TheRPGSite

I've been noticing an odd phenomenon in my D&D Campaign (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6135). The group's at a pretty low level, but with increased XP rewards, so as to experience relatively quick growth and an array of power levels. We started at Level "2 1/2" (4500 EX), and the party's now level 3.

So what I'm noticing is this: the PCs nearly always make their saving throws, but often fail on attack rolls or skill checks. Like, I'll be poring through the Monster Manual for interesting encounters, and going, "Cool! the Satyr charms travelers with his pipes, that'll be a fun and interesting event." And then the Satyr uses the Charm Person effect on the pipes (the one that the MM thinks is worth doubling the CR for), and EVERYONE saves. Hell, it's only DC 13, so not surprising. Then ditto the Ghost's devastating gaze or whatever, ditto the Dryad's Deep Slumber and Suggestion, and so on, and so on.

Then on the other side of things, the players often miss on their attack rolls. Which is, y'know, they're level 3 and a, sure, but it doesn't feel too heroic when ocer and over again it's whiff, whiff. I tryto describe it well, like "You and the wolf are a tangle of blade and fur and claws, and you just can't land a solid blow." But it starts to wear. And then when someone has a plan, like "I'll try to talk to them and get them on our side!" and they fail their Diplomacycheck, it's once again deflating.

All this has the effect that we're telling a story of cool things that almost happened. The cool thing inherent in the PC's action or the monster's power doesn't actually manifest itself in the fiction. Nobody's going to tell the story of "that time when the Satyress totally charmed Hung out into the forest for a frenzied love tryst and we had to get him back." Instead it's "That Satyress who, I guess, in theory, COULD have charmed someone, but it didn't work on us." Or "That time when our Druid might just have manifested his awesome Nature Powers to calm down the wolves that were attacking us, but it didn't work." Which just feels kinda lame.

In a "real" story, this would never happen. Obi-Wan would never fail to mypnotize the Stormtroopers. Han Solo would never fail to get the Hyperdrive kicked in in time to ditch the Imperials. At least, not the first time. In Empire, Han does indeed have quite some difficilty losing his pursuers, and indeed keeping his ship flying at all. That's fine. Tension, Setbacks, Complications. . .these are all great storytelling tools. But it strikes me that the first time a cool and defining thing happens in a story, it generally works. It has to. Or else that first impression is gonna stick and you're gonna be telling "The story about that Smuggler Guy who can't even outrun a bunch of Imperial Cruisers."*

I can only think of a couple of games that address this. Wushu, from what I've heard, employs a system of "everything you say happens, you just don't win the fight until the pacing mechanics tell you so." And Capes does this as well: Not only doyou not narrate the resolution of a conflict ("Kill Spider-Man") until the mechanics tell you it's decidin' time, but when you narrate individual actionsyou're free to describe your super-cool awesome maneuver in full and triumphant detail--only, if you're not ahead on the conflict, your opponent gets to narrate a reversal. So like: "Dr. Doom  throws the switch and Reed is bathed in black energy. 'All your simplistic planning did not account for the effect of my Quantum Nega-Ray, Richards!'" THEN: "As the beam saps his strenght, Reed simply mouths, 'now, Sue.' The invisible Mrs. Richards hits the shutdown switch and surrounds Doom in a force bubble. 'As always, Victor, you forget the Fantastic Four are a team,' Reed replies."

See, it's fine if the effect is countered or dispelled. But it's a crappy story if the effect doesn't exist in the first place, is negated right out of the gate. Of cours that's exactly what you would want as a real person. But it's death for a story. When your opposition's powers are impotent, they start to look like incompetents, no real threat. And when the heroes' efforts consistently fail, they start to feel like bumbling fools themselves.

Thoughts? Objections? Solutions?

Peace,
-Joel

Most so called "story games" coming out of the small press movement deal with this by defining the conflicts and then spurring them towards and interesting resolution.  Even stuff with a somewhat more traditional format, such as PDQ (Truth & Justice) allows everyone to bring into play defined qualities that interest the folk, which makes it much more likely the nifty powers of the described monsters will really have a nifty effect in game.

I think what you've described can happen with many games but you've just run into a string of unfortunate rolls (in that the interesting stuff didn't quite happen).  I'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.

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

Even Gary Gygax said he only rolled the dice behind the screen because he liked to hear the clatter.

Monsters out of the MM are not optimised. Their feats are not generally chosen to maximise the effectiveness of their abilities. For example, almost every monster has "Alertness". Start using "Ability Focus" and other feats you can find to augment their abilities rather than just sticking with the automatically selected feats. It'll make a big difference in how many of the monsters fight, how tough they are, and how often they can pull off neat shit.

In regards to skill checks, start handing out circumstance bonuses. You might want to create a generic piece of kit called "skill kit" that gives a +2 circumstance bonus to a single skill (Healer's Kit, Climber's Kit and Disguise Kits are examples of specific implementations of this idea already in the rules). Circumstance bonuses all stack with one another.

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.

The problem with D&D (and one of the reasons why I don't like it) is that low level characters are rather incompetent, and at high levels they become absurdly competent.

I would use a RPG that allows me to tailor the level of competency however I want. For example, in Ars Magica, you could have designed the satyrs and their powers however you like. What's the satyr got to score in order to charm the PCs? 8? 7? Decide it yourself, and you've got it.

Of course, you might have other priorities. You could use Wushu, Capes, or a similar game, but they work differently. From what you say, there's no possibility of failure, you'll eventually succeed. Some people like that, others don't.

Mind you, I haven't read Wushu or Capes, so maybe what I think of them is wrong.

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

Even Gary Gygax said he only rolled the dice behind the screen because he liked to hear the clatter.

I have a definite dislike for fudging. If I knew my GM is fudging rolls, the illusion, my suspension of disbelief, would be broken. I'd feel that what my character can and can't do depends entirely on the whims of the GM. And this is something I don't like at all.

I picked up a copy of Mythic and it has an interesting mechanic called Chaos.  In effect it shifts the over all odds based on the game trend.  In your case, the odds would be shifted to better the chances of successes initially.  As the story progresses, the Chaos factor floats as needed to propell the story.

You may want to consider adding something like this mechanic to your games as a "Story Arc" or "fudge" factor.  As a stated mechanic, it doesn't need to be hidden from the players.
=

What's the party makeup? A 3rd level character with a non-favored will save and a wisdom of 14 has a +3. That's a 50/50 chance on the satyr's save. That same character with a good BAB, masterwork weapon, and 14 strength has a +6 to hit. He should hit the satyr on a 9 or higher.

It sounds to me like their luck (or your memory of it) tends to favor them defensively. There's not really a lot you can do about that that doesn't involve cheating (or fudging if you prefer that term) because if you up the challenge and their luck swings the other way you've got a TPK on your hands.

It 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.

Quote from: MelinglorI've been noticing an odd phenomenon in my D&D Campaign (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6135).
...
Then on the other side of things, the players often miss on their attack rolls. Which is, y'know, they're level 3 and a, sure, but it doesn't feel too heroic when over and over again it's whiff, whiff. Thoughts? Objections? Solutions?

-Joel

This 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.  

Although some of this obviously depends on miniatures.

Here's an example:

Adventuring party:
(ncluding a bard, a sorcerer, a fighter, and a cleric.)
 
They are attacking an ogre (or something).

Typical party:
They all attack. Let's say the fighter hits. And maybe the sorcerer hits with a magic missile.  They do around 12 damage total per round. The bard and the cleric stay close by to heal the fighter, and the bard shoots his shortbow.

They are still going to win, but it's going to be a bit slower, and there will be misses.

Skilled party:
The bard uses Inspire courage and buffs the entire party (if he's got Inspirational boost he casts that first as a swift action and doubles the buff to +2/+2). The sorcerer casts an Enlarge person (via scroll) on the fighter. The fighter is armed with a two-handed weapon and heavy armor. The cleric has a longspear.  They set up so that the fighter is in front, with the cleric behind, using the longspear safely. The cleric, instead of attacking, can just aid-other (giving the fighter an extra +2.) My group calls this a layered reach formation. If at all goes to hell, the cleric can always heal the fighter, because they are right next to each other.

First round, the fighter probably does the same damage alone as the entire party did in the 'typical' example with the extra +2 from the bard. He's also got +4 to hit from the combination of the cleric and the bard.

1 round later, the fighter enlarges to Ogre size, and can now go toe to toe with the ogre. His weapon damage multiplies up to at least 2d6 if not 2d8. Plus strength bonus (which also jumps up). The bard only has to sing one round, before he takes over secondary combat duties (or healing duties, or spellcasting), so maybe he 5' steps into the flank (or maybe he's got a reach weapon as well) and that gets another +2.

What are we up to, +6?

Well, if the fighter needs that +6, he's got it. If he doesn't need it, especially bad, he transforms as much as he can of that into power attack damage.

Meanwhile the sorcercer forgoes the magic missile and instead casts grease or even ray of enfeeblement to sap the ogres to-hit down a few notches. If the cleric feels like not adding in the aid-other (say the fighter is handling this quite well, but this is going to be a long combat..) he can try summoning something like a badger or a celestial dog to really ramp up the pressure on the ogre. Or he can use doom or bless to further alter the percentages in favor of the group.

If you go to GenCon, I recommend you take a second to watch a couple minutes of the D&D Open.

Quote from: MelinglorAll this has the effect that we're telling a story of cool things that almost happened. The cool thing inherent in the PC's action or the monster's power doesn't actually manifest itself in the fiction. Nobody's going to tell the story of "that time when the Satyress totally charmed Hung out into the forest for a frenzied love tryst and we had to get him back." Instead it's "That Satyress who, I guess, in theory, COULD have charmed someone, but it didn't work on us." Or "That time when our Druid might just have manifested his awesome Nature Powers to calm down the wolves that were attacking us, but it didn't work." Which just feels kinda lame.



Peace,
-Joel

Also, 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.

Come on, people! The game isn't going to play itself!

Pseudo and Maw beat me to it.
D&D has a lot of give, but you do have to jigger the system a bit to be successful. Actually, low level PCs can do really well against threats of their own level, especially since a lot of things you can just buy at a general store are actually useful at that stage.

Quote from: ClaudiusI have a definite dislike for fudging.

And I've a dislike of boredom.

I've a dislike of "a story of cool things that almost happened", which is how Melinglor described his campaign as it is. He describes is as, "it doesn't feel too heroic when over and over again it's whiff, whiff [...] It starts to wear. [...] it's once again deflating."

Not heroic, wearing, deflating. These are all descriptions of boredom.

If Melinglor can take some of the rules-oriented suggestions and make the game interesting for the players without fudging, then great! I think that's awesome. But if that doesn't work... Then it's time to fudge those little fucking dice.

Quote from: ClaudiusIf I knew my GM is fudging rolls, the illusion, my suspension of disbelief, would be broken. I'd feel that what my character can and can't do depends entirely on the whims of the GM. And this is something I don't like at all.

I've never understood why a set of arbitrary decisions made before a game - let's call them "the rules" - should be considered any more fair and reasonable than a set of arbitrary decisions made during the game - let's call them "GM whim." Now, "whim" is a pretty prejudiced way to describe it, as though the GM is incapable of making fair and reasonable judgments. But let's set that aside for the moment. What's the difference between "rules" and "GM whim"? Seems like the difference is trust.

You don't want things to depend only on the "whims of the GM" - why not? You don't trust your GM to make fair and reasonable decisions? I can certainly understand feeling that way about a GM. If the GM doesn't respond to my suggestions about their decisions being unfair and unreasonable, then I don't play with them again.

I once thought that perhaps people trusted rules over GM "whim" because you could read the rules, so they were entirely predictable. But then I noticed that the same people who prefer rules over GM whim also want all dice rolls to stand - "let the dice fall where they may." So much for predictability! Perhaps it's just player superstition - "if I'm rolling the dice, I'm in control, tell me what I need to roll before I roll it"?

I view the job of the GM, among other things, as making sure that the rules and the dice give fair and reasonable results. It's fair and reasonable that PCs will die, that PCs will fumble and get critical successes. It's not fair and reasonable that they'll succeed all the time with ease, nor that they fail all the time. Not only is it unfair and unreasonable, it's boring. And since the purpose of games is to have fun, there is no greater failure of a game than its being boring. The GM is there to make rulings on rules, in respect of the rules' consistency with other rules, and the rules' consistency with the ideas of the game world (eg, "no, there is no magic in this realistic post-apocalyptic world"). If one of the ideas of the game world is, "the PCs should not always fail, or always succeed," then it's only right that the GM should fudge the dice and rules to balance things out a bit.

Otherwise it's boring. Otherwise you're saying that a few hundred pages of sloppily-written, badly-edited, saucily-illustrated text and a few blocks of plastic are more important than the happiness of the people around the game table. Which would be silly. The rules are only a tool to help us have fun. They have no value otherwise. If that tool is not doing the job we want, then for our particular group it's a faulty tool, and it should be repaired or replaced, or its handling changed.

Again, if Melinglor can solve this problem by following the rules to the letter with the suggestions given here in this thread, that's great! That's certainly easier. But if not... well, fuck the dice. Fudge 'em.

I'm not sure about D&D solutions, but personally Wushu skews too far to the other side. Spirit of the Century seems to be a good compromise, where the players have options to help their plans come to fruition without being guaranteed success.

In SilCore, there are a couple mechanisms in place that help players out:

The first is the ability to expend XP to add dice to rolls.
The second is something similar to stunting on Exalted (get a bonus for a cool description).
Finally, if the final dice being rolled exceed the difficulty, no roll is required. This is a house rule.

So, a character can expend Emergency Dice to get extra dice on the roll, and pump the roll up enough to no longer need to roll.

If fudging and GM whim were good enough for the original fatbeard himself, they're good enough for me :p
   Gygax on Fudging
In many situations it is correct and fun to have the players dice such things as melee hits or saving throws. However it is your [the GM's] right to control the dice at any time and to roll dice for the players. You might wish to do this to keep them from knowing some specific fact. You also might wish to give them an edge in finding a articular clue, e.eg. a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining. You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. [...]

Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own [sic - it appears Gygax means player-character! Assume similar caveat for all following instances of "player"]. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or invoke any reasonable severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done. [...] There MUST be some final death or immortality will take over and again the game will become boring because the player characters will have 9+ lives each!

Troublesome players [may be dealt with, short of tossing them out, by] points of damage by "blue bolts from the heavens" striking the offender's head, or the permanent loss of a point of charisma (appropriately) from the character belonging to the offender.  
- Dungeon Master's Guide (1979), p110

Quote from: MelinglorIn a "real" story, this would never happen. Obi-Wan would never fail to mypnotize the Stormtroopers. Han Solo would never fail to get the Hyperdrive kicked in in time to ditch the Imperials. At least, not the first time. In Empire, Han does indeed have quite some difficilty losing his pursuers, and indeed keeping his ship flying at all. That's fine. Tension, Setbacks, Complications. . .these are all great storytelling tools. But it strikes me that the first time a cool and defining thing happens in a story, it generally works. It has to. Or else that first impression is gonna stick and you're gonna be telling "The story about that Smuggler Guy who can't even outrun a bunch of Imperial Cruisers."

I drop my Mace as a free action and cast "Roleplay not rollplay."

It'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. Did the characters narrowly escape peril? Let's sketch it out both ways.

Satyress: 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?

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 :p

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

Quote from: malleus arianorumStart 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.

Trailing off and letting players complete the description? Cool. Similar to Vincent Baker's "so what you're trying to do is. . ." technique.

About the awesome: not entirely sure what you mean--you talking about endlessly superlative description? If so, I understand but disagree somewhat. See, yeah, the action hero IS losing until the very end, but not--unless he's Jack Burton--through any fault of his own, i.e. bumbling, screwing up, missing wildly, etc. He's usually the best he can possibly be, and the villain is just better--or has the situational advantage, has him forced on the defensive, whatever. But unless you're deliberately subverting the type, like in Big Trouble, you've got to establish that he IS indeed Badass, so the audience (which in the case of RPGs are also the authors) will accept that about the character. Or if you're trying to promote acceptance of a different trait, you highlight that instead, like "Frodo is purehearted and Sam is Loyal," or "Luke is wet behind the ears, but is idealistic and has great potential." It's when you want to promote "Fightyguy is badass" and you instead show "fightyguy gets whupped a lot and makes embarrassing blunders" that you see the problem I'm talking about.

And to tie it in to my descriptions themselves, I don't think I've "over-awesomed" them; just tried to nip the "ooh, you missed, you can't hit the broadside of a barn" pattern that descriptions tend to fall into.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: ConanMKPlayers 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.

I'm getting the feeling that some folks aren't really listening to or comprehending my main point, which is not that a few specific rolls failed to go my (or the players') way. I'm talking about something deeper: what I was hoping for when I made those rolls, and how I felt when it didn't come about. And how to "fix" that "problem", in the sense of tweaking rules or utilizing techniques that will get me the results I want.

The issue, I'll state once again, is that the players making those saves (and conversely, on failing some key skill and attack rolls) is undercutting the feel and purpose for which the events were introduced, or indeed, for which we (or at least I) are gaming at all. I introduce challenges and plot developments that I feel will be interesting and fun, and the players come up with courses of action that they feel will be heroic and fun. And they end up not being so, because "the enchanting and seductive Satyress who tries to steal Hung away into the night" becomes "the whiny goat-bitch who couldn't charm fleas to a dog." And "the wise Druid whose harmony with nature tames even the fiercest forest beasts" becomes "the clueless nature-guy that all the animals hate."

I've recieved some quite helpful solutions for the spedific situation (including your suggestionn regarding skill rolls and Aid Another; if I can get Aid Another into the foreground of the players' minds as I hope this would be a great technique!). But beyond mere techniques and such I was hoping the general issue would engage people as it did me and we'd have a big, fruitful discussion. Oh, well.

Peace,
-Joel

Mellinglor, it's because the general issue is quite simple, and you're not responding to our responses

The issue: "the dice do not always make for cool stuff."

The response: "overrule the dice." This can be done in two basic ways,

• Have a diceless system
• fudge the dice

The second one, most commonly when players fudge the dice it's within some sort of Hero Point or Drama Dice sort of system, whereas GMs typically fudge the dice without any systemic support.

You already objected that the GM fudging the dice was breaking trust, I already responded that it's not if the GM lays it out to begin with; you responded to that by saying again it was a break of trust.

We're responding to your general point. You're just not listening.

No, actually my response was: "It's a breach of trust If I haven't vetted that approach with the players." Which you seem to be saying as well. Where we differ is this statment:

Quote from: JimBobOzIf, 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.

See, I believe that "play the rules as written" is the default assumption in any game. So it's important to obtain a clear consensus for deviating from that, but it's pretty safe territory to stick to the book. If someone had a problem with me doing that, I could quite reasonably say, "look, it's right here on page 115. Nobody ever said we were going to ignore that rule." (Note that these are mostly new roleplayers. If I was running a game with my regular group, I would adjust my assumptions drastically to account for what I know of their particular built-up traditions and understandings.)

So I'm not rejecting or ignoring your advice; far from it. But the first step in even considering using it is getting the whole group on board. And that means, for starters, determining if this is even as big a deal for them as it is for me, and if it is, whether that solution is amenable to them. Hell, I'm not even sure it's amenable to me. I think I like Malleus' solution far better.

I think where we got off on the wrong foot is all this dogmatism: you charged in here going, "Fudge the dice!" Not, "well, you could try Fudging the dice." No, it was all "Do it! Fudge them! It's the only solution!" Whereas this is patently bnot the case. At least two other solutions are evident: change the rules so you get the desired results without fudging, or employ descriptive techniques to get around the dice results problem. Your stance, however more eloquently stated, is just as One-True-Way as Sett's, man.

But anyway. I've got all the potential solutions I could ever want, so the minor mission is solved. The bigger picture, no one finds as interesting as I do. Them's the breaks.

Thanks, all!

Peace,
-Joel

Melinglor,

You are approaching the game from an angle, that is conflicting with it´s intent. Monsters are problems and adversaries, not a scripted bang.

The saving throws and attack roles etc. are there to determine an outcome, that is out of your control. Via this route, the extrapolated events gain a certain kind of veracity, that has got shit to do with your imagined sequence of events.

The models in D&D are not for the creation of "cool stuff Melinglor would like to happen". Rather, they are an engine for the creation of conflictious situations wherein a buttload of range of possible outcomes can originate.

The whole point of this engine becomes moot when you are only willing to accept certain kinds of outcomes, meritful as your intentions might be.

So, either you stick to the model, live in and with it, cherish the results it produces as a task to elucidate upon, or you better not use the model at hand.

Both ways have their merits, you jsut have to decide.

Think about Traveller: Wouldn´t it be cool to buy Quantastonium crystals at Bellerophon? but the trade table said: "2d6 tons of hofflepoffle meat, dry frozen."
The point in Traveller is then to game with the hofflepoffle meat and make that fun and interesting. Your idea for the Q-crystals isn´t what this trade system is about.
What do you get in return for this "loss of control", you might ask?

A different kind of fun. The fun of an immersive quality that is based upon verisimilitude and veracity of the results within the game world.

Like, sometime in your campaign, som player will critically hit a totally overmighty enemy, destroying him when they all should most likely have died. This victory will be the sweetest thing for the players! Don´t take it away from them in D&D.
If success and awesome is governed by the rules, there also must be failure , unexpected results, and disappointements.

Surely, D&D´s dice mechanisms are very well thought out, so that very quickly the law of large numbers and averages will come to fruition.

Play more, and you´ll see it, if you care for that stuff, that is.

Quote from: SettembriniThe models in D&D are not for the creation of "cool stuff Melinglor would like to happen". Rather, they are an engine for the creation of conflictious situations wherein a buttload of range of possible outcomes can originate.

The whole point of this engine becomes moot when you are only willing to accept certain kinds of outcomes, meritful as your intentions might be.

So, either you stick to the model, live in and with it, cherish the results it produces as a task to elucidate upon, or you better not use the model at hand.

Both ways have their merits, you jsut have to decide.

Well, see, I only approach games for the promise of "cool stuff Melinglor would like to happen". I think that's true of pretty much anybody. This doesn't contradict your post; 'cool stuff that Settembrini wants to happen" just happens to include--perhaps exclusively--negotiated challenges based on things like hard adherence to a set of randomized elements to produce surprising results. That's cool. But giving up on cool things happen isn't on the table for me, shouldn't be on the table for anyone. Revising my expectations would just mean aligning my cross-hairs on a different set of "cool stuff."

So yeah, you're right that if D&D isn't set up to give me the "cool stuff" that I want, I should either ditch it or pursue the "cool stuff" it does offer. This thread is among other things an exploration of what ways D&D possibly can give me this particular set of "cool stuff." I think there are several viable solutions in the thread, ranging from specific rules-emphasis to narrative techniques. And don't think that getting my "cool stuff" necessarily entails being "only willing to accept certain kinds of outcomes." I'm all about uncertainty and letting the dice fall where they may. D&D is about negotiating challenges, and I by no means intend to undermine that. I just think that the challenges can be dressed up in a narrative skin that also satisfies this other goal of mine, and that's exactly what I intend to do.

Peace,
-Joel

There are a couple of ways you can deal with the problem of failure in D&D. Let me ask you a question, first, though.

How willing are you to engage in some amount of system mastery?

(EDIT for clairity: I have different advice based on different answers. There are a lot of ways to go in D&D.)

Hmm. For myself, to some length, though there's probably a limit. For my players, probably rather less. I've got one veteran player who I'd think groks the system after all this time, but since I have to tell him something like "No, there is no 'facing' in D&D! You threaten all the squares around you!" like every week, I'd say not. And the other two are new to this whole thing, and seem somewhat willing to learn and assimilate rules and such, but generally just want to come up with simple plans and have fun. The Gnome player sepecially is really keen on coming up with elaborate and amusing pranking/combat schemes in the abstract, which convert somewhat clumsily into game mechanics. But he's just all about the gonzo plan, and I want to support that, so I do the system-crunching to make it work and give him something to roll for it.

I guess that's a kind of long and roundabout answer, but there it is. To give you something of a guage, when considering actual applicability to this player group, I had to distill all Abyssal Maw's copious advice (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=106822&postcount=9) down to "encourage them to use Aid Another."

Peace,
-Joel

I understand what you're saying, though.

Here's what I have to say, then. "Dude, you're going to continue to have trouble." I say that without any malice whatsoever, too, because I've had the same problems in the past. More then once, I've had a player that's got no interest in really learning to crunch those rules but she's great at the table and enjoys playing a bunch and, well, we're playing D&D so that's what she's playing.

It comes down to her describing what she wants, and me mostly making the mechanical decisions for her as the DM. (Which nobody feels is cheating, because, well, it's complicated. I crunch the numbers real quick and give some odds, and she makes all the decisions. I just can tell a good action from a poor one.)

You look like you'd have to do that for everyone, which is going to be a Serious issue. Becuase, what it comes down to is that D&D is a lot of work. The most chairitable way to look at it is that character generation is a mini-game, but what it boils down to is that the player is always making decisions. They've got X number of Feats, they have (Y+Z) number of Skill Points, and 11 spells per day divided by power. If you don't derive fun from making those decisions but rather view them as something to overcome, you're fighting the system.

That's the issue. It looks like your players are fighting the system in order to get what they want. You either work with it, ignore it (and play poorly, in a statistical sense), or find another bag.

Simply put, my hooded hippy friend, you might want to look into a system with less crunch for your players to digest. If I pulled a book off my shelf to recommend, I'd say maybe Tri-Stat would be easier to play. It's got some crunch to it, but the results are fairly easy to recognize while D&D has a lot of what I consider to be hidden implications for the mechanical choices you make. I can eleborate, but I think you already understand what I'm talking about. The failure you're experiancing is likely the result of poorly designed characters, which you'd either have to go back and alter or just suck it up.

Now, if you've got the sheets on hand and post the player's design goals, it's likely you can get some mechanical help. I'd be happy to look into my books and see if I could help, for instance.

I also have an alpha draft of a game called Dream on my website. I can offer a lot of choices because my collection really isn't optimized in that angle. (I have a lot of d20, a lot of Mage, Exalted, and Tri-Stat with some smatterings of other stuff.)

Or FATE. FATE is really excellent, and I genuinely think many people who have a global dissatisfaction with the d20 system would be happier off playing it.

If you can drag your players into the Great Unknown of a new rule system, a lot of options open up.
*cough*Savage Worlds*cough*
=

I have to concur with others that it sounds like you lean towards a more rules-lite system.  

However, a general comment here about saving throws.  I think one of the key problems with Melinglor's original "stuff that almost happened" is that it's based on the all-or-nothing saves.  In contrast, some other games are built around powers which reliably work, but have a varying degree of success.  For example, in the HERO System, you'll roll your Mind Control dice to see how much you influence the target by.  (This is probably not the system for Melinglor since it's also really crunchy, but it was the example that sprang to mind.)

There're no absolutes here. Just change things to suit your style of play. For the example of the charm effect, you could rule that the default charm duration is 10 rounds (it's a special ability), even if the save is made. A fail and you go by the books decription. The PC makes a save and you subtract the margin of his success from 10 rounds. So, if he made the save by 4 points, then he's still charmed for 6 rounds. Alternatively, you could draw up a simple little chart for the power. A save stops total charm, but a save by 1-3 means that the PC affected will try to discourage his friends from a certain type of action against the charmer, save by 4-6 and he simply will not co-operate with the charmer, but will refrain from physically harming it. Save by more than 6 and the charm has no effect.

That took a couple of minutes to think of, so just come pre-armed to the session with stuff like that. And be wary of changing things too much and facing calls of "not fair!" from the players. They don't have to know the save DC though...

Quote from: PseudoephedrineOr FATE. FATE is really excellent, and I genuinely think many people who have a global dissatisfaction with the d20 system would be happier off playing it.

FATE's really cool, too. I remember prepairing to play it, and it looked pretty slick.

Hmm, personally, my money's on Heroquest. Though I'd love to try out FATE, or maybe Perfect20. I've played a lot of BESM, and it's cool, but not right for this situation, I think.

In any case, I have thought about jumping ship, and I think even mentioned it to the group once (commenting on how the Gnome player would probably love HQ). Ironically enough, the one player who was really gung-ho on this game (that is, wanting to try out roleplaying and todo it with D&D specifically) has had to bail for scheduling reasons. So I'm left with a D&D veteran or two, plus a couple of new gamers who don't really align with D&D's design or goals particularly well.

I worry, though, that if I hop around to different systems they'll never get their grounding; it'll be like, "OH, Joel the crazy GM's got a new funky game engine this week! I have no idea what's going on!" I've already started to worry about this regarding houserules, and have resolved to tone it down.

Also, I don't think the characters and setting details designed within the D&D milieu would translate out of it particularly well. OK, let me be frank--I don't want to carry them over particularly much. SO I think i'd rather carry on for a bit and see how things go in the next little while, and start from scratch if need be.

Thanatos, I appreciate the perspective, truly. I think you're absolutely right in many respects, and if I could turn back time, I would SOpropose another system from the outset. But for now I'd like to take the narrative techniques and rules-mastery suggestions (the rudimentary ones) and see if they don't inject a little bit of what I'm looking for into the game.

Which is, by the way, something to remember: we're talking about what *I* want here, so far. I haven't gotten a lot of feedback from the players on how they're enjoying things. Until I do (it's been rather like pulling teeth so far), I can only speculate that what's bugging me might bug them as well.

Peace,
-Joel

PS . . .and with this post, I officially give up on this being anything other than a "look under the hood of my campaign" thread. Oh well, it's at least a fruitful one in that regard.

Melinglor,

I think we're just splitting hairs at this point. I agree with you on eschewing blunders in a heroic narrative but I like to promote the awesomeness of the PCs in separate scenes -- mundane fights. Obi Wan Kenobi v.s. that guy in the bar. The Terminator v.s. that biker with the coat. Batman v.s. the purse snatcher. Sherlock Holmes v.s. something trivial that Watson couldn't figure. Larger than life v.s. life. I establish it in a separately keep the pressure off later scenes where the characters are evenly matched. That way I don't have to keep reminding the players how awesome they are, I just have to point out that their foe is as awesome as they are which is very awesome indeed! (As established in Episode 1: Adventurers v.s. the purse snatcher with a nice coat in a bar who left a clue that Watson couldn't figure out.)

Last week I joined a drop in game for D&D. After looking over our characters, the GM made some light hearted jokes about how weak our party would be since we only had a pair of clerics for spellcasters, but he wasn't laughing when the clerics cast "hold person" on his arch-villain. Poor villain only got a move (20') and a free action ("Kill them, KILL THEM ALL!!!") before he was paralyzed, grappled and cudgeled to unconsciousness. Classic case of a badass doing something stupid and looking like a fool... ...which is ultimately the GM's fault.

I'm no expert at D&D but I suspect that our next baddie will be wearing a ring of "Hold person? Heck no!" or have some hired clerics, or hide better than running front and center and shouting "Kill kill kill!" ... or something. The point is, baddies need the D&D specific tools and tactics. It goes doubly so for fay and low hitpoint monsters since they don't last long deadlocked with a party of adventurers. My preference is cheat on the NPC's character creation but be totaly above board durring the game.

It's like on Survivor (the tv show). Rupert, the worlds most popular survivor, was voted off the island, so the producers came up with a sequel: Survivor Allstars: It's rigged so Rupert will win! He got voted off that island too so he missed out on the second million dollar prize. ....but the audience got to award a THIRD million dollar prize to their favorite survivor i.e. Rupert. If the producers had rigged the votes it would have completely undermined so-called reality of reality tv. But rigging the game was fine! Likewise I say, rig the game so that the satyress will do what you want but don't rig the dice.

(Ha! If all those tangents don't get the spotlight off your campaign, I don't know what will!)

One way to make sure that PCs have a better success rate is to pit them against monsters and challanges a CR or two less then even. This seems like cheating, but it's really not. CRs are just a rough measure of capability. If you, as the DM, are thinking that these characters arn't real tough (as they didn't consider the numbers when they were built, and are thus a little under the avarage), just pitch them some lower level opponents.

At level 1, that's hard. Nobody feels heroic kicking bunnies. There's another trick, though. PCs don't have to start off as level 1. Start them off at level 3 (Or just be extra generous with exp. until they level) and then pitch level 1 or 2 challanges at them. Natural animal ACs will drop compared to yours, your PCs will be able to afford better equipment, everyone's BaB will go up 1 to 2 points (a big deal early in that game) and everyone gets a Feat - make sure they spend it on something that will shore up whatever they're lacking in the most.

Good choices include: Skill Focus (Concentration) [casters of any stripe], Improved Init.(anyone) , Power Attack (high str. combatants), Weapon Finesse [high dex combatants), Point Blank and Precise Shot (anyone who regularly uses ranged attacks), Two-Weapon Fighting (rouges only), or, if they look like they're struggling to hit, something like Weapon Specialization might be the only way to bump up your to-hit bonus in the early game.