so much in a single session, failure because an inevitability.

I've died before because my character with natural wings they've had since birth rolled a 1 on a fly check to HOVER IN PLACE plummeted 300 feet to the earth. When 1's can carry that kind of weight, excessive rolling should be met with a punch to the face.

>>45035040
>No I am telling him to leave because he tried to force his tastes when everyone else was having fun with it.
That's fine as well, just remember that you are a tremendous faggot regardless.

>You're the one telling me I'm a shit DM for doing something my players enjoy, then making baseless claims and accusations.
No, I'm the one saying you're a shit DM for coming to /tg/ with your greentext story designed to make someone else look bad, and then proceed to make yourself look infinitely worse by getting overly defensive about a GM style many consider to be completely bumfuck retarded.

>>45035065
>They trained to do so? A level 1 adventurer really isn't that special, just particularly talented and well trained. Often they don't even have any prior combat experience, so I don't know what you're on about?

You're a lost cause.

>>45034370
You misunderstand me. A bad roll is still a failure. But you also check for a fumble, which is failure + something bad.

>>45034779
>There is a god of fumbling associated with your fumbles.

In what book? Oh wait, it's just your autistic headcanon created solely for the purposes of this argument.

Humans becoming gods does not preclude competent people occasionally fucking up. Stop pretending that just because magic exists, it's suddenly a license for every single law of reality to break down everywhere.

>>45035077
>I've died before because my character with natural wings they've had since birth rolled a 1 on a fly check to HOVER IN PLACE plummeted 300 feet to the earth. When 1's can carry that kind of weight, excessive rolling should be met with a punch to the face.

Wait... What?

A round is 6 seconds, you can't fall 300 feet in 6 seconds.

>>45035090
Nadirech, lesser god of cowardice, trickery and luck.

>>45034855
The reason people are giving him shit isn't because of using the skills, but because he's making a player roll things for no goddamned reason.

The only reason a GM forces a player to roll instead of letting him take 10 is to punish them randomly for their low rolls. What if the Ranger'd gotten a 1? He'd have failed the easy survival check, and the GM gets to punish him for no good reason.

Catching fish? Instead of taking 10, roll, because it's totally possible and entirely likely to catch all of 0 fish using his bullshit rules with only a +8.

It usually implies to me that the GM hasn't actually thought through the situation and is relying on random dice rolls to add lolrandom events to an otherwise boring story.

>>45034771
>If he wants consequences for poor rolls and exceptionally good rolls for mundane shit then play a fucking game that incorporates it correctly, not one that just wastes players time.

Except it is being incorporated fine. If you roll well for mundane shit, you get some benefit. If that doesn't matter to you, don't play a ranger, and the party can be uncomfortable because they camped on roots and had to eat boring old hardtack rations. But then since that's just a roleplay consequence not a direct in game penalty, it has zero value to you. Clearly you only get into the mind of your character when it helps you feel like a badass, not when it involves making him/her actually comfortable.

>>45035090
Fraz-Urb'luu, demon prince and patron of illusionists and tricksters.

Olidammara, god of music, revels, wine, rogues, humor, and tricks.

>>45034805

Except it literally isn't. They play with other DMs as well. Don't make retarded accusations then say "LOL you can't prove it" and act like that makes a logical connection.

>>45035090
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chourst
>In what book? Oh wait, it's just your autistic headcanon created solely for the purposes of this argument.

>Chourst the Unpredictable is the slaad Lord of Randomness, in the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game.

>>45031088
Regardless of what the contrarian douchebags are saying, I think you (probably) did nothing wrong. I wasn't there, so I can't judge the flow of the game, and if the momentum was flagging, then making folks roll shit like that would be a me mistake, so it's possible that you should've dropped at least a roll or two, but it's also possible that you helped invigorate the game. Personally, I tend to make such rolls for the players (but then I also tend to play simpler games that 3.5, so keeping track of everything is much easier), but everything is a trade-off.

>>45035090
>Stop pretending that just because magic exists, it's suddenly a license for every single law of reality to break down everywhere.

Uh

>>45034829

> entitled DM

For what? Trying to provide a good experience to someone trying to roleplay a RANGER?

I was older than him by the way. Been playing since AD&D, and we use ranger level checks for this kind of shit all the time. But please keep strawmanning.

> Sounds like a waste of fucking time, then.

I suppose anything that doesn't pertain exactly to the main plot is a waste of time, also. More narrativisit faggotry. We like a break in the tension and flavor. If you don't like it, fine. Stop acting like it's objectively shit, though, or that we all have an obligation to change our tastes for ONE newcomer.

>>45035113
In pathfinder, you drop up to 500 feet a round, because bullshit. You also fall during your turn, so if you happen to have a potion, magical item, or anything else that can allow you to fly or hover they automatically fail because you don't have enough time to use them, unless it's casting Featherfall.

Entertainingly, this makes potions of featherfall completely worthless because any situation that would imply you drinking it, the effect happens after you fall, so you take all that damage and die instead.

>>45035127
>and the party can be uncomfortable because they camped on roots and had to eat boring old hardtack rations.


My party doesn't give a fuck about what they eat or where they sleep. They're all Barbarians and Fighters. There's a Half-Orc Druid.

>I'm doing x because y
>it's for role play!
>what? Don't you guys role play?
A pretty typical dnd player's idea of what role play is. Your problems are solved by playing another system, really. If you have an issue with things outside of combat (he'll, even in combat) being nonconducive to rp then that is your issue.

I also really enjoy threads where people who are in the wrong come bitch on /tg/ to hugbox only to get told that they're wrong. Only made better when the op tries to deny that he was in the wrong and uses a bunch of dumb arguments.
>these people think I'm wrong! ;_; they're the narrativist boogeymen! Also they don't like rp
These people are trying to help you op. Listen and drop the defensiveness

>>45034984

How do you justify decisions like this based on ROLLS though?

If a fucking hunter is in the group, and he's experienced with the outdoors, why on earth would he EVER make such terrible blunders in the wilderness? How do you actually justify having the group decide to sleep beside a bunch of bear-attracting-berries when there's a FUCKING HUNTER PICKING OUT A CAMPSITE.

How do you actually make the characters consistent from one session to the next if your hunter is sometimes getting the group to sleep beside fucking death-berries, and other times, finding a nice, dry cave?

It doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense. Does the hunter just shove his own head up his ass for an hour a day randomly? You see how introducing failure to mundane shit is actually detracting from the consistency of the characters.

Stop trying to make this out like I'm some combat obsessed nerd. I have run plenty of sessions where the PC's haven't gotten into a single combat encounter, and have on many occasions gone out of my way to describe how the group might set up camp, or shelter. Yes, I believe stuff like this adds to the game, but making people roll for it every fucking time is just a total buzzkill.

>>45034847
>There are plenty of things you can do outside of combat, that constitute decent role-play, that DON'T require rolling for every mundane action.

Sure they don't REQURE it, but we enjoy not having the exact same fucking result EVERY time you roll a basic skill check. It was a fucking flavor thing, I even SAID he got auto success, it was just to see how well he did so that he could use his ranks he invested in survival for something.

Otherwise you might as well just not have a survival skill at all.

> Let's put it like this, people play D&D because they want to be heroes. They want to do cool shit (which isn't always combat). Nothing in the world is going to make someone feel uncool faster than getting them to fail on a roll that any normal person could do with relative ease.

Except he didn't fail on it. You are making up bullshit again.

> It would be pretty fucking lame if a hero couldn't catch some damn fish?

Maybe he wasn't trained in it?

> Who the fuck wants to role play a character that's so incompetent that they can't even start a fire, or catch some fish?

Again. He automatically succeeded. The roll was simply to see HOW WELL. Get that through your thick fucking skull, it's in the OP.

> Go fuck yourself.

Quit being salty over someone else's game that will never affect you. If you actually are that pissed that other people enjoy a different style of game, you should literally kill yourself. Because someone is going to drive you to suicide with a post on this site, with this level of anger over other people's shit.

>>45031088

The rule of table etiquette is that you do not argue with the GM at the table, and especially not during the session. You sit down, play the game, do what you're asked to do, and deal with the situation. Don't like the call? Too bad. The game isn't about you. Keep it moving so everyone can play.

After the game, if there are problems, you talk it out.

>>45035226
Maybe the Ranger is a little touched.

>DURR WE SLEEP HURRER HGUYS

>SORRY I ROLD 56 ON SURVIVAL, WE SLEEPD NEXT TO BEAR BUSH

>SORRY U GOT WET, I ROLLED 2

>>45034885
>if your characters just go off to random places with nothing guiding their actions or desires.

Except they do. The travel flavor is a side thing. See, a story can have more than one focus, idiot. It doesn't constantly have to be jacking off to the main plot.

Keep trying to make this something it isn't, though. I love watching your flail around making strawmen that I can easily burn down.

You know OP, perhaps you would've had a little bit more sympathy coming your way if you didn't lash out like a rabid dog to everyone not agreeing with you.

I mean really, what are you trying to accomplish? All you do is reply to every single fucking post and just screech PROVE IT while throwing insults around (yet whine when someone calls you a cunt back)

Your player was being a cunt, and although I don't agree with your playstyle, you weren't in the wrong. Then again, I base that on what you told us in the OP, and considering the fact that you are a whiny shitter in this thread I would wager you're not telling the full story

>>45035193
Yeah but having wings would slow your descent by a significant amount. Also, I'm pretty sure you don't just free fall if you fail to hover, you still fly, you just don't hover in place.

>>45034890
>rather than asking him to elaborate, instead made him roll so the DM could roleplay for him.

Except I was trying to get him to elaborate. He wouldn't, hence calling for more rolls and making suggestions.

>>45034905

> he forced his player to ROLL.

Oh my god! He rolled a die! How horrible! for something that WASN'T a diplomacy check to convince the king not to kill everyone, or an attack roll to slay the evil lich! How horrible!

Just stop. You're pathetic.

>>45035273
>and considering the fact that you are a whiny shitter in this thread I would wager you're not telling the full story

He's definitely not telling the truth.

File: 1430634519661.jpg (34KB, 800x620px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 800x620px

>>45033927
OH GOD-EMPEROR, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!

>>45035257
>Keep it moving so everyone can play.
Is this irony? because he seemed to not focus the game on himself by wanting to take 10 instead of rolling 1001 times to please the GM.

>>45035226
Not that dude but A the ranger mightn't have been present at that point (Note the OP says hes a new player) and B where you make camp is largely dependent on whats available.

Like, if my choices are sleep in a nearvy ditch because its the only good spot I can see or walk on a few miles and maybe find a good spot and the suns going down, I might take my chances with the ditch.

I still say this sort of shit should be saved for shit like the Underdark though. Like, survival should be for exceptional circumstances and when going from village to village can take 2 days camping in a forest is not exceptional.

>>45035294
Because no one wants to fucking elaborate standing around a god damn camp site.

>>45034907

> complains about strawman
> makes his own with reductio ad absurdum

See this is how I know you're just trolling, and not actually trying to make a point.

>>45034929

Nice same fag.

>>45034964

Because it wasn't COMBAT COMBAT COMBAT?

Tell us about some of YOUR epic campaigns, anon. I bet you won't, though, because you only see fit to criticize.

>>45035295
No shit, mate.

>>45035239
>Otherwise you might as well just not have a survival skill at all.

Can you seriously not think of something OTHER than setting up camp that you could possibly use Survival for? I'm sure you can be a little more creative than that.

If you want people to use their varied skills, make them do something interesting with them.

>>45035325
No, because your plot is
>Walking to cities talking to kings

Why the fuck would anyone care about doing that

>>45034998
>Fatigue is something you hold for falling asleep with armor on or NOT sleeping at all.

Oh shit, sorry I have to stick EXACTLY to the rules.

You think you will be getting much sleep with WATER in your tent? Or roots or rocks that show up later after you've spent an hour setting up camp and it's dark?

The value in a ranger is beyond just "second line fighter who can track," he also makes wilderness travel more comfortable for the PCs with his woodland knowledge. It's like going camping with someone who knows what they are doing versus not.

>>45035302

I agree that the player was using the correct tool to shortcut things, but he was still fighting with the GM. Just do the thing and talk it out after.

>>45031088
Pretty sure those were pointless rolls. I mean you're only meant to roll when you can't take 10 to succeed or are under duress, or when the character requests to make the roll.

>>45035239
>Again. He automatically succeeded. The roll was simply to see HOW WELL
That's not true, though. By making him roll, you open up the opportunity for failure.

D&D doesn't have separate systems for success, and levels of success. When you force a roll, you take away the guaranteed success that he gets through taking the appropriate abilities and open up a not insignificant chance to fail - In the fishing example above, the DC was 15 or higher.

Rolling the dice, he's got more than a 1/3 failure chance with the +8 skill he has. However, there are rules in the game that guarantees his success, called taking 10.

Of course he's going to guarantee his own success, he's playing a skilled, professional hunter character, who wants to be rewarded for the decisions he makes instead of random rolls on the die.

Forcing extra die rolls like this nearly guarantees failure for players in the long run. Eventually, they will roll low.

>>45035114
>The only reason a GM forces a player to roll instead of letting him take 10 is to punish them randomly for their low rolls.
>Degrees of success don't exist.

>>45035239
>Maybe he wasn't trained in it?

Good god you really have no real world experience in anything do you?

Unless the character has an INT modifier that's in the negatives, you should just let them fish.

Can you honestly say you need training to fucking FISH? I fished for the first time last winter. I caught 3 fucking fish. You know why? Because fishing is literally taking a string, putting it on a stick, and putting a hook on the other end and dipping that in some damn water.

This is what I mean, you're making players roll for things that any idiot could figure out if they gave it even 2 seconds of intelligent thought. That's why it's so damn inconsistent. How could someone not be able to fish properly, or find a dry spot of land, or not sleep beside death-bearies (get it?) just because they "rolled" a 1.

>>45035351
Who the fuck goes to sleep with water in their tent or with the possibility of water getting in the tent

This kind of shit is implied when setting up a camp

>>45035351
>You think you will be getting much sleep with WATER in your tent? Or roots or rocks

What the fuck? So (at least) 1/20th of the time people are gonna decide it's a good idea to put their bedroll on top of rocks (and not move it), or go to sleep in a puddle?

Actually, now I think about it, a survival roll to predict the weather would be a nice touch. Then the player gets to decide how to deal with that when deciding how to set up camp, with it not being implied that his character is retarded x% of the time.

>>45035395
Not even mentioning the fact that a the campsite you get for a 9 is a failure compared to the site you get for a 19. There is a chance of failure op.

>>45035447
To be fair, the 1/20th of the time is when the person just fucks or is too absent minded to do it properly.

>>45035395
But what if you DO say he automatically succeeds, even if he rolls low, and is literally just rolling to determine how well he succeeded because you're the DM and you can make up your own rules and don't have to play strictly by the book?

File: desert.jpg (57KB, 301x450px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 301x450px

>>45035257
>The game isn't about you.

Kill yourself kill yourself kill yourself kill yourself kill yourself kill yourself kill yourself kill yourself kill yourself kill yourself kill yourself kill yourself kill yourself kill yourself kill yourself kill yourself kill yourself kill yourself kill yourself kill yourself.

>>45035239
>Again. He automatically succeeded. The roll was simply to see HOW WELL. Get that through your thick fucking skull, it's in the OP.
So how would the roll have influenced the fire, OP?
Would it have been a bigger fire if the roll was good? Do you even know how fucking campfires work?

And as for the rolls for finding a good campsite, thats even bigger bullshit. All your crap about lying under a hill or a rocky surface are such basic shit-for-brains mistakes that no one whose JOB it is would fail at.

Ill give you the point about fishing, that's fair. But all the other shit? Get your head out of your ass mate. I even fucking agree with your main point, about letting the roll influence how well you succeed even if it is guaranteed, but the way you apply it is laughably idiotic.

>>45035257
Umm it's about the people. Never about one person. Basic etiquette applies but if the DM (or player/s) is a piece of shit you don't need to.

>>45035468
But then to be more fair, that would happen to some inexperienced bublefuck that is still capable of figuring that shit out, but just didnt think about it all that much.
It wouldn't happen to someone whose profession and life is centred around it.

>>45035528
Well making him roll for fishing allowed the chance of failure, so yes it's unfair.

>>45034660
Yes and yes. If they don't eat, they die. That is how life works.

>>45035507
Its about the group, not the individual.

If theres 5 players, should everyones experience be ruined because 1 dude is sperging out?

>nat 1 breathing roll
>die

>>45035447

This is exactly my gripe with the hole thing.

Why would any hunter worth his fucking salt just decide to set up camp on a termite mound 5% of the time? More than anything, it ruins everyone's sense of disbelief.

>>45034341
>we
>us
How many of you did it take to type this, because I sure as hell hope you're not trying to speak on behalf of everyone here. That would be really dumb.

Sorry to hijack the thread but...does anyone know why low-light vision doesn't work on low-light situations?

>>45035571

Actually fat-ass, contrary to what you might believe; you don't die just because you can't stuff your gord with Mountain Dew and Cheetos for one night.

>>45035594
It doesn't?

>>45035594
Also why darkvision doesn't work on low-light situations?

File: 1434069913018.jpg (78KB, 500x515px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 500x515px

>>45034274,
Warframe isn't gay, it's homoerotic

>>45035567
Not if the DM said there was no chance of failure.

>>45035617
You still have penalties.
And darkvision only lets you see shit in total darkness, not in dim light situations, I know, it's fucking bullshit, but no errata or FAQ and I have a group of shitters that follow rules as written.

>>45035590
He speaks for me at least. That's two. Therefore we.

>>45035528
Not OP, but rolling low doesn't always have to mean the person who rolled low necessarily fucked up. As a GM who relies heavily on improvisation, if a low roll caused the outdoorsman to lead the party to a sub-optimal campsite, it's not because there was a perfectly good campsite three feet away that he overlooked because he's an idiot, it's because there weren't any good campsites to be found, and the shitty one he did find just so happened to be the least shitty.

>>45035661

No errata for it across multiple games because its by design obviously.

>>45035654
Which goes against the 15 DC he said. 2 (decent sized) fish is enough for a small group. Why bother getting more if the player doesn't want more?

>>45035032
>What the fuck does that matter? He's a fucking adventurer.

And being wet is still going to make him uncomfortable.

Stop using "lol he's an adventurer" as an excuse for everything. It's still a human being as well.

>>45035700
>Have darkvision not working on moonlight because "there's still light so fuck you"
>Have low light vision not working on moonlight because "I don't know, fuck you too"
Being a half-drow is useless during moonlit nights

as a dm you need to adjust the parameters of the game to fit the audience or get a new group. I'm sure somebody else has already said this.

when i dm i like to occasionally make my players take ridiculously silly rolls just for fun.

"i'm gonna take off my pants"
>roll for that
"what skill does that even use?"
>dex
"okay i rolled a 13"
>your left pant leg gets caught on your ankle and you have to lean against the wall to pull it off

>>45035678
Yes, and as I said those type of things are completely understandable.

OP however prefers to let the ranger forget he is a ranger and thus not knowing the most basic shit, or shit like not seeing the rocks for whatever reason.

>>45035726

Were talking 3.5/PF in this thread, so obviously not GOOD design...just design.

>>45035052

Please regale me of tales of your epik amazing campaign then.

>>45035083

Explain why it's wrong then, faggot. Stop making dumb-ass insults with nothing to accompany them. if you can't at least EXPLAIN why it's wrong you're a fucking idiot.

Oh sorry, is your +4 to hit and 10hp not being worshipped from fucking 1st level? Is that enough for you, you entitled piece of shit? You need to be an epic hero right from the start so there's nowhere to grow? Fuck off. A 1st level adventurer is a cut above, sure, but they aren't already established heroes, and certainly not in 3.5, AD&D, or 5e.

>>45035661
Well I dunno, 3.5 srd states.
> Darkvision is the extraordinary ability to see with no light source at all
>The presence of light does not spoil darkvision.

So it says "you see when there is no light" and "it isn't spoiled when there is light", so low-light qualifies.

>>45035113

In Game Lore? What is that, an RPG? It's not D&D for sure.

>>45035114
>The only reason a GM forces a player to roll instead of letting him take 10 is to punish them randomly for their low rolls.

Literally opposite of what I was doing. I STATED IN THE OP THAT HE AUTOMATICALLY SUCCEEDED. YOU ARE MAKING UP BULLSHIT. AGAIN.

>>45035747
Ackchually PF fixed that with a FAQ, probably the only thing that PF fixed

>>45035380
What anon are you one of those faggots who ROLEplays? I'll be over here with OP ROLLplaying to see if I can drink from a cup having FUN!

>>45035164

Randomness != fate.

>>45035186

The existence of magic means gravity no longer works? No. Magic can bypass gravity but only when present. Again, just because magic exists does not mean that the normal laws of physics do not function where it is not present. Just like the existence of airplanes does not mean everyone can fly by default.

>>45035783
No, I do neither. I'm just a Rules Lawyer.

>>45035678
Then why even have the player roll the die? At that point in time you're just generating the world based on random die rolls.

It was under a 10, that's kinda bad. It's sort of a shitty camp site, but it's the best you can find. It's under a 5, you can't find any fish, maybe there's no fish nearby for some reason? You rolled a 20, super good, you find a bunch of untouched unpoisoned berry trees to feed everyone instead, and eating them makes everyone wizards for the rest of the day.

At least then you're not lying to the players' faces and making it their fault that you can't plan ahead consistently.

>>45035210

Okay. So you happen to gloss over that, probably because you play a different style of game and have no rangers or fighters.

>>45035712
Nah. If OP's depiction is accurate (and you never really know when you're only getting one side of the story), then the player was being a cunt. And as to the 15 DC, that could've been the dividing line between marginal and bountiful success.

>>45035771
Then don't let your players roll. Ask player for his bonus, roll in secret thrice, proceed to explain how things go. Less time wasted, less bullshit arguing. Then again you MIGHT get a player who spergrages about that, but it has only happened to me once (and online for that matter).

>>45035214
>These people are trying to help you op.

Biggest load of bullshit thus far in this thread. They just want to force their particular brand of RP on OP because of reasons they have explained, and OP said he did not like. Also OP said his entire group other than one player was enjoying it.

>>45033996

This is what I like as a player. It's like a chance at finding something nifty or interesting, plus it feels like it's in my control when I roll instead of the DM. This might also be because I play with a rather large group where one can sometimes feel left out (though the DM really tries to give everyone some spotlight), so opportunities to roll are always welcomed.

>>45034682
>Kill yourself. You kind of entitled shits are what's killing gaming. Oh I rolled somewhat high, I NEED to find a crystal-studded cavern with fucking 5000 hp inside so I can buy another +1 longsword.
Nobody has said this. They said if there's no point in rolling, don't roll. This isn't a new or complex theory.

A comfortable and defensible campsite has actual value as well, something you would realize if you had an ounce of subtlety. For example, cover, favorable wind, etc.
So you were going to give them all +1 to hit when they were ambushed at night? Like...why?

>The entire game is literally pointless, dumbass.
This is how I know you're a bad GM.

The entire game is not pointless. Your role as the GM is to instill a purpose to what would otherwise be directionless wandering by a group of murderhobos. I can see that's not really your bag, though.

>We don't "bog down" the game, we roleplay setting up camp on occasion because it's enjoyable to us.
But it wasn't enjoyable to the guy playing the Ranger. Who you said should be setting up camp.

>Sorry if it doesn't meet your requirements of everything being related to le important plot of allying the villages of the northern vale or whatever political intrigue shit you want.
My wants and needs aren't the point. I don't want or need you to be my GM. Now that we've established that, let's be clear.

You're That Guy here. Your insistence on making someone roll for something they didn't care about and belittling their choice to Take 10 on things that, to them, do not matter, is the problem. Nothing more and nothing less.

You should go read Robin Laws' opus on GMing. It will definitely help you. Probably a lot. http://www.sjgames.com/robinslaws/

>>45034958
I usually ( if I need a number), for simple things..do thus
>ok, you're going to travel till night, and then camp? Fine, take 10, or roll.
>take 10= you camp. That's it.
>roll and go big... You find an easily defendable site. Plenty of fire wood and a great spot to leave horses.
>roll low, OK, not the best spot ever, but you camp.

The difference? Well with the higher roll, the ranger kept his eyes open, and found a damn good spot. The low roll, was just a camp.

We're talking about spending 10 seconds for a roll and a bit of inspired fluff


Its not unreasonable or even a'bad' thing.

>>45035226
>How do you actually justify having the group decide to sleep beside a bunch of bear-attracting-berries when there's a FUCKING HUNTER PICKING OUT A CAMPSITE.

Well, they probably wouldn't if they had a "hunter" or "ranger" in the group. Hence why having a hunter or ranger is important.

> How do you actually make the characters consistent from one session to the next if your hunter is sometimes getting the group to sleep beside fucking death-berries, and other times, finding a nice, dry cave?

Again, with the auto success.

> Does the hunter just shove his own head up his ass for an hour a day randomly? You see how introducing failure to mundane shit is actually detracting from the consistency of the characters.

No, because even experienced people fuck up. And also, a 1 is not a natural failure on skill checks, especially not mundane ones like this. And, again, as I said, the roll was PURELY for flavor. At WORST he could have gotten a mildly-decent success.

>>45035736
>as a dm you need to adjust the parameters of the game to fit the audience or get a new group.
I agree with this, but seeing as the dude was new to the group, he should've been trying to fit in with their playing style instead of being difficult. From there, he can try to nudge things in his direction, by talking with the DM after the session is over, if nothing else. But he should still only expect to get things like 1/5 his way (assuming he's one out of five players).

>>45035258

Again with the strawmanning. Stop. Try reading the OP.

>>45035273
>Then again, I base that on what you told us in the OP, and considering the fact that you are a whiny shitter in this thread I would wager you're not telling the full story

What full story am I not telling? No, I want to hear this new paranoid theory. Say it.

>>45035823
Not denying he was being a cunt (he was), just complaining about making a character roll when taking 10 is a perfectly viable option. I mean RAW it could be the difference between no, 2 or 4 fish. And he chose the option for the middle, safe option (a sensible act). The DM dictates the world, not the players).

>>45035753
Jesus Christ OP, I was right with >>45035273
You do nothing but screech and make up your own delusions about how the people you talk to play.

Because, yknow, no one but filthy combat freaks and entitled players could possibly disagree with you, right?

Reflect back on what you just fucking wrote
>Oh sorry, is your +4 to hit and 10hp not being worshipped from fucking 1st level? Is that enough for you, you entitled piece of shit? You need to be an epic hero right from the start so there's nowhere to grow? Fuck off. A 1st level adventurer is a cut above, sure, but they aren't already established heroes, and certainly not in 3.5, AD&D, or 5e.
Get a fucking grip

>>45035295
>He's definitely not telling the truth.

What truth am I not telling?

> OP disagrees with us
> we made a strawman about nat1 failure
> OP shows he doesn't do that
> but that doesn't fit our strawman
> therefore he must be lying in his original post!!

Fucking brilliant logic.

>>45035827
>WHY IS THIS HAPPENING? WHAT THE PROBLEM
>THE PROBLEM IS HERE
>YOU GUYS ARE ASSHOLES I'M NOT LISTENING! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT MAKING A PLAYER MAKE A ROLL THAT BOTH HE AND HIS CHARACTER HAVE NO INTERACTION WITH IS THE HEIGHT OF ROLEPLAY?
this is why people are getting shitty at op.

>>45031088
Haven't read thread.

While it's "your game", take 10 exists for a reason. The rules are right there for how much food a DC costs. A ranger with a +8 should be able to reliably get food and water for 5 people *unless they choose to take a risk for more* (which is mechanically explained through the roll).

It does slow down the game, it adds pointless die rolls to nothing, and it makes it so that characters have to be tied to a dice roll that determines their effectiveness completely unrealistically in a large number of cases.
It's immersion breaking, *especially* for classes designed around certain skills.

Learn the rules better and learn to gloss over the parts that add nothing to anyone's enjoyment or to the narrative, and save the die rolls for things the character can actually fuck up on.

Also:
>15 or higher catches a fish plus one for every 5 higher
This is where your problems arise; it's a DC10 to catch one fish, and every *2* higher adds another person's food. You've arbitrarily raised the difficulty for no reason except to put it close to a 50% shot.
What you're doing is rewarding the players for not putting ranks in skills, because any point they put in doesn't gain them any actual skill.

Imagine if as you leveled, the GM gave every enemy bonus AC equal to your level. That's what you're doing.
Fucking stop it.

>>45035302
>1001 times to please the GM.

Two times, maybe three? Stop with the hyperbole. The entire exchange lasted barely a minute. If you tune out the second the game isn't rigidly involving you, and the spotlight shifts to someone else, then fuck off. Do you turn off movies halfway through because there's one scene you don't like?

>>45035321

Actually, lots of people do. You != no one, so please stop making incredibly illogical claims.

If that's not your thing, then just tune out for that part, you aren't in the spotlight 100% of the time. Do you get angry when the wizard is casting spells, just because it isn't involving YOU YOU YOU every single second?

>>45035334

> tracking
> finding a shortcut to bypass an ambush
> navigating (obviously)
> finding signs of a bridge that used to be there

There are plenty of other interesting things to do. We also find setting up camp interesting, as part of the narrative. Chill out.

>>45035846
If a roll is needed..
Which is up to the DM.

>>45035934
Amen, although seeing as you haven't read through the thread you won't have realized that OP is being a hostile dick. Although most will agree his player was being a cunt.

>>45035726
Actually, 3.5 low light visiion explicitly says 'they can see as clearly during moonlit nights as during day' or words to that effect

>>45035344

> Why the fuck would anyone care about doing that


Because their homeland is being destroyed and they want help before the same happens to kingdoms who are bickering over 1000-year-old disputes?

Sorry if I didn't provide context. Though I'm sure you'll shit all over that, while providing NO information about your own, obviously superior campaign. Go ahead, tell me about it. I'm not going to automatically call it shit just because I disagree with you.

>>45035889
>What full story am I not telling?
The part where you were acting like a whiny piece of shit as well?
You paint a typical picture of ´oh no the bad guy lectured me :(´ but naturally leave out every bad move, word, tone, whatever that YOU did. Just like every other typical bitch that comes crying to /tg/ only to get BTFO.

>No, I want to hear this new paranoid theory. Say it.
Did you feel your self-respect leave your body as you wrote that sentence, you melodramatic cunt?

>>45035395
>However, there are rules in the game that guarantees his success, called taking 10.

Yes, and I let him do this. I also asked him to roll, for the quality of his success. I said this in the OP.

> D&D doesn't have separate systems for success, and levels of success.

I made some up. Sue me faggot.

> When you force a roll, you take away the guaranteed success that he gets through taking the appropriate abilities and open up a not insignificant chance to fail - In the fishing example above, the DC was 15 or higher.

Yeah because it wasn't a fucking guarantee he'd catch fish in the half hour he spent doing it.

>>45036004
I think the original poster guy's DM was caught by surprise and wanted a plot critical character to escape from a party with low light/dark vision members.

>>45036034
Oh, and to add to that...
It is easy to deduct that you were being an asswipe during the whole scenario you described in the OP simply because you are being a massively hostile dick from the get-go.

>>45035433
>Can you honestly say you need training to fucking FISH?

Preparing lures, remaining still, using the right kind of bait based on fish you are most likely to catch, etc etc.

> Unless the character has an INT modifier that's in the negatives, you should just let them fish.

Sure. But they might not catch anything.

>>45035447
>So (at least) 1/20th of the time people are gonna decide it's a good idea to put their bedroll on top of rocks (and not move it), or go to sleep in a puddle?

He didn't sleep in a puddle, dumb-ass, he just failed to find a good place that wouldn't have water come down on it in the morning, which is valid concern when camping in the mountains.

Or just camping on the peak and getting a shitton of wind blowing your tent over. Ever been on top of a real mountain? Christ.

> Actually, now I think about it, a survival roll to predict the weather would be a nice touch

That exists in D&D. We use it when players plan their trip to decide what route to take. I.e. not taking the ridgeline trail during a thunderstorm.

So basically OP is complaining that his minor house rules aren't appreciated and is a dick to everyone?

>>45035612
I weigh 120lbs. I'm 5'11".

>>45035507

It's about the group. Not one person.

>>45035528
>Do you even know how fucking campfires work?

Do you? It's the difference between a shitty one that barely stays alight (we don't have fucking modern day technology here, it's a fantasy setting), as well as finding good firewood which might not always be easy, particularly along a trail that is commonly traveled and many of the good campsites' tinder / kindling sticks have been used up recently.

Think like a large campsite, but scale it back a bit.

> And as for the rolls for finding a good campsite, thats even bigger bullshit. All your crap about lying under a hill or a rocky surface are such basic shit-for-brains mistakes that no one whose JOB it is would fail at.

Except he wouldn't fail at it. He might get really good roll and get a particularly well-defensible campsite, or one with easy game nearby. The former would be quite important if the PCs are attacked during the night.

>>45036104
Not other guy but you won't die from not eating for a day. Despite anecdotal, unverifiable evidence about your body.

I've done stuff like this in the past, but usually the way I do it is (if we take the camping example) they say they they want to find a campsite, and I know that finding a place to camp isn't all that difficult if you have a little time to do it. They are definitely going to succeed in finding a campsite, and I might even let them know that.

But I'll ask "are you looking for any sort of area in particular?" and then if they are, the roll will be to see if they can find that shit on top of finding an ordinary campsite. Degrees of success might come into that roll, like if they want to find somewhere in a defensible spot with nearby food, then maybe they only half succeed and I give them the choice of which of the two they manage to find. If all they want is any place to set up camp, they've got it.

Either way, I wouldn't spend too much time on it. Just a little flavour and maybe a little extra to the thing we already know is a baseline success, then move on. I don't force them to do it if they don't want to, it's sort of opt-in for additional small benefits and a chance to decide what your character is after. Because there's no real negative qualities (rolling poorly isn't going to stop the fact that you already found a half-decent place) there's no real reason not to unless you're cool with the standard shit.

I don't know if that's how OP does things, but I've never thought my version was a bad way to handle it.

>>45031284
>>45031204
This. I'd have done it behind the screen, and he would have been pretty happy with the result.

>>45035938
>If you tune out the second the game isn't rigidly involving you
Stop with the strawman, taking 10 is the opposite of that. He also was solving what the GM presented, not forcing his skills into the situation.

>>45035585

Here's your reply.

>>45035588

> 5%

Yeah you're just trolling now. I said nat 1 wasn't a failure. I said a non-ranger or someone with no ranks in Survival might do that, because unlike modern day most of them haven't all been on 600 camping trips. Most of you people probably would have 1 rank in survival. No shit you would not set up on a termite mount on PURPOSE but if you don't know what you are doing then you might do it by accident.

A ranger can find an exceptionally good and defensible campsite. Possibly with brambles to block attackers, etc. Also comfortable, less wind, etc.. which is all flavor shit that no one cares about because it isn't directly related to raping the Lich King and becoming a demigod or whatever the fuck.

>>45031750
Other than that, if they were in a survival-based game.

>>45036014

>You can't say my thing is shit unless you show me your superior thing.

Dude, when people watch Plan 9 From Outer Space, they can just tell... They don't need to be Guillermo del Toro.

>>45035736
>as a dm you need to adjust the parameters of the game to fit the audience or get a new group.

Yes. And again, the rest of the group was enjoying it. Now, had I tried to do this and the entire group, or even most of it had said no, I would have said alright cool forget it then. But they enjoyed it, it was a NEW player who played a RANGER complaining about getting some ranger RP beyond killing his favored enemy.

> when i dm i like to occasionally make my players take ridiculously silly rolls just for fun.

See this is the kind of thing giving me a bad name. I do it for flavor. You do it for "lulz". Fellate a shotgun.

>I have 20 ranks in Hunt
>I roll a 20
>total roll: 40
>GM says I bring down a grand elk due to my fantastic luck

>I have 1 ranks in Hunt
>I roll a 20
>total roll: 21
>GM says I bring down a grand elk due to my fantastic luck

>I have 20 ranks in Hunt
>I roll a 1
>total roll: 21
>GM says I catch a small rabbit, sufficient to feed myself

>I have 1 ranks in Hunt
>I roll a 1
>total roll: 2
>GM says I don't catch anything and are lucky I didn't shoot my own leg off

When the system seems to play out like this, it looks like putting more than the bare minimum into a skill is unrewarding.

>>45034328
>Says who? Not the god of crafting or the best craftsmen in the land, no. Definitely not someone who is going to go down in legend as the blacksmith for an epic party.
I'd rather make 400 OK, reliable nails than make 20 masterwork nails, 200 ok nails, 80 pretty shoddy nails and 20 nails that look ok on testing but when actually put into a cart, break after 1d8 uses.

Because those 20 shit nails causing a crash that fucks over a kid when the cart smashes into him are going to do a lot more harm to my reputation than making good solid DEPENDABLE carts.

Here is how I might handle a ranger-campsite situation:
>I'm going to look for a campsite
>Okay what is your survival skill and how long are you going to take?
>I'll take an hour
>(Rolls, low but the ranger has a good bonus)
>Okay the forest is thick with brush but you find a very small clearing at the bottom of a hill, it's damp but has trees around it, protecting it from the wind. Not far away, to the east, is a spot near a river, it has little cover but is well above the water, there are berry bushes nearby. THe rier flows roughly north to south
>Hmm can I look around about half an hour more? Maybe on check the other side of the river. Could the rest of you guys gather some of those berries and maybe go for a fish or two while I scout
>Rather than re-rolling entirely the DM adds 4 onto the last result
>Across the river you find a low dry cave in the side of the hill, however there is bear sign all around it.
>Can I check down stream from the cave?
>Sure, you find a clearing a few yards from the river. It has light wind protect and it's fairly rocky. It's also not to far from the cave.
>Okay I'll head back and talk with the party.

What the survival check should do is give or conceal options for the player.
This way the player benefits from the options gained by having a good skill but still gets to make tactical decisions. Unlike just rolling die after die to generate results this let's the player interact with the world he's in and take some level of responsibility as well as control over his fate. He actually get to do Ranger shit rather being the guy who just generates survival numbers.
In this scenario, not only does finding a good campsite involve find a comfortable place to sleep but it also hints and possible encounters and gives the players a sense of place, something that is often lost in the abstract world of table-top games.

In the OP the player did have a pretty shitty attitude but what the DM was describing sounded really fucking boring.

>>45036209
So what's the failure DC?
Is there any reason to take more skill ranks than the bare minimum to not fail on a 1, if having 20 ranks and getting a 20 will result in the same result as having 4 ranks and rolling a 20?

>>45035826
>Then don't let your players roll. Ask player for his bonus, roll in secret thrice, proceed to explain how things go. Less time wasted, less bullshit arguing.

What?

How is it faster for me to ask for their bonus and add things up, than for them to just roll with the character sheet right in front of them?

Are you trying to propose a slower rate of rolling just so you can attack it and claim my method of gaming is inefficient? No one even gave a shit about the rolls, they were basically for flavor. The dice aren't fucking holy artifacts, rolling them for a bit of fun in the narrative isn't hurting anything. I'm sorry if that makes me a terrible DM, we RP-only lots of things, but I also like letting players actually USE their skills, which means actually rolling and being rewarded beyond boring-ass binary passfail.

OP should switch to Dungeon World, caters more to narrative faggots.

>>45035488
Then it would still be better for him to take the ten, because the lower end might not make the higher end worth it.

>>45035836
>So you were going to give them all +1 to hit when they were ambushed at night? Like...why?

I'm talking about terrain, idiot. Choke points, etc. What if they were attacked by a pack of wolves? It has came up repeatedly.

> The entire game is not pointless. Your role as the GM is to instill a purpose to what would otherwise be directionless wandering by a group of murderhobos

I mean in the big scheme of things, but you conveniently ignored that point. It's a game, meaning the experience is what matters. We enjoyed that experience. We also have a plot which I described above. Don't like it? Okay. Our group enjoys it. It also uses the motivations that THEY came up with for their characters, not your railroaded constant-twists-and-turns rollercoaster narrative.

> But it wasn't enjoyable to the guy playing the Ranger. Who you said should be setting up camp.

Then he shouldn't be playing a ranger. Literally why even be good at wilderness survival if you are only going to say "I survive in the wild and take 10." Boring as fuck.

> You're That Guy here. Your insistence on making someone roll for something they didn't care about and belittling their choice to Take 10 on things that, to them, do not matter, is the problem. Nothing more and nothing less.

No, the new player being a cunt instead of just quitting the group, was the problem.

I've read Robin's Laws, dumb-ass. Quit being a condescending cunt and acting like you have the last word because you have an opinion. So does everyone. Get in line.

>>45036155
>Except he wouldn't fail at it. He might get really good roll and get a particularly well-defensible campsite, or one with easy game nearby. The former would be quite important if the PCs are attacked during the night.
So now we are going to pretend you never mentioned that a bad roll would result in moronic mistakes such as not removing the rocks or sleeping under a hill? The entire fucking thing that I addressed in the first place and for which I criticized you to begin with?

How about you just admit that it was stupid, you back-paddling motherfucker.
Are you really so bloody inclined lash out to fucking EVERYONE in this thread regardless of what they say? Because that is what you doing.

Like I said, get your head out of your ass and just go over the posts you made. Just take a fucking look at how utterly pathetic the shit is that you say. And no, I'm not talking about your argument. I'm talking about the way you talk to everyone.
And lets be honest, you fucking know you are in the wrong because in the very post I reply to now you basically pretend that you never said that shit about the rocks and hills. You completely fucking ignore it. You are being 100 per cent inconsistent and you fucking know it.

>>45031088
Making people roll for mundane tasks isnt "giving them things to do." Its a roleplay game, you can fill time with roleplay, like asking how he goes about fishing or having something mundane but interesting happen, maybe send and npc along to hang out with him. Most players arent interested in playing dice mini-games every time the take an action

>>45035909
>Get a fucking grip

Explain what is wrong with what I wrote. What you quoted. Explain EXACTLY why it is wrong because twice now you have attacked it baselessly. I want a retort to it with actual content. Otherwise fuck off and kill yourself, I'm not replying to your stupid faggot shit where you won't even contribute to the discussion.

>>45033920

I realize I'm jumping in in the middle of this, but I thought I'd address this point:

>Bad rangers all have survival, but good ones may have 5 in survival instead of 1.

With the Take 10 rule, the major difference between a "bad ranger" and a "good ranger" is 11 and 15 on the check. Which is significant enough that the "bad ranger" finds a modest campsite, and the "good ranger" finds a much more comfortable/convenient one.

Additionally, it doesn't need a roll, doesn't take up any more time than asking the player what their "Take 10" for that skill is.

That being said, you aren't prevented from making the good/convenient campsite interesting (since it is a good one, perhaps others have used it in the past, or enemies in the area know about it).

I personally am against rolling for EVERYTHING because I had a DM who made us roll to start cars (our characters own cars, mind, that they had keys for). And while granted, something could be WRONG with the car, but that's not going to be determined by my Car Starting Skill.

>>45035933
>why people are getting shitty at op.

Because OP likes a game style that /tg/ doesn't, and /tg/ is always right and thus must rage out and be condescending cunts?

Don't even pretend that you people were kind and considerate to him, you are getting pissed at him for lashing out at you after you lashed out first. Go fuck yourselves faggots, you're no better than OP in any way shape or form.

>>45036249
OP. He's not interacting with it. It's not RP. He's not making any in character decisions, he's not describing how he does it. He is not roleplaying his character. You describing the outcome to rolls isn't roleplay. It's just you describing the outcome to rolls. Which may be nice set dressing and encouraged. But this is something you should do independently of rolls. Roleplaying is about interaction and making choices. Making the choice to take it easy and go serviceable rather than double down and risk a worse haul for a bigger one. You need to drop the shitty attitude and listen to what people are telling you.

If anything by saying he can't just take 10 you are removing his ability to roleplay as you are taking away his -- and therefore his character's -- option to say "Oh I'll just take it slow and steady and come home with something serviceable."

>>45035934
>Imagine if as you leveled, the GM gave every enemy bonus AC equal to your level. That's what you're doing.

Again, literally not what I am doing.

> This is where your problems arise; it's a DC10 to catch one fish, and every *2* higher adds another person's food. You've arbitrarily raised the difficulty for no reason except to put it close to a 50% shot.

If it says that in the book and I missed it, I apologize. I certainly did not raise the level of the difficulty, and the roll was for effect, NOT to succeed as I basically let the player take 10, in fact, he cuold not lose, only gain.

>>45031088
I mean it is the players choice to roll or take a modifier (if applicable) and the player (who sounds like a cunt, but less so than OP). Sure rule 0 exists but it doesn't mean you have to use it every time.

>>45036034

>The part where you were acting like a whiny piece of shit as well?

Which part was that?

> You paint a typical picture of ´oh no the bad guy lectured me :(´ but naturally leave out every bad move, word, tone, whatever that YOU did. Just like every other typical bitch that comes crying to /tg/ only to get BTFO.

Again with the strawmanning. This guy wasn't polite at all, he was like you acting like our way of playing we were offending him somehow. Grow up.

> Did you feel your self-respect leave your body as you wrote that sentence, you melodramatic cunt?

No. But you also failed to provide any sort of compelling reason for why I omitted something. I omitted nothing of importance. Do you need to know what brand of Coke we drank at the game as well?

>>45036411
Take a look at the first posts in the thread again dude. Everything there is reasonable. People only started getting shitty at him when he started getting defensive.

But continue that "everyone is wrong guys!" viewpoint. It makes you look really smart!

I see a number of people in this thread saying the player was a cunt by I'm not entirely seeing why.

>>45036202
>>45034328
In any industry and especially the last century, every significant advance in technology has been done not to increase the output but to make all the outputs consistent. It is more important to have all your products in the specifications, as bad as they can be, than having mastercrafted objects.

The reason is simple : if it fails, the blame is on the standard, not on the crafter.

>>45036244

Except this isn't plan 9 from outer space. And if you are also roleplaying and cannot provide a better example from your own game, you are just being needlessly critical.

>>45036468

Because it's just the OP saying that and he is clearly retarded.

>>45036305

That's another way of doing it. Perhaps I will try that next session, thank you anon.

>>45036307
>Is there any reason to take more skill ranks than the bare minimum to not fail on a 1, if having 20 ranks and getting a 20 will result in the same result as having 4 ranks and rolling a 20?

That was the entire point of the roll, idiot. He took 10 and succeeded, I was giving him a chance to get extra benefits with a high survival roll.

>>45036311

Actually aren't non-plot-critical rolls explicitly not allowed in Dungeon World?

>>45036432
It's on the Survival skill page.
The ranger knew this because he built a Survival character; if you're not familiar with the rules you should trust the judgment of the player and look it up later, or look it up immediately.

Rolling represents risk, and there is no risk in hunting rabbit for a level 6 ranger, nor in catching fish.
While your intent may not have been to punish him, the *effect* on him is that he had a hostile gaming experience because of seemingly arbitrary increases in difficulty to his profession.

You should apologize to the player for misunderstanding and misusing take 10, and strive to use it in future games.
I'm 90% sure that if you do, he'll apologize equally for any harshness in tone he had when speaking to you about it.

Communication.