Help! I'm cheating at D&D
That was a rather click-baity title wasn't it?
I have to say, I'm a little curious at the latest conversation. It's big, amorphous, tough, opinionated, and, like most of these topics, will vary from table to table.
There are a lot of good insights into this topic floating around as is, but I'm never impressed with myself in trying to get out a solid thought on the twitterverse--maybe I'm born with it, maybe it's TBI. Regardless of the reason, I'm compiling my thoughts here on
HELP! I'M CHEATING AT D&D
Wow, again, click-baity title. But isn't it essentially true? The conversation of fudging dice rolls is essentially cheating in a game governed by chance. In the most extreme examples, it could fall into the same camp as counting cards at the casino, or throwing someone out of your card game because you don't like the way the hands are going. In the least extreme examples, it could be sincere trouble with math, or a gentle hand to nudge fate in favor of action or interesting outcomes where there might be none before.
This topic expands the broad scope of playing RPGs and social contracts. It might surround topics like people urging others to play games in which the REASONS TO CHEAT are mitigated or even supported (FATE) by the mechanics, the ever evasive AM I CALLING FOR ROLLS TOO OFTEN? and HOMEBREW PLACEBOS FOR CHEATING.
But first, I have a confession. I'm a cheater. If you frequent my content a lot, you might get the feeling that I am an improv GM. All of us are cheaters, seriously. I'm actually locking my doors and windows at this very moment, because I don't know if the others will like me telling you all our secrets ... but I'm constantly cheating.
And let me tell you, it's sometimes put a bad taste in my players' mouths. It's hard to learn that a game you invested precious copious hours, thoughtful backstory, and routine appearances in, were tangled in the webs by someone like me--an opportunist and a mechanical swindler, a backpeddling justifier. But, because of narrative weaving, they weren't able to identify this cheating without me telling them. The methods I use can be found here. The type of players I refer to can be found here. This article is the crux of those two articles. Where thoughtful, deliberate powergamers meet the antithesis of what they build for.
Why were they angry?
Well, I would walk them into encounters for creatures that didn't exist yet. Before they knew what I had done, they might have thought I ruined them for solo boss battles (much easier, let me tell you, when the mechanics don't exist).
My player: How many hit points does it have left.
My brain: Hahaha, how bold of you to assume it has hit points.
Me: Do you have an ability which allows you to learn this?
This particular example makes the question of fudging dice especially dodgy. Why am I even rolling if there were no mechanics?
Well there actually were mechanics. Not for the creature, but for my improvised boss battle encounter building on the fly. Many of them were codified into average ranges for the party, but when it came down to it, any solo boss that I throw at a party should be able to meet success through one of their perceived strong abilities on hitting an average character of their party level about 70% of the time.
Abilities were pulled together on the fly by what made sense largely for the environment.
My favorite creature created by narrative weaving involved a giant demon bunny with a swarm of 4e style minions which it ate in order to gain bonuses.
But--how can it have bonuses? It doesn't have mechanics. Ah, but narrative weaving! Those are established as we play the game. Every hit or miss by the players solidified a part of the range. I also took note of which of my own numbers I was declaring a hit or miss. Things eventually averaged out over the course of the encounter.
More players were disappointed to learn of my narrative weaving process. Here's why:
Part of the game we play is as much of a player challenge as a character challenge. The benefits of narrative weaving are storyteller facing, but not necessarily player facing, especially if they don't know you're pulling this content from the air. While I stand by my methods as an improv narrative weaver, it's important to note that a fair criticism of it is that it potentially robs players of a unique puzzle solving experience, and it's important to be accepting of that criticism. It is, at its heart, cheating. For my own part, I enjoy the joined story telling experience moreso than the player challenge, and find it very engaging when I'm a player at a table. BUT this does not speak for all players, and my &%$@ing minmaxers were disappointed in me.
Once they learned this, they started grilling me after every session for why I didn't just let things happen. One particular example comes to mind when I had built a ghost like creature using PATHFINDER raw rules. A player was furious that I hadn't allowed a PC's attack to work, and describing the creation process for this particular creature using RAW rules of a system they adored didn't sway it. I was already a cheater. Why wouldn't I just cheat? Note, the actual PC who missed on this attack was miffed (an attack roll gauging a 27 to hit missed), but was understanding when I described the process. I should also say here, these criticizing conversations, though heated, happened after the game. My &%$@ing minmaxers are good beans.
How is this example related? This isn't an example of cheating, but an example of when cheating, perhaps, should have happened. I let an epic moment slide from the grasp of my player who would have enjoyed it. (Knowing the player, however, I think they were fond of my sticking to the rules, funnily enough. The table certainly would have enjoyed it more.) The important part is listening to the criticism.
I'm sure I have more sins, but more thoughts strike and I think they'll naturally snowball into the next half, and the article is already long enough. Let's talk about why REASONS TO CHEAT matter.
The idea that cheating in a game happens, that you can confront someone over it, and eject them, isn't nearly as interesting as why they were cheating to begin with. As a DM, often the cheating through narrative weaving, or fudging rolls, comes at the crux of several reasons:
When we talk about running a more enjoyable game for the players, it's distinctly different than surprising, but it's broader as well. Enjoyment encompasses satisfying storytelling, success and even failure. A good system and story will have players enjoying their mishaps and failures just as much as successes. This is where our fudging die rolls come into place as cheating.
Interesting involves culture, setting background, the richness of the world, and, of course, plot twists. This is where dropping new changes into preexisting modules, or new abilities on monsters come into place as cheating.
Maintaining control might be the most obvious part. Questions to ask yourself if you are rolling behind the screen to hear the way the dice sounds, and the way your players stare hopefully after your decision: Are you rolling to make your DM decisions appear guided by chaos? Do your players place more trust in your judgment when you appear to be rolling for chance?
While there's no wrong answer for these questions, I do find that players will ask for more obscene and ridiculous leeway in the scope of setting immersion if they think a die roll is what stands between them and getting their outcome, especially if you're rolling out these decisions in good faith and not just rolling to make the appearance of letting chance decide.
Let's talk about reasons players might cheat. Players can fudge rolls, too, which comes at the cost of some integrity regarding playing the game. It's interesting how varied perceptions can be between the DM is also not allowed this leeway, to the DM is the only one who is allowed this leeway. One measure reinforces the fairness of the game, and the other reinforces the power structure leading to the head of the table.
In my experience, cheating happened on the player end for the following reasons:
-A slight error in addition made the difference between success and failure, and it was something the player decided they should not fail at. They may make a mistake in calculation, and not clarify the mistake later, or make the error on purpose to begin with. This happens frequently across all tables, and makes a shining example out of Roll20.
-They didn't want to roll to begin with. It seemed like something they should just succeed on. I'm a criminal regarding this one, but in my defense, I didn't want to roll to read a legible letter written to me in a language I spoke fluently. That's right. My DM had us roll to read.
-They added a spell to their list they just wanted to have at the time because it was convenient for the situation. Quantum Spell Lists also happen quite frequently. Spells are more volatile than most ability checks, because they provide a shortcut to what the ability checks do with immediate gratification.
-It was funny. Cut to: 6 years ago. We were playing 4e D&D, using the now-archived 4e character builder. We encounter some swamp folk, and some bad attitude is exchanged. The bard steps up to the plate, grinning and ready to mingle. She rolls her check to smooth over the situation and win over a new ally. She rolls a 38. At level 6. The table stares. The DM demands to see her sheet. "
DM: WHY DO YOU HAVE A 47 IN CHARISMA?!
BARD: THE CHARACTER BUILDER DIDN'T TELL ME TO STOP."
US: WHY DIDN'T YOU KEEP GOING?
BARD: IT... SEEMED HIGH ENOUGH.
At the Phantom Rollbooth, we have a saying regarding cheating:
"If cheating is how you have fun, go ahead and cheat. We want you to have fun."
More player characters have died in my games succeeding at what they wanted to accomplish than failing, and I think that really speaks to why we have such a relaxed attitude toward it.
As a GM, I am often known for not calling for rolls often. The above outlines most of my reasoning for it, and also can be revisited in my article regarding minmaxers and the importance of calling for sensible ability checks. (TL;DR: Rolls are not a wall or punishment. They are a tool to meet an end result, and ultimately one that should set the reality for the game that follows after.)
The Question becomes "AM I CALLING FOR ROLLS TOO OFTEN?"
Calling for rolls too often can be exhaustive and immersion breaking--introducing chaos into the stable realities covered by your setting materials, and character sheets, can make players feel as though their character experience isn't reflected by what they created. Sure, theoretically over enough time, you will roll enough that the average should reflect the numbers on your sheets--this won't happen in any livable game experience however--and is covered well by passive rolls, should you use them.
You might also be rolling too often, and if you question this, that's ok. If you like rolling, no one here is going to tell you to stop. The surprise that I spoke of above is very well introduced by rolling. You can surprise yourself with wildmagic, or the dragon recharges its breath weapon on the last turn it might be alive.
However, the logic will follow this: if a means to an end of having better control over the narrative is through cheating (either by fudging rolls or rolling to make it appear as though chaos is in the works), then the only difference between rolling to resolve an outcome you've already decided, or even taking an action that does not involve rolling, is simply not rolling for it.
I could imagine already--my players becoming angry at this sentiment. Don't we deserve a fighting chance in the case of character death? Even if what we need is a critical failure? I think most people, when regarding the above, might think of a coup de gras on a prone character. But, if you don't want to kill them, just don't do it. Make it fit into the narrative better than "they just miss." Widen your horizons, and good things will follow. Employ Misdirection.
You rush in, and as you do, you see your party retreating to safety. Through gameplay, the PC is disarmed, and knocked prone. An orc raises his axe above your head, and strikes down, missing. It leans down into your ear and whispers (your choice):
A sentiment to pick up your weapon and fight him, he will not fell you if you are already prone.
He wishes to change sides, this life is not for him, he wishes to farm wild flower honey with his secret human lover and sees helping you as a way out.
A curse on your mother.
The above will rely on reading the room. Some players will be ok with their characters dying in such a way, and its important to recognize when that is happening--especially in a situation of sacrifice. Satisfying narrative endings is why we sometimes cheat, or in a dire case such as above, let the dice fall where they may. If the situation is already bleak, surviving another round may give the party they are providing a distraction for more time to escape. Some players will not be ok with this, and that might be the time to employ misdirection, as doing something surprising is another reason why we cheat. Either way allows you to employ a level of control over the situation. By setting the scene and reading player responses to it, we are still all telling the story together.
And, if all else fails, remember to ask what your player's intent is. Remember to clarify the gravity of situations. Ask players for their characters thoughts and aims, if any.
I do recommend, if you haven't tried it yet, running games in which the DM doesn't touch dice for a different flavor of DM agency vs. Player Agency in dice rolling (which can be an article all its own). Things like this might be Monte Cook Games' Cypher System, Numenera, etc., Powered by the Apocalypse games, Symbaroum, and a handful of others. If you have any in mind you want to promote, please drop it in the comments. I'm always looking for new systems.
While there are systems that account for fudging, let's talk briefly about the HOMEBREW PLACEBOS FOR CHEATING.
At our table, we enjoy a mechanic called Pushing Your Luck. You essentially take damage in the style of stress to accomplish something additional outside of the realm of the d20 roll. The damage die you roll is equal to the hit die of the creature, or according to the severity of the DC. This typically comes after the attack roll. You could Push Your Luck to hit instead, or if you've already hit, you can deal additional damage to the creature. But it's just damage, right? Well, yes, and no. Typically we only call for Pushing Your Luck if a creature is very close to dying and if doing so will prevent some grave outcome. Otherwise doing 6 damage to a creature at full health, to do damage to yourself, is somewhat stale and meaninglessly unforgiving. But, if used correctly, it could save a teammate, or prevent a terrifying end as the doomsday button is pressed. 100% Cheating.
It might still fail, however, under the current rules.
Still, we're gamblers, and we enjoy gambling.
Let's talk about other Placebos--the one I think of the most, as I entered into the streaming scene last year, are Stream Donation Incentives, which change the way the game is played, and introduce the audience as a participant and occasional player in the game. It's essentially also cheating, and one that I'm fond of supporting when it comes to cheering on my friends, and also introducing an occasional modicum of stress into their lives.
Other examples might be using lingering injuries instead of death, or using passive scores to account for most everything. There are more--if you have any you want to speak of at your tables, please drop them below, I'm interested to hear about them.
Keep Rolling--or don't, it's your choice!
~~Marsie
Marsie Vellan is an Operator for the Phantom Rollbooth and the GM for The Owl of Lysia Cypher System Liveplay on Monte Cook Games' Twitch Channel, now moving to https://twitch.tv/little_red_dot You can follow her on Twitter @MarsieVellan for news about all of her creative endeavors, including art, homebrew, and livestreaming updates. Her partner, the other Operator on The Phantom Rollbooth is here @ColinItLikeISee. You can also join the community on the Phantom Rollbooth's Discord for topical discussions on Roleplaying Games and Culture, and Creation. For Other Contact, you can e-mail us @ phantomrollbooth@gmail.com
I have to say, I'm a little curious at the latest conversation. It's big, amorphous, tough, opinionated, and, like most of these topics, will vary from table to table.
There are a lot of good insights into this topic floating around as is, but I'm never impressed with myself in trying to get out a solid thought on the twitterverse--maybe I'm born with it, maybe it's TBI. Regardless of the reason, I'm compiling my thoughts here on
HELP! I'M CHEATING AT D&D
Wow, again, click-baity title. But isn't it essentially true? The conversation of fudging dice rolls is essentially cheating in a game governed by chance. In the most extreme examples, it could fall into the same camp as counting cards at the casino, or throwing someone out of your card game because you don't like the way the hands are going. In the least extreme examples, it could be sincere trouble with math, or a gentle hand to nudge fate in favor of action or interesting outcomes where there might be none before.
This topic expands the broad scope of playing RPGs and social contracts. It might surround topics like people urging others to play games in which the REASONS TO CHEAT are mitigated or even supported (FATE) by the mechanics, the ever evasive AM I CALLING FOR ROLLS TOO OFTEN? and HOMEBREW PLACEBOS FOR CHEATING.
But first, I have a confession. I'm a cheater. If you frequent my content a lot, you might get the feeling that I am an improv GM. All of us are cheaters, seriously. I'm actually locking my doors and windows at this very moment, because I don't know if the others will like me telling you all our secrets ... but I'm constantly cheating.
And let me tell you, it's sometimes put a bad taste in my players' mouths. It's hard to learn that a game you invested precious copious hours, thoughtful backstory, and routine appearances in, were tangled in the webs by someone like me--an opportunist and a mechanical swindler, a backpeddling justifier. But, because of narrative weaving, they weren't able to identify this cheating without me telling them. The methods I use can be found here. The type of players I refer to can be found here. This article is the crux of those two articles. Where thoughtful, deliberate powergamers meet the antithesis of what they build for.
Why were they angry?
Well, I would walk them into encounters for creatures that didn't exist yet. Before they knew what I had done, they might have thought I ruined them for solo boss battles (much easier, let me tell you, when the mechanics don't exist).
My player: How many hit points does it have left.
My brain: Hahaha, how bold of you to assume it has hit points.
Me: Do you have an ability which allows you to learn this?
This particular example makes the question of fudging dice especially dodgy. Why am I even rolling if there were no mechanics?
Well there actually were mechanics. Not for the creature, but for my improvised boss battle encounter building on the fly. Many of them were codified into average ranges for the party, but when it came down to it, any solo boss that I throw at a party should be able to meet success through one of their perceived strong abilities on hitting an average character of their party level about 70% of the time.
Abilities were pulled together on the fly by what made sense largely for the environment.
My favorite creature created by narrative weaving involved a giant demon bunny with a swarm of 4e style minions which it ate in order to gain bonuses.
But--how can it have bonuses? It doesn't have mechanics. Ah, but narrative weaving! Those are established as we play the game. Every hit or miss by the players solidified a part of the range. I also took note of which of my own numbers I was declaring a hit or miss. Things eventually averaged out over the course of the encounter.
More players were disappointed to learn of my narrative weaving process. Here's why:
Part of the game we play is as much of a player challenge as a character challenge. The benefits of narrative weaving are storyteller facing, but not necessarily player facing, especially if they don't know you're pulling this content from the air. While I stand by my methods as an improv narrative weaver, it's important to note that a fair criticism of it is that it potentially robs players of a unique puzzle solving experience, and it's important to be accepting of that criticism. It is, at its heart, cheating. For my own part, I enjoy the joined story telling experience moreso than the player challenge, and find it very engaging when I'm a player at a table. BUT this does not speak for all players, and my &%$@ing minmaxers were disappointed in me.
Once they learned this, they started grilling me after every session for why I didn't just let things happen. One particular example comes to mind when I had built a ghost like creature using PATHFINDER raw rules. A player was furious that I hadn't allowed a PC's attack to work, and describing the creation process for this particular creature using RAW rules of a system they adored didn't sway it. I was already a cheater. Why wouldn't I just cheat? Note, the actual PC who missed on this attack was miffed (an attack roll gauging a 27 to hit missed), but was understanding when I described the process. I should also say here, these criticizing conversations, though heated, happened after the game. My &%$@ing minmaxers are good beans.
How is this example related? This isn't an example of cheating, but an example of when cheating, perhaps, should have happened. I let an epic moment slide from the grasp of my player who would have enjoyed it. (Knowing the player, however, I think they were fond of my sticking to the rules, funnily enough. The table certainly would have enjoyed it more.) The important part is listening to the criticism.
I'm sure I have more sins, but more thoughts strike and I think they'll naturally snowball into the next half, and the article is already long enough. Let's talk about why REASONS TO CHEAT matter.
The idea that cheating in a game happens, that you can confront someone over it, and eject them, isn't nearly as interesting as why they were cheating to begin with. As a DM, often the cheating through narrative weaving, or fudging rolls, comes at the crux of several reasons:
To run a more enjoyable game for the players, and yourself
To run a more interesting, or surprising game
To maintain control in a world where die rolls introduce chaos to the design
When we talk about running a more enjoyable game for the players, it's distinctly different than surprising, but it's broader as well. Enjoyment encompasses satisfying storytelling, success and even failure. A good system and story will have players enjoying their mishaps and failures just as much as successes. This is where our fudging die rolls come into place as cheating.
Interesting involves culture, setting background, the richness of the world, and, of course, plot twists. This is where dropping new changes into preexisting modules, or new abilities on monsters come into place as cheating.
Maintaining control might be the most obvious part. Questions to ask yourself if you are rolling behind the screen to hear the way the dice sounds, and the way your players stare hopefully after your decision: Are you rolling to make your DM decisions appear guided by chaos? Do your players place more trust in your judgment when you appear to be rolling for chance?
While there's no wrong answer for these questions, I do find that players will ask for more obscene and ridiculous leeway in the scope of setting immersion if they think a die roll is what stands between them and getting their outcome, especially if you're rolling out these decisions in good faith and not just rolling to make the appearance of letting chance decide.
Let's talk about reasons players might cheat. Players can fudge rolls, too, which comes at the cost of some integrity regarding playing the game. It's interesting how varied perceptions can be between the DM is also not allowed this leeway, to the DM is the only one who is allowed this leeway. One measure reinforces the fairness of the game, and the other reinforces the power structure leading to the head of the table.
In my experience, cheating happened on the player end for the following reasons:
-A slight error in addition made the difference between success and failure, and it was something the player decided they should not fail at. They may make a mistake in calculation, and not clarify the mistake later, or make the error on purpose to begin with. This happens frequently across all tables, and makes a shining example out of Roll20.
-They didn't want to roll to begin with. It seemed like something they should just succeed on. I'm a criminal regarding this one, but in my defense, I didn't want to roll to read a legible letter written to me in a language I spoke fluently. That's right. My DM had us roll to read.
-They added a spell to their list they just wanted to have at the time because it was convenient for the situation. Quantum Spell Lists also happen quite frequently. Spells are more volatile than most ability checks, because they provide a shortcut to what the ability checks do with immediate gratification.
-It was funny. Cut to: 6 years ago. We were playing 4e D&D, using the now-archived 4e character builder. We encounter some swamp folk, and some bad attitude is exchanged. The bard steps up to the plate, grinning and ready to mingle. She rolls her check to smooth over the situation and win over a new ally. She rolls a 38. At level 6. The table stares. The DM demands to see her sheet. "
DM: WHY DO YOU HAVE A 47 IN CHARISMA?!
BARD: THE CHARACTER BUILDER DIDN'T TELL ME TO STOP."
US: WHY DIDN'T YOU KEEP GOING?
BARD: IT... SEEMED HIGH ENOUGH.
At the Phantom Rollbooth, we have a saying regarding cheating:
"If cheating is how you have fun, go ahead and cheat. We want you to have fun."
More player characters have died in my games succeeding at what they wanted to accomplish than failing, and I think that really speaks to why we have such a relaxed attitude toward it.
As a GM, I am often known for not calling for rolls often. The above outlines most of my reasoning for it, and also can be revisited in my article regarding minmaxers and the importance of calling for sensible ability checks. (TL;DR: Rolls are not a wall or punishment. They are a tool to meet an end result, and ultimately one that should set the reality for the game that follows after.)
The Question becomes "AM I CALLING FOR ROLLS TOO OFTEN?"
Calling for rolls too often can be exhaustive and immersion breaking--introducing chaos into the stable realities covered by your setting materials, and character sheets, can make players feel as though their character experience isn't reflected by what they created. Sure, theoretically over enough time, you will roll enough that the average should reflect the numbers on your sheets--this won't happen in any livable game experience however--and is covered well by passive rolls, should you use them.
You might also be rolling too often, and if you question this, that's ok. If you like rolling, no one here is going to tell you to stop. The surprise that I spoke of above is very well introduced by rolling. You can surprise yourself with wildmagic, or the dragon recharges its breath weapon on the last turn it might be alive.
However, the logic will follow this: if a means to an end of having better control over the narrative is through cheating (either by fudging rolls or rolling to make it appear as though chaos is in the works), then the only difference between rolling to resolve an outcome you've already decided, or even taking an action that does not involve rolling, is simply not rolling for it.
I could imagine already--my players becoming angry at this sentiment. Don't we deserve a fighting chance in the case of character death? Even if what we need is a critical failure? I think most people, when regarding the above, might think of a coup de gras on a prone character. But, if you don't want to kill them, just don't do it. Make it fit into the narrative better than "they just miss." Widen your horizons, and good things will follow. Employ Misdirection.
You rush in, and as you do, you see your party retreating to safety. Through gameplay, the PC is disarmed, and knocked prone. An orc raises his axe above your head, and strikes down, missing. It leans down into your ear and whispers (your choice):
A sentiment to pick up your weapon and fight him, he will not fell you if you are already prone.
He wishes to change sides, this life is not for him, he wishes to farm wild flower honey with his secret human lover and sees helping you as a way out.
A curse on your mother.
The above will rely on reading the room. Some players will be ok with their characters dying in such a way, and its important to recognize when that is happening--especially in a situation of sacrifice. Satisfying narrative endings is why we sometimes cheat, or in a dire case such as above, let the dice fall where they may. If the situation is already bleak, surviving another round may give the party they are providing a distraction for more time to escape. Some players will not be ok with this, and that might be the time to employ misdirection, as doing something surprising is another reason why we cheat. Either way allows you to employ a level of control over the situation. By setting the scene and reading player responses to it, we are still all telling the story together.
And, if all else fails, remember to ask what your player's intent is. Remember to clarify the gravity of situations. Ask players for their characters thoughts and aims, if any.
I do recommend, if you haven't tried it yet, running games in which the DM doesn't touch dice for a different flavor of DM agency vs. Player Agency in dice rolling (which can be an article all its own). Things like this might be Monte Cook Games' Cypher System, Numenera, etc., Powered by the Apocalypse games, Symbaroum, and a handful of others. If you have any in mind you want to promote, please drop it in the comments. I'm always looking for new systems.
While there are systems that account for fudging, let's talk briefly about the HOMEBREW PLACEBOS FOR CHEATING.
At our table, we enjoy a mechanic called Pushing Your Luck. You essentially take damage in the style of stress to accomplish something additional outside of the realm of the d20 roll. The damage die you roll is equal to the hit die of the creature, or according to the severity of the DC. This typically comes after the attack roll. You could Push Your Luck to hit instead, or if you've already hit, you can deal additional damage to the creature. But it's just damage, right? Well, yes, and no. Typically we only call for Pushing Your Luck if a creature is very close to dying and if doing so will prevent some grave outcome. Otherwise doing 6 damage to a creature at full health, to do damage to yourself, is somewhat stale and meaninglessly unforgiving. But, if used correctly, it could save a teammate, or prevent a terrifying end as the doomsday button is pressed. 100% Cheating.
It might still fail, however, under the current rules.
Still, we're gamblers, and we enjoy gambling.
Let's talk about other Placebos--the one I think of the most, as I entered into the streaming scene last year, are Stream Donation Incentives, which change the way the game is played, and introduce the audience as a participant and occasional player in the game. It's essentially also cheating, and one that I'm fond of supporting when it comes to cheering on my friends, and also introducing an occasional modicum of stress into their lives.
Other examples might be using lingering injuries instead of death, or using passive scores to account for most everything. There are more--if you have any you want to speak of at your tables, please drop them below, I'm interested to hear about them.
Keep Rolling--or don't, it's your choice!
~~Marsie
Marsie Vellan is an Operator for the Phantom Rollbooth and the GM for The Owl of Lysia Cypher System Liveplay on Monte Cook Games' Twitch Channel, now moving to https://twitch.tv/little_red_dot You can follow her on Twitter @MarsieVellan for news about all of her creative endeavors, including art, homebrew, and livestreaming updates. Her partner, the other Operator on The Phantom Rollbooth is here @ColinItLikeISee. You can also join the community on the Phantom Rollbooth's Discord for topical discussions on Roleplaying Games and Culture, and Creation. For Other Contact, you can e-mail us @ phantomrollbooth@gmail.com
I know I mentioned it to you on Twitter, but I really enjoyed this post!
ReplyDelete