That’s Ser Naruto von Speedforce, thank you.
An old guild I was in had this system where you “bought” traits which gave bonuses but also gave minuses to certain other actions and of course flat out HP/MANA upgrades, it was really simple and everyone started out with a flat 10 points they could spend and the names of the traits was made to reference the characters personalities as a meta joke. Some were more diplomatically focused, others were straight fanatical fervor. Made /roll A LOT more fun and got people A LOT more engaged. We also tweaked it a lot, but sadly before we could expand it the GM had had enough of BfA and his exams came up ontop of that, I then had to move apartment and it all fell apart.
Anyways we tried this new system because we were starting to get tired of the normal /roll due to how random it felt and /emote didn’t work either since it would drag out FOREVER and it became more a game of “Am I acting too OP now?” “Could I maybe not have taking such a big beating?” Instead of just enjoying the event.
I am triggered by this.
1 Like
ITT people suffering PTSD from terrible roll systems. I’ve been there…
Why yes I am having fun with my warrior getting stuck in web the entire event because they keep rolling 1s but the mage nerd broke out first try. (Ideally there should be no crit fails like actual RPGs and the requirement should lower with each failure)
Why yes I am having fun filling out a sheet big enough to make a Pathfinder player scratch their head.
Both are avoidable with a better DM and a better system (Too many DMs don’t adapt on the fly, or insist on broken, convoluted systems that are more complicated than D&D 5e which is honestly really damn simple these days).
But alas both are so commonly bad I don’t blame people for recoiling when asked to use rolls in any form.
That said having a system has acted as a nice filter for my guilds in the past, between people who can’t be bothered assigning a +1 to one of three things and only three things and pouting until someone dies it for them, or people trying to power game or argue why they should get +1 in all the things.
1 Like
I personally prefer rolls due to it just make it all random instead of me as the host need to decide on who gets affected by what.
But I usually allow the person behind the roll to decide how bad the injury and so on is so they can decide themselves how it affect their character.
Some people like being heavily wounded and some prefer not so it gives them the freedom to dictate themselves.
I think for many people the problem is the other way around. They feel frustrated when no reason is given for their failure, the DM just says “the dice says you fail” and leave it that. It makes their character just look inept at something they should have been good at.
I make an effort to explain a circumstance, usually beyond the characters control, that explains why they failed at something they’re meant to be good at.
The rogue picking the lock failed because the lock had a security mechanism that snapped the pick, or they were about to unlock it but guards are approaching so they had to drop the task, and so on.
Degrees of failure or success at cost also help significantly. If someone only just barely rolls too low I’ll usually allow it to pass but with a cost. They picked the lock but lost their favourite pick, the warrior pushes the boulder but tears a muscle, etc. Even pros have their offdays and missteps but they shouldn’t outright fail at whatever they’re a pro at, you don’t see a javelin thrower just not throw the javelin if he botched the throw. It just doesn’t go as far, or its off aim, or he pulls something.
Combat is a different story as pushing specific injuries onto people is generally a no no in an RP focused session. Plus a DM having to micromanage who gets injured and how for 20 people is a lot of unnecessary work that slows down the pace.
In short the issue is people feel like rolls take away character control, in reality that’s just a crap DM who learns too much on numbers and doesn’t understand why it’s frustrating to not explain to the player why their character failed at something they were supposed to be good at.
On the upside though, rolls can allow someone not so good at something to make a desperate attempt, and possibly succeed. In emote only events they would probably never try or the DM would just say “Nope, doesn’t work”.
Of course you need to explain some depth on what caused the action to occur as it did but in the end I usually try to force injury mainly on people.
I also often make it so the roll have different levels too, so if they go below 30 they fail hit, if they roll below 10 they get struck back by the target and so on.
But I get your point and that is a important factor too that you can’t just let it be too loose either because that will just cause confusion and frustration by people who may also be inexperienced.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.