Goodman Games

shadewest wrote:

goodmangames wrote:

shadewest wrote:The player and I both roll. The pc gets the better roll. I'm going soft.

I hadn't heard of this method before, but I like it as a compromise over the "pure roll" approach.

That's because I made it up on the spot a couple of months ago. I had a zero with one hit point go warrior, and rolled another one. I threw 11, and just decided to give it to him. Then, I had to be fair to the rest of the table, so it stuck.

I like this. It made me think of a twist that appeals to the gambler in me. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if the Judge rolled in secret, then the player decides if they want to keep theirs or risk taking the mystery roll.

I would think hard before rolling dice in secret; it's a slippery slope into 'fudging'

Weisenwolf wrote:I would think hard before rolling dice in secret; it's a slippery slope into 'fudging'

It doesn't have to be. Roll the die then cup your hands over it, slide the screen out of the way, then lift your hands if they take your roll. No fudging or questions. If people are that worried about it, have second person verify the roll.

In any case, the people I game with trust me and are good friends, YMMV with strangers I guess?

NJPDX wrote:

Weisenwolf wrote:I would think hard before rolling dice in secret; it's a slippery slope into 'fudging'

It doesn't have to be. Roll the die then cup your hands over it, slide the screen out of the way, then lift your hands if they take your roll. No fudging or questions. If people are that worried about it, have second person verify the roll.

In any case, the people I game with trust me and are good friends, YMMV with strangers I guess?

No my friends and I have been gaming together for more than 3 decades; there are no trust issues.

My point is that rolling in secret invites temptation for the Judge to fudge in order to AVOID killing PC's.

Weisenwolf wrote:

NJPDX wrote:

Weisenwolf wrote:I would think hard before rolling dice in secret; it's a slippery slope into 'fudging'

It doesn't have to be. Roll the die then cup your hands over it, slide the screen out of the way, then lift your hands if they take your roll. No fudging or questions. If people are that worried about it, have second person verify the roll.

In any case, the people I game with trust me and are good friends, YMMV with strangers I guess?

No my friends and I have been gaming together for more than 3 decades; there are no trust issues.

My point is that rolling in secret invites temptation for the Judge to fudge in order to AVOID killing PC's.

I've never had that problem ...

If it makes you feel any better I roll attacks, saves and damage in the open. In this particular instance I'm just musing if this particular method would add some fun and risk to the house rule being discussed. I suppose it would be just as easy to accomplish the same result by letting players re-roll their hit points once, but if they do re-roll they are forced to take the new roll no matter what it is.

I think the 0 level D4 removes the need to further enhance hit points but each to their own I guess.

Weisenwolf wrote:I think the 0 level D4 removes the need to further enhance hit points but each to their own I guess.

That's how I would prefer it, but the people I play with have other ideas.

NJPDX wrote:

Weisenwolf wrote:I think the 0 level D4 removes the need to further enhance hit points but each to their own I guess.

That's how I would prefer it, but the people I play with have other ideas.

Well under the referees section what does it read in regard to who is in charge of the game

Weisenwolf wrote:

NJPDX wrote:

Weisenwolf wrote:I think the 0 level D4 removes the need to further enhance hit points but each to their own I guess.

That's how I would prefer it, but the people I play with have other ideas.

Well under the referees section what does it read in regard to who is in charge of the game

I'm sure I could drop the proverbial hammer and then have a lovely time sitting around a table by myself.

NJPDX wrote:

Weisenwolf wrote:Well under the referees section what does it read in regard to who is in charge of the game

I'm sure I could drop the proverbial hammer and then have a lovely time sitting around a table by myself.

There are folks who have so much opportunity around them, that they can be very strict about things and still have plenty of players who agree with what they're doing and how they're doing it.

And then there are us slobs who don't have all those options, and need to 'work with our players' to reach a mutually agreed approach. There's nothing wrong with that if the point is to play together and have everyone enjoy the game.


...You don't suppose my more limited options are because I'm a slob, do you...?

GnomeBoy wrote: There are folks who have so much opportunity around them, that they can be very strict about things and still have plenty of players who agree with what they're doing and how they're doing it.

And then there are us slobs who don't have all those options, and need to 'work with our players' to reach a mutually agreed approach. There's nothing wrong with that if the point is to play together and have everyone enjoy the game.


...You don't suppose my more limited options are because I'm a slob, do you...?

Honestly, I'm in it for the fun. Slightly more "survivable" characters seem to be more "fun" for the people I play with, so I guess I don't mind much. Ultimately it still all boils down to them knowing when to run and when to fight, because I don't create level scaled encounters. I run a sandbox that makes liberal use of tables and truly random encounters. If they play it stupid, those extra 5% HPs aren't going matter a tinker's damn.

Very good point and at the end of the day it's not HOW you get the fun round the table as long as you get it there