Quote from: malleus arianorumSatyress: Come with me and I will show you a world of pleasure...
(Players all make their saves)
Hung:  Yes, you're everything I ever wanted... and more...
Dwarf:  Don't be a damn fool!
Cleric:  Pelor, have mercy!
Rogue: No Hung... (I grab his hand and look into his eyes) ...what about us?
Sorceress: So it WAS true! You said she was just searching for traps!

* * *

Satyress: (Bleating) I'm a bAAAAd girl!
(Players all make their saves)
Hung: (Bleating) Ewe are a skanky AAAAAAss hoe!
GM:  It's a half goat, not a half sheep so it's a "doeling" not a "ewe"
Dwarf: Come here "Doeling" and I'll "half" a piece of that...
Ranger: Gross. I kill it with an arrow. Natural twenty... confirmed. Let me guess.... no pants equals no pockets equals no treasure?

Priceless

Hi, guys. Thanks for the replies. A lot to mull over, here.

First, some of the individual-solution type thingies:

Quote from: C.W.RichesonI'm not sure of a solution for this other than offering Action Points (if you use APs) in return for players choosing to fail an interesting save - perhaps several in some cases.  That way the neat stuff could happen and the players could fill up their APs to beat down the threat with successful melee attacks and such.

That's an interesting possibility. I am using APs, and this might be a good way to get around players feeling cheated. On the other hand, I'm not sure how the players would react to an overt bribe. I'll have to think about it.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineMonsters out of the MM are not optimised. Their feats are not generally chosen to maximise the effectiveness of their abilities.

[SNIP]

Also, familiarise your PCs with the "Aid Another" action. At low levels, it increases the effectiveness of PCs quite a bit, since "Aid Another" actions stack.

AND:

Quote from: Abyssal MawThis is where skilled play comes in.

On average, the miss factor for an average party against an equal CR opponent is usually around 1 out of 3. (this is my completely unscientific estimate). Most parties can still win handily, but they'll miss a lot.

 Skilled players will find a way to minimize this to the point that they almost never miss, or use tactics that help the other team members hit. They'll use buffs, team tactics, flanks, layered reach weapon formations... The suggestion to 'Aid Other' is a buff that anyone in the party can do.

[SNIP]

Well, guys, this is all certainly good advice (and which I intend to use as much as possible for the general improvement of the campaign), and it's sort of a solution to my woes in a treat-the-symptoms kind of way. But it doesn't really address the root problem. I mean, yeah, boosting the Monster's save or the player's to-hit will keep this thing from rearing its head as often, but the underlying issue is still there. And maybe it always will in D&D, I dunno. Like I said, I intend to make copious use of your advice, but I was sorta hoping to explore more holistic, system-wide approaches to the problem as well.

More stuff coming up.

Peace,
-Joel

A couple of the proposed solutions I have serious problems with:

Quote from: JimBobOzJust fudge it and let them win despite their crap dice rolls. That's the old-fashioned way.

See, I'm big on trust. It's important to me that the players trust me as GM and that I'm worthy of that trust. There's a lot of arbitrariness and judgment calling that's unavoidable, and hell, the whole freakin' situation, i.e. what stuff the PCs encounter and how it behaves, is all me spinnin; out of my head. But within that, I want players to be able to count on me doing what I appear to be doing. I can't see "rolling dice just for the funny noises" and still fulfilling that. If this problem persists and bugs everyone as much as it does me, then I could see talking it over and finding out if the players are cool having their victories handed to them like that. But that's the only condition under which I wopuld be willing to fudge.

Quote from: Abyssal MawAlso, you can totally make the charm thing work. have the Satyress follow around the guy invisibly and cast it from a hiding place. Eventually she'll hit.

Now, the problem I have with this: I gave the PCs a challenge; they beat it fair and square. Totally resisted the Satyress' charms, and sent her off crying  into the woods (she's a naive and emotional young thing). It would be dirty fucking pool to have her follow and repeat the attempt until I get the effect I want. Players don't infinite do-overs on their rolls; sure they can attack again next round but not without cost (in HPs, usually) in the meantime. It would be cheap to give myself that benefit by virtue of controlling all the surrounding factors. Just as cheap as having impassible mountains spring up if I don't like their direction of travel. Which is not to say the issue of the Satyress is over--oh, no! She's bitter and hurt, still in love with the monk, and now deeply hating the Gnome sorceress who humiliated her. There will be a reckoning! But only at a different time and place under different circumstances.

Not to mention, "have her retry until it works" totally misses the point of the OP: that the first impression of a cool thing tends to "set" that thing, and ruin the impact of that thing if it iconically defines a protagonist, villain, mythical creature, or whatever.

Peace,
-Joel

Peace,
-Joel

QuoteIt's important to me that the players trust me as GM and that I'm worthy of that trust.

And they trust you to run a fun game.  If that doesn't happen your overanalysis of the ethics of a simple game tecnique is gonna be pretty damn moot.

NOW: Some of the more overarching issues--i.e. what this thread's mainly about:

Quote from: James McMurrayIt sounds to me like D&D isn't the game for you. If you're looking to tell "an exciting story" instead of watching one unfurl you may want to switch to a game designed to do that.

Honestly, right now I'm not so much concerned with whether I/we are telling a cool story; I just want a cool story to happen, regardless of whether it's emergent or purposeful. Like, if D&D is supposed to be giving me, through mechanical results, a good story that I can "watch unfurl," then great, bring it--but so far it's not doing that.

I'm really trying to see how I can get what I want out of this system, here and now. For instance I love Capes, which does deal elegantly with this problem, but I don't want every game to be Capes. I want this one to be D&D, and if possible, to also do what I want in this certain area.

Quote from: malleus arianorumI drop my Mace as a free action and cast "Roleplay not rollplay."

Ugh. If I pick up that Mace and slap you with it, will you promise to never say that again? (Spitting out bloody teeth will be taken as a "yes.")

Now then:

Quote from: malleus arianorumIt's your collective storytelling that's at fault. Let's say that the storm troopers on the death star have Han & co. surrounded. They burst through the door open fire but never actualy hit anyone. It's up to the PLAYERS to play up the excitement. They should excuse the stormtroopers lousy marksmenship by "leaping behind the controll panel" and "taking cover in the detention hall" and generaly acting like their lives are imperiled.

Later on, in the trash compactor scene, the players should shout, argue and act terrified, even though their characters are still a good five miniutes from being squished. They should shreak "Shut them down! Shut them ALL down!" instead of saying "On/off -- how hard can it be?"
 
Likewise when the Satyr uses her charms, it's up to you and the gang to interpret what happens.

[one very good and one very Baaaad example SNIPPED]

I like the cut of your jib, here. . .this is in fact what I've been doing my best to supply on my end. I do this both players' favor--"the Wolf is in a flurry of teeth and claws and fur and fists with Hung and you just can't get in a good shot", as opposed to "you swing your sword wildly about and miss the wolf by a mile."--and in my own: "The haunting melody calls to you and stirs longing in your heart for deep pleasures under the forest moon. . .but your will is strong and you shake off the spell!"

It would, however, be great to get players in on the act. It would be less work for me, and mean less dictating--"you feel this"--which is a good thing. And with the assurance that they would come out on top, they'd be free to ham it up and bring out the struggle along the way. Everybody wins!

Thanks, that's a really god suggestion! I'll have to talk that over with my group!

Peace,
-Joel

PS Hmm, in retrospect, this has become a "fix my problematic campaign!" type thread. Fruitful though that may be, it's not entirely what I wanted. . .part of the reason I posted in ROleplaying general was that I thought this would be an interesting phenomenon to discuss RE: roleplaying in, uh, general. Any thoughts, folks?

Quote from: MelinglorSee, I'm big on trust. It's important to me that the players trust me as GM and that I'm worthy of that trust. [...] I can't see "rolling dice just for the funny noises" and still fulfilling that.

Well, that's the thing. Trust you to... what? Follow the rules to the letter? Sorry, rules don't cover everything. Always make rulings in the spirit of the rules, even when it'd ruin everyone's fun? Ah, now things are getting more slippery.

If, when you started the game, you told the players that you'd follow every dice roll that came up, then fair enough you should go ahead and do that. But see, my players know I won't do that. I told them, "Usually I'll follow what the dice tell us. But not always. See, when you watch a movie or read a book, what's fun is that sense of surprise - you don't know what's going to happen next. But with an rpg, no single person is telling the story, so to get that same sense of surprise, we roll dice. But sometimes the dice tell us something stupid or boring, and I'll ignore that. In the end, the dice are for inspiration, not determination. Nine times out of ten the dice will be followed. But sometimes, not."

So my players trust me to do that. That's what "trust" is about - keeping your promises. But what you promise to do, well that's up to you. It is not anywhere written that you must promise to follow all the rules and each dice roll. In fact, it's usually written in game books something like old Gygax wrote, above - "these rules are just guidelines, the game is yours."

So talk to your players, and say, "hey, our dice are making the game boring. Do you mind if I fudge them from time to time to make things not boring? Not to save your character's lives or make things really easy or really hard - just to keep things interesting." The chances are good they'll be happy with that. Then they'll be trusting you to fudge the dice from time to time.

Note that it doesn't mean you should tell them about the individual instances in which you do it. Once they've agreed to let you fudge things, it's none of their damned business whether you happened to fudge in this week's session or not!

Melinglor, you are playing it right.

Let probability be your friend.  Don´t long for an outcome.
Roll with the dice!

Accept them!
They are your friend.

They seperate the story-wankfest from the real men.

Randomocity is way more imaginative and original than you and I could ever be. Elsewise we´d be highly paid scriptwrights.

Quote from: MelinglorThanks, that's a really good suggestion! I'll have to talk that over with my group!

Start by taking everything you say now and dropping the last part. Leave some really low hanging fruit for the players so it's easy for them to pipe up.

Also, use awesome sparingly. From your examples it sounds like everything the players do is awesome? That's too much. In most action-adventure the hero is losing right up until the end of the fight. That's a good way to run a game too. Personally I don't comment on everything that happens in the game. If it were a movie, most of the die rolls would be on the cutting room floor.

Quote from: SettembriniRandomocity is way more imaginative and original than you and I could ever be. Elsewise we´d be highly paid scriptwrights.

The lack of randomness in an RPG doesn't necessarily lead to following any kind of a script, of course.

Quote from: GrimGentThe lack of randomness in an RPG doesn't necessarily lead to following any kind of a script, of course.

I don't believe it is randomness so much as unexpectedness.
=

Quote from: GreentongueI don't believe it is randomness so much as unexpectedness.
=

Basic human nature introduces plenty of unexpectedness on its own.

Anyone who's actually played an RPG, instead of just bitching about them on Internet forums, can tell you that no matter what you think the players or the GM might do, they tend to find ways to surprise you.

QuoteAnyone who's actually played an RPG, instead of just bitching about them on Internet forums, can tell you that no matter what you think the players or the GM might do, they tend to find ways to surprise you.

Yepp, very true.

But that has got nothing to do with making your saving roll or not. And the decision if a save suceeds should never be made by the DM, but by the dice. That´s the whole point of a saving throw.

Players making too many saving throws: I guess I just don't see the problem here. Real heroes are suposed to be able to overcome all sorts of exotic dangers.

Players failing too many attack rolls/skill checks: Well I use a few tricks here.

1) in low level D&D games I set a lot of skill check DCs low, think 10 or less for anthihing they should be able to do easily.

2) If a player misses a DC by only a few points, instead of describing it as a miss, I will sometimes try t describe it in a way where some kind of momentarily deadlock has come to pass, and the player will most likely fail if another does not immediately jump to their aid (using aid another) that round.
For example, in social interaction (Diplomacy/Bluff etc) the player rolls a 13 vs a DC of 15. Instead of telling the player they failed, I inform the players that Platemail Joe has just talked himself into a corner, and is searching desperately for the right words, but to no avail. He will obviously need some outside help to get himself out of this fix.
Another example: Joe platemail is trying to break through an old door. The DC is 20, and he just rolled a total of 19. I tell him that as he slams his shoulder into the door he feels it give a bit, and the rest of the party can tell that he only needs a bit more force behind him to bust the door wide open.
In both cases, if another party member (or multiple party members) immediately comes to Joe Plaitmail's aid, he will succeed, but if they stand by and do nothing, Joe will fail. This serves to both make things more dramatic, and to remind everyone to use the aid another action, even implying that they are partially responsible for the failure of the task if they sit by and do nothing when they could have helped.

Quote from: SettembriniRandomocity is way more imaginative and original than you and I could ever be. Elsewise we´d be highly paid scriptwrights.

Just as a tangent, I went to school for years to study how to do that.

It's why I trust myself to write my own flavor text in my rpg campaigns and for my book.

Quote from: JimBobOzWell, that's the thing. Trust you to... what? Follow the rules to the letter? Sorry, rules don't cover everything. Always make rulings in the spirit of the rules, even when it'd ruin everyone's fun? Ah, now things are getting more slippery.

Well, it's my belief that people in general are gonna expect, when playing a game, adherence to the rules as a default. That doesn't mean they'll object to making a judgment call if a rule is fuzzy or nonexistent, and they'll probably be fine with houseruling, but moment-to-moment disregard of any given rule is out. Unless that IS our houserule. As in, discussed right up front. For instance, when we were finishing up chargen, I asked 'em, "Hey, do you want to keep track of the weight of all your equipment?" And they responded, "Nah, if it looks like our carried loot is getting ridiculous, just cal us on it," and I said "OK." But until ANY departure from the rules is thus vetted with the group, I'm not straying an inch. And things like attack rolls and saving throws are a bit more central than encumbrance rules. They tie in to the basic assumption that "when I [meaning, any participant] pick up this little polyhedral and give it a toss, it will have some meaning and impact on the game." And that's a trust I dare not break.

On the other hand: Sett, in this matter my position has some overlap with yours, but that by no means indicates that your One True Way of playing is welcome here, any more than Jimbob's is. "Playing it right" is a phrase that has no relevance on this discussion. "Playing it right for us" is the issue. And in this particular case, that includes "playing it so as to preserve/produce this certain effect I'm trying to examine." Which unfortunately doesn't seem to have captured anyone's imagination in the way it has mine.

Peace,
Joel