Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 coil6 Oct 12, 2014 7:11:20	growing up I began my gaming experiance with 1e, and on intoe 2e. our DM was cold hearted, our adventures were deadly! despite that I/we loved our gaming experiance. We were constantly forced to think outside the box in order to survive our adventures, but that made our successes all that much more memorable, and being challenged to our limits was what we craved. long story short, after years (about 10) of being away from rpgs' I returned first as a player then as a DM, in the era of 3.5. after getting past the mind blowing amount of rules (and house ruling a good deal of it out), I began running adventures for my freinds (not my old group). and since have been known as a killer DM.   Now 5e is out and I am loving it. Much of the rules remind me of those older editions I enjoyed as a youth, and even the newer stuff taken from the later editions seem to mesh well within the system. however when I build encounters that our supposed to be challenging according to the encounter building charts, they almost always tend to be deadly. am I doing something wrong?   As a side question, any advice on getting players into role playing their characters, and not just playing there numbers?
#2 DM_HEEGZ Oct 12, 2014 7:27:16	Explain the inspiration mechanic, and then give them out for the first half decent roleplay things that happened. It has worked for my groups who are all new to roleplaying. Also, point out their ideals, flaws, and bonds, etc. to prompt them at first. It also helps if you have them encounter creatures that aren't hostile as soon as they are encountered.
#3 iserith Oct 12, 2014 7:34:01	coil6 wrote:
#4 coil6 Oct 12, 2014 8:02:07	I would say by role playing vs roll playing, I mean when the characters come up on a situation, unlike when I was a player they want an instant ability check for example. when we played in the 'good ol days', in order to even recieve a roll, we had to role play through the scenerio. (checked for a trigger on the left wall, that was behind the podium? no roll). now as soon as i describe a trap, my players say they are searching for the trigger, and begin rolling perception. This approach seems very dry to me and ruins my experiance as A DM. I try to enforce this the same way but my players(except 1), find this to be a DM tactic to disable their party skills. I have run very successful games in the past, where even years later people talk about their experiances in those games. but this current group of players doesnt seem to get it. I am on the verge of quitting dming for this group, and/or finding a new player base. wich would suck since 2 of the players are my sons.
#5 Rhenny Oct 12, 2014 8:14:48	DM_HEEGZ wrote:
#6 Drycanth Oct 12, 2014 8:15:31	Are you using the monster as avatars of your thinking or are you playing them to their description and statistics?   Are you using the correct CR/ Exp value for the fight?   Can you give a detailed example of an encounter?
#7 iserith Oct 12, 2014 8:15:33	coil6 wrote:
#8 Yunru Oct 12, 2014 8:54:44	At worst tell them that search for traps is not a skill and that the best they can do is a generic search. Use this to have them have to roeplay beyond "attempt to disable trap", they have to take what they see and reason with it.
#9 wildefox Oct 12, 2014 10:45:12	I think Iserith is giving good advice when it comes to players describing their actions, not saying they are rolling dice. The DM asks for checks, the players don't declare them. Additionally I would add that in my personal experience the more "deadly" a campaign is, and the more frequently players expect their characters to die, the less they are interested in playing them as actual living characters with stories and motives. If I can expect a single trap or encounter to execute my character at any given time if I roll poorly, I'm not going to waste time imbueing that character with a personality.
#10 Ansbach Oct 12, 2014 11:37:10	I agree with the others. I don't allow my players to ask for skill checks or roll them on their own.  Ask them to describe their actions, then if you feel it requires a skill check - you ask them to make it.   As for making encounters easier - you are only ever going to get a rough estimation of encounter difficulty, so the best way to handle this is on the fly.  If the players are struggling in an encounter you want to be easier you have a lot of options to adjust - lower the HP or AC of some creatures, ignore some of the abilities they have, have them make some tactical errors, or even have some of them run away or surrender early.  Hopefully with the release of the DMG determining the encounter challenge will get more accurate, but you will always need to adjust on the fly for maximum effect.
(Reply to #9) AaronOfBarbaria	wildefox wrote:
(Reply to #11) Rhenny	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#13 iserith Oct 12, 2014 15:52:11	Rhenny wrote:
(Reply to #13) Rhenny	iserith wrote:
#15 GEBELL Oct 12, 2014 20:37:40	coil6 wrote:
#16 thehobb Oct 13, 2014 7:17:01	I feel like I've seen a fair number of posts lately, many coming from iserith, about not using dice to determine success or failure but rather descriptive actions on the player's part.   In a lot of cases, or perhaps even most cases, I can agree with this but taking a very draconian view of this wherein the actual skill of the character is irrelevant except in the few times the DM calls for a roll I think has its own problems. I feel like this is taking this concept a little too far, especially when considering that not all players are particularly apt at describing how they're going about doing something.   It sounds like so much weight is put on the player's ability to describe what they're doing, that you could have one player who's very good at describing actions (let's say cajoling a barkeep into revealing some information) but who's character has no ability whatsoever will always beat out a character who's the master of that particular task but who's player isn't half as creative when put on the spot.   Imagine having a DM who requires players to describe how they're attacking with their weapon in order to determine whether they hit with it. A magic user in such a case could be far more combat effective with a sword than a fighter, simply by the ability of their respective players to describe what they're doing. This is effectively what's happening with every other skill when the factor of success or failure lies solely in the player's descriptive ability in the vast majority of those skills' use.   I think DMs need to take the character's level of skill at doing something into account along with the descriptions lest the decisions of the players when making their characters become irrelevant.
#17 Ansbach Oct 13, 2014 7:29:17	thehobb wrote:
(Reply to #16) bawylie	@theHobb   All I require from the player is that they describe what they're trying to do and how they're trying to do it.    "I Attack with my sword."   "I want to figure out how this trap works." "How?" "By looking" "Alright, let's have an investigation check. If you succeed, I'll tell you how it works and if you fail you'll set off the trap (but still get a save). What do you do?"   The character's expertise manifests itself in the numerical bonuses when they make that check.    Same for combat as any check. A better description doesn't equal more success. A complete description includes some kind of stated goal and stated intent. 3 words or 50 - as long as I know what you're doing and how.
#19 iserith Oct 13, 2014 7:48:09	thehobb wrote:
(Reply to #19) thehobb	iserith wrote:
#21 iserith Oct 13, 2014 14:23:17	thehobb wrote:
#22 coil6 Oct 13, 2014 15:43:28	thanks for the advice. A freind/DM suggested I have the players describe their actions then set the DC accordingly. ie 'I search the room [DC 20], I search behind the alter [DC 12]. I really want to get my players into "acting out" their characters instead of playing by numbers. Is this ound advice? I think so but perhaps I am overlooking something.   as well, as far as my encounters. for instance in HotD when the characters ran into the peryton encounter, since their were 6 characters instead of 4 I added another peryton. well the rogue died.
(Reply to #21) thehobb	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #22) Rhenny	coil6 wrote:
#25 iserith Oct 13, 2014 17:31:35	coil6 wrote:
#26 iserith Oct 13, 2014 17:46:25	[quote="thehobb"]Some skills can be improved through use, others not so much. I would argue that not all people can improve their improvisational ability all that much, a bit like improvisational comedy - some people just aren't funny no matter how hard or long they try.   Being funny is more than just coming up with stuff on the fly. It requires timing among other things. Coming up with stuff for playing D&D on the fly is comparative easy and very achievable with practice.   thehobb wrote:
(Reply to #26) thehobb	iserith wrote:
#28 Yunru Oct 14, 2014 3:45:21	thehobb wrote:
#29 Theros Oct 14, 2014 6:14:20	I agree that it doesn’t make sense to ignore a characters particular set of skills. If the Bard or Rogue would rather roll then explain their actions then in my opinion that’s a perfectly legitimate position for the player to take. That said if there's no need to roll then don't make them roll. Here’s an example of skills from a game a ran over the weekend. What’s your opinion?   Player 1: We need to find that monk, gather info, and try and save those prisoners. Player 2: I bet if we had cultist robes it would make all that easier. 3 minutes of amusing plans each more elaborate then the last Player 3: Hey guys I’m a rogue, I’m just going to steal them from one of these tents. Hey Theros what kinda of fallout could I expect? Theros: Other than getting caught in the act, probably not much. As I said before, it’s a big camp filled with a lot of strangers, your character figures stuff goes missing all the time. Player 1: Hey Theros, If the rogues going to steal some robes I’ll start playing my flute around the campfire to distract the raiders. Theros: Ok, you’re playing draws the attention of several of the raiders, the rogue uses the opportunity to steal four robes…. Player 1: I rolled an 18 on my flute playing! Theros: You didn’t need to roll, but since you’re doing such a good job the raiders ask you to play another song. If you want you can spend the evening and get to know some of them. Player 1: Sounds good, I’ll act like I’m a new recruit and ask questions in a round about manner Theros: Ok, by the end of the night you made a few friends and learn the following…
(Reply to #28) thehobb	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #29) thehobb	Theros wrote:
#32 Timborama Oct 14, 2014 8:30:22	Well Player 1 gets the same result, if only for the fact that he rolled...And maybe the raiders are very similar to him in lifestyle (being outsider, brutes, and possibly barbarian-ish themselves!)   Player 3 might have a harder time, but thanks to his buddy's roll he might not even have to make one (depends on the context, really). If he had an invisibilty spell he wouldn't even need his buddy, really.   But yes, Hobb, I agree that this is a table to table "issue" if only for the fact that not everyone can (or wants to) be that outgoing in or out of character. It's part of the DM style and social contract, really, and both are perfectly legitimate ways of playing. Though each may alienate some folks, while others are perfect fits!
#33 iserith Oct 14, 2014 8:39:41	thehobb wrote:
(Reply to #33) thehobb	iserith wrote:
#35 iserith Oct 14, 2014 12:03:26	thehobb wrote:
(Reply to #35) thehobb	iserith wrote:
#37 Theros Oct 14, 2014 13:42:21	I'm not sure I would call 5e's skill system lackluster. As the above posts prove, not needing large skill numbers for success leads to players being more willing to use skills they have little aptitude for.    If the players are using skills more often, doesn't that make this skill system better than in previous editions?
(Reply to #37) thehobb	Theros wrote:
#39 Theros Oct 15, 2014 4:41:11	Fair enough. For the record I still think the 5e skill system is the best we’ve seen so far out of D&D.   This system seems more real to me. There are plenty of people with a wide range of skills in the real world who aren’t at the professional level but use them anyway.   That’s the way I see characters who have over 5 in a particular skill in 5e, their experienced professionals or naturally gifted people who consistently succeed in that skill. While the rest of us muddle along as best we can.   The other skill systems just felt like a video game to me.
(Reply to #10) Redbeard2	Ansbach wrote:
#41 Xguild Oct 16, 2014 11:27:28	thehobb wrote: