DMs - How involved do you get with PCs?

[Ramtrap]

Hi everyone,

I'm just curious how involved DMs get with their players' PCs? I think it's important that the DM check the PC over prior to beginning the adventure, but I'm wondering if I'm meddling too far by asking to review characters any further than that? I've been listening to a lot of what Matthew Colville's series "Running the Game" says, and he hasn't covered this topic so much, but in an interview with his friend, Jim Murphy, he said something I kind of drew interest on. Paraphrasing, he said something to the effect that if his players need to 'cheat' that's fine, if that's something that helps them have fun. I agree that the fact that everyone has fun is ultimately the main goal. I've been looking over their sheets as they advanced from 1 to 2 and was thinking about doing that in perpetuity, but now I feel that A) I'm putting my nose where it doesn't belong (which was never my intent) and B) it's a LOT more work for me. They said (and again I agree) it's THEIR job to know their character, their attacks, spells, etc. It's my job to run the game.

What do you experienced DMs say? Any advice you can offer would be appreciated. Thank you!

Will

[Robyn1xp]

So here's my long-winded 2 cents, so I apologize in advance!

Firstly, I've played D&D since I was a kid (20ish years now).
I used to DM in High School, then life hit and I took quite a long break. Now, I've got a great circle of online friends who I played MMOs with for the last 5 years or so. None of them have EVER played D&D. Interest bubbled up, and I offered to DM a game for them (8 Players. All new to D&D).

When it comes to "looking over their sheets" and stuff like that, I find I'm doing it constantly. Not because I don't want to, and certainly not because I think they're writing down the wrong information or anything like that. I do it because they are all new, and they constantly want to make sure they're "doing it right" as they say. They need the guidance at this moment in time, and I'm more than happy to oblige.

Now, on the flip-side of that, I have, in the gentlest way possible, informed them that during play it IS their job to know their characters. What they can and cannot do, what they can cast, how they cast it. You know, that kind of stuff. With our group dynamic though, being that all of them are still learning D&D, I find I'm looking at their sheets or looking things up for them constantly. I'm not saying this kind of stuff bothers me, at all. I quite enjoy sharing with my friends one of my most favorite hobbies of my entire life.

As far as "needing to cheat to have fun" goes, that's a very grey area in my opinion. You can do quick searches all over internet-land and find articles and blogs and forum posts about how GMs will sometimes fudge (aka cheat) rolls to avoid TPKs and the like. So what you consider to be "cheating to make things stay fun", others may not, and vice-versa. In my group, for example, I made a TERRIBLE encounter once, and it took the party about 2 hours to overcome it. They were all around 2nd or 3rd level at this time. I didn't fudge any of my rolls as I saw during the encounter they were finding more unique ways to overcome the monsters and win the battle. Of course, lots of death saving throws were involved, and I think I may have given the poor Cleric a heart-attack at some point, but they made it through of their own volition, and that just goes to show how even new players can learn the "rules" and mechanics of the game and even overcome poorly designed encounters. (I STILL FEEL AWFUL ABOUT THIS ENCOUNTER!!)

Sometimes, surely it might be okay for the GM to fudge things, but that really, really depends on the GM. Some GMs will NEVER EVER fudge anything, purely on principle. This is something you as a GM/DM should decide yourself. Is the outcome worth fudging, or not. If you TPK, for example, are you willing to continue the campaign and allow your player's to just start new characters? If you TPK and let it happen, it could be the reason to start a fresh new campaign! If you TPK and fudge it and let everyone live, or get resurrected, or what have you, is it because you aren't done telling the story?

Aside from that, I love looking at the backstory and fluff information of the PCs who I DM for. We play an entirely homebrewed world. I find ways to really ingratiate their characters into the world. The first week we started playing, the Bard in my group had the flaws "A scandal prevents me from ever going home again. That kind of trouble seems to follow me around" and "I once satirized a noble who still wants my head. It was a mistake that I will likely repeat" written on his sheet. I went to town with this one. The PCs started their adventures together in a small village not too far from the kingdom's Castle. I talked to him before the session started and we decided it was THE KING who he ticked off, as part of his backstory. Now, there are castle guards on the lookout for him. Sometimes he'll find wanted posters of his character while out and about, and he'll tear them down or use his dagger to scratch out the area where his face is depicted before anyone else in the party can see the posters and call him out on his current "running from the law" status. It makes for some great fun during our campaign. Stuff like this lets the PCs feel like they REALLY are apart of the worlds you create. I know my players love it.

So that's my 2 cents for now!

[Ken L]

Depends on the game, and definition of 'involved' in respect to your players.

For simple one-shot games, outside of base statistics (point buy systems), I don't really check their feats/skills/abilities that closely unless I see something fishy going on. If it comes up during play due to its concealed nature, I deny it on the spot and have them fix their sheet leaving X ability and its replacements nullified till next game. That way players have an incentive to be accurate unless they want to loose spell slots or abilities at crucial moments, but this only works if you have a good handle on the cheese that can occur. Much of it can fly under the radar, but the general theme is 'Trust but Verify'.

For 'mini' campaigns I generally ask for a small blurb regarding backstory, and I perform a bit more of a detailed overview of their abilities/skillsets. I also pay closer attention to player demeanor and how they carry themselves personality wise as I'll have to deal with them for more than a single session. In general, as long as they can play ball without too many hiccups , they're in. In terms of hovering, I do keep eyeballs on their abilities and ask about them during level up. My mini campaigns are typically with people I have some level of association with, but are not willing to GM long term for due to hesitation.

For long-term campaigns, I nail in the backstory requirement, but oddly I'm very lax in terms of vetting their actual statistics. It really depends on the level of trust you have with that player. I seldom put out a recruitment call for new players, but when I do, it's a strong vet on their personality as opposed to their mechanics. You could say I'm very involved in that front as if personalities clash, then there's drama. That's not to say it's flawless, I've at times let someone slip though based on requests/recommendations only to have their instability manifest, but it's a pretty solid system. Returning to the statistics and level up checking, it's again 'Trust but Verify' with the same response as my one-shots save for the exemption of my not requiring to see it until I notice something fishy. I typically retro-actively penalize in those events, likewise I grant boons when I mess up, It's great system in my opinion that puts an incentive to be in the right.

Currently I run:

A long-term PF campaign based in the Taldor hinterlands just outside of Oppara (in person)
A recent long-term SR5 campaign based on a homebrew world, used to be a mini-campaign that had since evolved. (mainly due to novelty of system as opposed to group composition)

I ran a number of other pre-written adventures/modules/encounters (I run one-shots for a FLGS to introduce new players), as well as one other homebrew world. Generally I'm leaning on more homebrew worlds these days as it cuts out the meta which I usually have a tight leash on.

[Ken L]

Aside from that, I love looking at the backstory and fluff information of the PCs who I DM for. We play an entirely homebrewed world. I find ways to really ingratiate their characters into the world. The first week we started playing, the Bard in my group had the flaws "A scandal prevents me from ever going home again. That kind of trouble seems to follow me around" and "I once satirized a noble who still wants my head. It was a mistake that I will likely repeat" written on his sheet. I went to town with this one. The PCs started their adventures together in a small village not too far from the kingdom's Castle. I talked to him before the session started and we decided it was THE KING who he ticked off, as part of his backstory. Now, there are castle guards on the lookout for him. Sometimes he'll find wanted posters of his character while out and about, and he'll tear them down or use his dagger to scratch out the area where his face is depicted before anyone else in the party can see the posters and call him out on his current "running from the law" status. It makes for some great fun during our campaign. Stuff like this lets the PCs feel like they REALLY are apart of the worlds you create. I know my players love it.

Haha, moving past the hovering/rules aspect, this is pretty much why I GM in a nutshell; for my actual campaigns, I build in their backstories into the world itself. I find it easier to do this in a homebrew setting as in written adventures, it either becomes a side-quest, or a replacement of written encounters with character backstory elements. In my Taldor game, my cavalier's house was in war with another rival great house so there was this constant searching for enemies wherever he went, the wench? the stable boy? It eventually came to a head when they gambled a risky venture and he woke up the next day to find his horse gutted neck to navel with all its organs displayed around it (akin to 'speaker for the dead'). He swore an oath to find the killer for 'boba fett the second' and it's pulled a whole new direction to the party's adventures thus far. I never played for the 'avenging boba fett' story arc to happen, but it did, and I've since created new plot line characters involved it. That's not to say the other members don't have their stories integrated. This however is more of a player driven slice-of-life campaign as opposed to a directed story so I have more leeway here.

[Robyn1xp]

Haha, moving past the hovering/rules aspect, this is pretty much why I GM in a nutshell; for my actual campaigns, I build in their backstories into the world itself. I find it easier to do this in a homebrew setting as in written adventures, it either becomes a side-quest, or a replacement of written encounters with character backstory elements. In my Taldor game, my cavalier's house was in war with another rival great house so there was this constant searching for enemies wherever he went, the wench? the stable boy? It eventually came to a head when they gambled a risky venture and he woke up the next day to find his horse gutted neck to navel with all its organs displayed around it (akin to 'speaker for the dead'). He swore an oath to find the killer for 'boba fett the second' and it's pulled a whole new direction to the party's adventures thus far. I never played for the 'avenging boba fett' story arc to happen, but it did, and I've since created new plot line characters involved it. That's not to say the other members don't have their stories integrated. This however is more of a player driven slice-of-life campaign as opposed to a directed story so I have more leeway here.

Oh yeah! That is some fantastic stuff! I do agree, sometimes if I notice one character in the party is getting more of their story in the world than another, I try to ensure that in the future other characters are also getting their limelight (or their chance to avoid the limelight, as is the case with our Bard at the moment). :P

I like to try my very best to include them all as equally as possible, and that the inclusion isn't "pity-inclusion" but ACTUALLY means something to each and every one of them. Its just my style of DMing, though. I made custom "legendary" type items for each character in my party, that someday during their adventures they will end up on a quest to obtain said special item. The items are unique to each character, benefit that character only (either class-based or usage type things). The Druid in our group on her backstory said she left her Elven home due to a vision. Now during our sessions, sometimes to drive them towards the wondrous items I've made for them, I give her character very vague visions, and what she does with the information is up to her, but currently she's been having visions of a shadowy figure wearing a blazing gold cloak. She still doesn't KNOW that I'm leading her to wondrous items for the party, but she does love that I'm giving her character important (albeit very vague) tidbits for their adventures.

I do lots of this for my PCs, and being that they're all close friends of mine anyway, they seem to think I'm the best DM in the world, heh! I'm the only DM they've ever had, so I'm okay with them thinking that. Even though, personally, I know I have lots of areas I need to improve on. :D

[Ken L]

Oh yeah! That is some fantastic stuff! I do agree, sometimes if I notice one character in the party is getting more of their story in the world than another, I try to ensure that in the future other characters are also getting their limelight

Heh, really depends on your players, be wary of those who shove their backstory front and center, but it sounds like you won't have that issue as you have a consistent group. Given that I have introduced numerous players to the genre, often as their fist GM you leave an imprint on your players. I typically say I'm an overall a-hole and that they should try GMing themselves or playing with other game masters to diversify their thought.

My in-person group, we've known each other for ~4 years now and we order wings and beer when we play, good times.

[Reafwalk]

I'd say it depends on the player. If it's a new player (or a whole group of new players) I'd say checking at each level, and before the start of the campaign, is totally practical. You want them to learn and learn right. On the other hand, if it's a group of folks that have a bunch of campaigns under their belts and have done this enough that they can draw a character sheet from scratch with their eyes closed, I'd say double checking isn't necessary. If mid-play some numbers sound a bit fuzzy make a note of it and check it later (after the session). If your players are somewhere between those two points, just make sure everyone knows you're around to answer any questions between sessions, and again if any of the gameplay seems a little off make a note of it and check into it after session.

The only time, too, that I find the "cheating" part to be a huge thing, is when it's not uniform. So if you've got 5 players, and 1 of them is using some "fuzzy math" he's gonna come out of your combats feeling like a big damn hero, while your other four players (who are good, upstanding, rule abiding citizens) are gonna come away feeling like sidekicks. Eventually you have to either tailor the challenge to the BDH, which becomes too difficult for the others, or you find convoluted ways of giving him one challenge while giving everyone else something different. Long term, more trouble than it's worth. On the other hand, if all your players are fudging things a little, you can just up the challenges a bit, and everyone comes out of it feeling like they really took on something super tough. The only problem there can be escalation. If they fudge a little, so you up the challenge, so they fudge more and you have to increase the challenge again on and on.

So yeah. Those are my thoughts.

[Ramtrap]

Remedeez: You make a lot of good points, particularly in regards to fudging numbers. I've done that once so far in my fledgling life to avoid killing a player outright in one attack at first level. I had mixed emotions when it had happened. On one hand, I was glad to keep his PC alive so he could continue on the adventure and not have to immediately re-create someone. That would have put a pretty big hindrance on the party, as well, given that they were going to be screwed without him. Could have potentially been a TPK, but they came out of it. On the other hand, that's the fate of the dice, and I feel I should have killed him. If I'm too chick to do it at level 1, how am I going to react when that character's 3rd or 4th level (or more?). I'm stealing your "legendary" items tailored to the characters idea, as well.

Also, I stalked your twitter and saw the map you'd created--that's freaking awesome! Is there a program you used for that? I totally want to design my own world and put a bunch of stuff together in FG.

Ken L: "Trust but verify" is something that Matthew Colville had said in multiple videos, and now I'm seeing why that's an important distinction. I need to trust the players because I don't want to call them out and create unnecessary tension, particularly if there's nothing fishy going on. But I also need to be wary of the PC that's giving themselves extras that they shouldn't have. It's important that players have fun, because (and Colville says this) when they have fun, I'll have fun. I also appreciated your breaking down the difference in the type of games in relation to how close an eye you're keeping on PC sheets. Having the "overall a-hole" mentality as a DM, I think, is necessary with some players (both their characters and the human controlling them) because some people try and ruin other peoples' fun and a meek GM might let these people waylay a group when the only intention was to grief. I hope I don't encounter too much of that, but you never know what you're going to get when you're getting players from forums. So far so good, though.

Reafwalk: You make good points that periodic checking at level intervals is okay. My concern is when it's a mix of people that are well-versed in D&D versus newer people. Obviously the people that know the rules are going to get by with leveling up their character quicker, but they also know how to skirt things and give themselves extra things (abilities, modifiers to attack rolls, etc.) that they aren't meant to have. Newer players can do the same thing, but completely on accident. I feel for the GM in either scenario because I know how much work goes into putting things together. Putting everything into a home-brew context, and that level of attention to detail must go even higher. My biggest concern (other than the players not having fun) is me creating an epic error in the story because I say something I shouldn't have or give too much information or lead them too much in the direction of epic loot. Lastly, the 'sidekicks vs hero' comparison is very much another thing I worry about. You make good points that I need to essentially make efforts to allow the other PCs to become heroes.

All of this is extremely helpful to me. Thank you very much, all!

[JohnD]

Interesting question. Have seen similar ones conceptually asked on Facebook, albeit with a hostile stance that anyone not agreeing with the proffered opinion is an outright bastard. Facebook does love the lowest common denominator....

Thankfully Ramtrap has done an excellent job of framing the question. :)

I outline what is allowed and not allowed in my campaigns. This ranges from disallowed classes and races, to any mechanics I am changing from RAW in whatever ruleset I'm using. This would include changes to any classes or races (i.e additional Human sub-races with specific RP flavour or every Wizard getting Prestidigitation, Read Magic and Detect Magic free above and beyond starting spellbook stipulations). This would also include character generation method (i.e. 27 point buy or roll 4d6 drop lowest 3 times and 3d6 4 times and take the best 6 results). I work with players who choose classes where religion is important - Clerics and Paladins serve a deity - here's a list of setting appropriate ones for a PC to consider. Also, what source material is being used - just the PHB or additional... (?).

Beyond this, if a player wants something outside the above, the onus is on them to make the case to me that allowing it doesn't shatter the reality of my campaign or the essence of the style and feeling I'm trying to accomplish. This might include a rationale or an interesting backstory to explain why Out Of Bounds Idea 45 is actually a good idea. There's a slippery slope here and over 37 years of DMing I've learned not only what *I* want in a game that I'm putting my time and effort into, but also that exceptions to that are going to be rare. Want to play a CG Drow trying to live in exile on the surface in Greyhawk... you're gonna have a bad time....

I also outline my philosophy of the game to players - the fact that "look, nobody needs to create an uber min-maxed character to survive or be successful in my game... in fact, if you do that, you're actually probably going to be farther behind because your enemies which are intelligent will be played as such, meaning they will exploit the min side of your ability to survive while taking steps to hinder your maxed abilities, so you're much better off looking at a well rounded approach". Not everyone listens, and that's OK. Some people have to take the lesson the hard way, which also drives home things to the rest of the group.

I'm usually present one-on-one with the player when they're creating their PC. Saves a lot of questions and clarifications and back/forth later on. Also extremely helpful if the person is new. Before a character enters play, I do a once-over. I do an out of game review after every level advancement, and I do a review if something happens in play where well let's just say bonuses look like they're getting out of the realm of what seems likely. Thankfully, this isn't an issue very often.

[vodokar]

I usually enter and set up all pc's and keep them updated.

The reason I do this has nothing to do with player knowledge of the rules of the game or trusting them, it is because most players that I have dm'ed for don't have the experience with the Fantasy Grounds software to set everything up for themselves, including all the bells and whistles that make FG work efficiently during play.

For those that do, obviously, I let them do it.

But, I would rather spend the time entering a pc that the player has sent me, thus ensuring it is entered properly and all the things set up and ready to roll, than to see a bunch of downtime happen once play has commenced. From there, I spend some time training them how to use Fantasy Grounds and all the things on their character sheet. When they feel comfortable enough to enter or modify things for themselves according to the methods I have shown them, I start letting them do more of it. This process yields players that have a greater knowledge of what Fantasy Grounds can do and ensures that things run speedily and efficiently at the table. Nothing more is disconcerting to a DM, who is responsible for maintaining the pace at the table, keeping the tension of the story going, and not to have all the other players sit idly waiting, to have to sit and wait for a player to muddle through doing some action that should have been set up properly prior to the game starting.

It's the DM's job to train them how to use the software and to play the game if they don't have that experience. If you don't do that, you should definitely expect to have players who show up with nothing but a half filled out or even completely blank character sheet and aren't ready to play. There are a lot of new people showing up all the time. They might be new to the game, and most certainly are new to the software.

[Answulf]

I've been GMing forever and these days the only reason I look at character sheets after the campaign starts is to get ideas on giving them each the spotlight during the next adventure, or for treasure ideas. If one of them has the wrong modifier somewhere (on accident or purpose) I don't find it matters at all. It would have to really get out of hand, with one character being significantly more powerful than the others, before it made any kind of noticeable impact on my games.

On a more technical note, however, it's worth it to make sure their new powers and are working properly ruleset automation-wise within Fantasy Grounds. Will save on headaches and game interruptions.

[Robyn1xp]

Remedeez: You make a lot of good points, particularly in regards to fudging numbers. I've done that once so far in my fledgling life to avoid killing a player outright in one attack at first level. I had mixed emotions when it had happened. On one hand, I was glad to keep his PC alive so he could continue on the adventure and not have to immediately re-create someone. That would have put a pretty big hindrance on the party, as well, given that they were going to be screwed without him. Could have potentially been a TPK, but they came out of it. On the other hand, that's the fate of the dice, and I feel I should have killed him. If I'm too chick to do it at level 1, how am I going to react when that character's 3rd or 4th level (or more?). I'm stealing your "legendary" items tailored to the characters idea, as well.

Also, I stalked your twitter and saw the map you'd created--that's freaking awesome! Is there a program you used for that? I totally want to design my own world and put a bunch of stuff together in FG.

Thanks for the compliment on my map! I feel its actually quite terrible, but appreciate the comment! :)

If you're speaking of the continent map I made of my world (I think that's the one I shared on Twitter, heh) I made it entirely in Photoshop. Followed a few photoshop tutorials from Cartographer's Guild, and downloaded some stamp type brushes for the terrain features (mountains, hills, forests, etc) and just sort of went to town. It took me about 2 days working on that map, mostly due to my lack of skill with photo editing, and getting frustrated a lot because my vision for the map in my head wasn't coming to life in photoshop! Its quite a pain, but some people are just much more talented with photoshop and art than me and probably have a much easier time of making them. I do recommend giving it a shot just for the heck of it to see what you come up with! Its, in my opinion, the best part of homebrewing worlds. Making everything up! Your imagination is your only limit. :)

[donpaulo]

I would add the following:

Pre screening stuff can save ALOT of issues later. It can become time consuming if you or the characters start to get really involved so that is a factor. If a player cannot follow simple instructions such as submit your sheet to this email address then I reckon other issues will be forthcoming... sadly. Best to sort that out prior to the first meeting and cut bait if its necessary, after all not everyone is a good match and it should be fun for the DM as well.

Sometimes as a player I have come across DMs who will never make exceptions to a rule despite my attempt to persuade them otherwise. With that in mind I ALWAYS listen to what the PC wants to do in a given situation and why. As long as it doesn't break the game I see no reason to wing that kind of request. Saying "I reserve the right to change my mind later" covers this in spades.

Fish with a wide net, you will be surprised at who you might catch. Groups who know each other are great but sometimes some new blood is great for party cohesion.

Establish the house rules, and especially how to handle disagreements BEFOREHAND. For example I have a strict rule that PCs cannot take actions to prevent other PCs from doing something in the game. All players agree to this or I will not invite them to play. If player A continues to do something that is against the party wishes then I email that player separately to determine why that is happening. With some ground rules you can politely and firmly part ways if you have to by explaining the house rules again.
So worth doing... "Its time to move on" is a critical keyword to quash whining.

Ask your players to describe what kinds of actions they want to do in a perfect world. I think this is a handy way to determine who is a role player and who are concerned about maximizing dice and what not. No judgements here but each has her or his own strong/weak points to consider. Knowing what turns the players on and pitch that style to each person in the party. A likes building structures, B prefers hacking while C enjoys NPC discussions to achieve certain conditions. Knowing who likes what really helps. This will probably not be present on the sheets, but rather through exchange with them. Fast typing speed helps :)

Ultimately I think it boils down to how much prep time and control you want over the environment. Feeling out new players always takes time as well. Sense of humor, tone of voice are all worthy of consideration.

The more you are looking at their party sheets and talking with the players between meetings the better the play time. IMHO, then again I am in 1 campaign and not multitasking.

Being somewhat of an analog person I also keep pencil and paper handy, with quick notes about something that was said or done in passing. It might not seem like such a big deal but you can always work it in later somehow.

Asking the players who wants to keep records, who wants to run an NPC, who has the power, the authority. How they feel about the other characters really fleshes things out. This all involves being a PROACTIVE DM.

In a previous campaign the DM asked one player to be in charge of the magic rules, another melee, a third was record keeper. A DM cannot be master of all things after all and the players are partners.

Obviously style and results will vary.

I view it as the DM being their best friend and their worst enemy in different instances of the game. I hope they feel that way too.

[irish_carbomb]

I am DM'ing my first FG game, and my first D&D game in over 20 years. I have a great group of adventurers some of whom have some experience in FG some who havn't used it up until now.

I check my PC's sheets about once ever other game, or right after a level up. The main reason is for me to become familiar with what spells or special abilities they may have, so I don't take a ton of time trying to figure out how it works during the game and slowing everything down. I want to make sure I understand it.

I also spend a bit of time and put special effect powers on their PC action tab to speed up the use of some of their new abilities (i.e. Rage or a power for healing potions), this both helps the player and myself during a game, to keep things running smoothly and efficiently. FG is great with its automation, but sometimes I am surprised what is not included automatically with level ups and such. I mean why isn't a Rage power auto created for a barbarian, or sneak attack for a rogue. They are easy enough to create, but as a new DM to FG I didn't even know such things could be done, till about our 3rd session. I have since downloaded all the PC template sheets created by Zacchaeus, and copy the powers into my PC's as needed.

Also I need to be careful, I confronted a Player last week on a stat on his PC that I didn't think was correct. It was in fact incorrect but only by 1 point, not the 3 points I thought it was off by. It was a friendly exchange, and I was just trying to figure out how it was so high, but it was something I should have done out of game or in private, vs asking him right in the middle of the game. My bad, my inexperience..

[Black Hammer]

As a DM, I look at my players' sheets constantly, and have them log their advancements so I can easily keep tabs on character growth.

I'm not trying to catch them cheating, and I bring up any irregularities I see because they nearly always stem from either a typo or a misunderstanding on my part. The former is important for the sake of keeping things correct; the latter is more important, because as DM, it's part of my job to know how everything works, but in reality I'm going to forget stuff and it's good to have someone around to remind me. I avoid doing this in the middle of sessions; that helps it come off less as a "gotcha" and more of a general recordkeeping task.

As far as tracking their advancements goes, I like to have a general sense of how everyone is evolving their character. Player A is investing heavily into stealth? I'd better leave room for that to be useful, or maybe have a word with Player B who had wanted to be the "stealthy guy" but is now in danger of losing his niche. Player C is going total glass cannon? May need to tone down a trap or effect that could one-shot someone below the expected durability, and let him know that's a danger going forward if he continues down that path. Player D building his character around an idea that will never reach fruition (OP builds reliant on specific gear/talents/etc, or weird non-official rules and character build options)? May not be something I'm going to allow, and if not, best not to lead him on. Most of it just comes down to niche protection, though I picked up the habit originally after having a player be indecisive about his advancements for so long all his defenses trailed way behind the party and I killed him entirely by accident.

For the most part, the players I've had both tabletop and online have been basically honest. I'd much rather a player reroll a "****ed" die once in a while or interpret a poorly-worded rule in a beneficial way if it makes the game more fun for them. Similarly, if a player gets a string of crappy rolls here on FG, I'm likely to look for a missed modifier to justify having them roll again. Failure in a narrative sense can be part of a story; repeated failure in RPG combat is usually nonaction that builds boredom and frustration.

I've had a few of the other kind, too. As a DM, I may be a referee, but I'm not a babysitter. The rules of the game are pretty flexible, but everyone has to play by the same rules.

[Shandorf]

I play a PC within the party to be part of the group. I don't make major decisions, since as GM I know what's around every corner. But it is fun also being a player within the group to travel with them on their adventures. I call up a player client on one of my monitors and play just like they would.

[Shandorf]

Oops, posted twice by mistake.

[Shandorf]

Remedeez, I like the part where you write about fudging rolls. I do it at times. I have an extension that can make the players roll the number I want them to roll. Yes, it borders on the subject of "DM ethics" BUT...I'm a storyteller. Sometimes, I need the dice to go my way to tell my story. I don't fudge their rolls because I want to control every roll they make. And I'm not the type of DM that will punish them by making them roll a '1'. Sometimes, I just need a strategic fail or success from them or even me, to make the story flow how I want it to flow. My players trust me enough to do this because of the stories I tell within the game. I love the extension to make the dice roll what I need it when I need it. It also works for any roll, not just attack rolls.

[swbuza]

What's the extension?

[Shandorf]

What's the extension?

Again, it will not change the number on the 3D die roll, but it will change the text number and the program will act accordingly. So if you put in a 1 or a 20, the crit tables will kick in. I just have my players black out their dice. The command is /openwindow weighteddice

[dogfisc]

Sounds like a great extension. I’ll need to see if it works for Pathfinder, but sounds like something that should be ruleset-agnostic.

[Kelrugem]

What is the difference to manual rolls in the options? There is also a "fudge" button for the DM (then the die still rolls but it takes your inserted value as result :) )

(I only skimmed a bit through the posts; hence, sorry, when I missed something :) )

[LordEntrails]

What is the difference to manual rolls in the options? There is also a "fudge" button for the DM (then the die still rolls but it takes your inserted value as result :) )

(I only skimmed a bit through the posts; hence, sorry, when I missed something :) )
It replaces the results for the players. So a player rolls a die, and the GM enters what value shows up in chat. The GM also asks the players to black out the die colors, so they don't know that the GM has changed the results from what was actually rolled to what the GM wants. I don't think that's what manual rolls does.

[Shandorf]

What is the difference to manual rolls in the options? There is also a "fudge" button for the DM (then the die still rolls but it takes your inserted value as result :) )

(I only skimmed a bit through the posts; hence, sorry, when I missed something :) )

The difference is I as the DM put in the number I want them to roll as opposed to the player putting in their own manual roll. My player's know I use this extension, so I have them black out their dice. They never know whether they really rolled the number or I put in the number.

[Kelrugem]

Ah, I now see my mistake; I honestly always thought that I can also change players' rolls, if I activate manual rolls as DM :D Just tested and now I see the difference :) (never used that feature)

[JonStormbringer]

I'm sorry, but if you're just going to fudge the rolls, then why even have them roll at all? Why not just theater of the mind it and call it a day.

[Shandorf]

I'm sorry, but if you're just going to fudge the rolls, then why even have them roll at all? Why not just theater of the mind it and call it a day.

You're misunderstanding my intention to fudge rolls. I said up above, I don't want to control every roll the players make. Sometimes, I do need the story I'm telling to go my way. I don't punish them with 1's, in fact, I never give them a 1 because on a critical fail, too many things can happen. Once in awhile, I need them make or fail a roll, whether it's a combat attack or a saving throw. Different people like to DM different ways. I've told my players I do this, and they accept it knowing that I only actually use it when I need to manipulate my story. Random die results aren't everything to the game.

[swbuza]

I'm sorry, but if you're just going to fudge the rolls, then why even have them roll at all? Why not just theater of the mind it and call it a day.

This assumes a false dichotomy between two extremes. There are millions of people who play somewhere between these extremes. DM's fudging rolls for the sake of story has been a tradition for 40+ years.

[Wickedwaze]

Hi everyone,

I'm just curious how involved DMs get with their players' PCs? I think it's important that the DM check the PC over prior to beginning the adventure, but I'm wondering if I'm meddling too far by asking to review characters any further than that? I've been listening to a lot of what Matthew Colville's series "Running the Game" says, and he hasn't covered this topic so much, but in an interview with his friend, Jim Murphy, he said something I kind of drew interest on. Paraphrasing, he said something to the effect that if his players need to 'cheat' that's fine, if that's something that helps them have fun. I agree that the fact that everyone has fun is ultimately the main goal. I've been looking over their sheets as they advanced from 1 to 2 and was thinking about doing that in perpetuity, but now I feel that A) I'm putting my nose where it doesn't belong (which was never my intent) and B) it's a LOT more work for me. They said (and again I agree) it's THEIR job to know their character, their attacks, spells, etc. It's my job to run the game.

What do you experienced DMs say? Any advice you can offer would be appreciated. Thank you!

Will

Good Afternoon Will,

Typically I will look over character sheets for new players prior to them playing just to make sure creation was done properly (they don't have anything their character shouldn't have yet). Also when players do join us (we do alot of one shots in my community) I go over character creation rules to make sure we are on the same page.

When it comes the the campaigns I am running with friends. I don't really look at their character sheets much. I usually remain available and let them know that if they need some help on their level up to let me know but otherwise I let them have at it.

I have a a bit of 3.5 and 5e experience which since then we have moved over to PF1e so we are a little newer to the system so I may be a little extra hands on.

[JonStormbringer]

This assumes a false dichotomy between two extremes. There are millions of people who play somewhere between these extremes. DM's fudging rolls for the sake of story has been a tradition for 40+ years.

I wasn't attempting to be critical (Apologies if that's how it came across), I was asking a genuine question. If you're going to fudge die rolls to move a story along, then why even have the players roll? When you do this, you are giving the illusion there is choice/randomness--when there really isn't. Why not use theater of the mind to move the story forward?

Fudge Example: Make an investigation/perception check. Player rolls a 1, but the GM fudges the number so the players discover the secret door that allows access to the rest of the labyrinth.

Theater of the Mind: You search the room thoroughly and after some time find a hidden lever in one of the wall sconces which activates a hidden door.

What's the benefit of fudging the roll?

And I've been DMing since 1979.

[Kelrugem]

I wasn't attempting to be critical (Apologies if that's how it came across), I was asking a genuine question. If you're going to fudge die rolls to move a story along, then why even have the players roll? When you do this, you are giving the illusion there is choice/randomness--when there really isn't. Why not use theater of the mind to move the story forward?

Fudge Example: Make an investigation/perception check. Player rolls a 1, but the GM fudges the number so the players discover the secret door that allows access to the rest of the labyrinth.

Theater of the Mind: You search the room thoroughly and after some time find a hidden lever in one of the wall sconces which activates a hidden door.

What's the benefit of fudging the roll?

And I've been DMing since 1979.

You still assume extremes; it is not about always fudging rolls, just sometimes if it may fit. You're assuming that fudging happens all the time :) To prevent a very unfortunate player death is a major example for why some DMs then fudge a roll :)

[Griogre]

I do agree with JonStormbringer, and I've been DMing a long time as well. I just don't have players make a roll at all, when I'm not OK with all the possible outcomes. If something needs to happen for a story or plot point, usually I just narrate it - its faster and it's clear to the players this is what I wanted to have happen for the story.

I also use a lot of passive checks, and since I already know if they succeed or not I can just skip the die roll.

[swbuza]

I think there's an assumption of mutual exclusivity here. Rolling dice does nothing to defeat "the theater of the mind" and, in fact, enhances it for some players. It is not always better for the players to know they are being railroaded by the gods. Sometimes it is worthwhile having the gods railroad the players without their knowledge. Believing random chance landed you in situation X is as much, of not more, theater of the mind than "You are in situation X because I said so and wanted it that way."

[swbuza]

I really think this has to do with understanding different kinds of players and worldviews. Some characters (or people) might believe in the back of their minds that everything is random and, for them, having fate predestine things is a change of pace. On the contrary, some characters (or people) might believe that everything is ordained and, for them, having a random event change the outcome of the world is a change of pace. The point is to tell a story together, with direction from the GM, but the direction from the GM doesn't always have to be obvious.

My wife would say this more succinctly: "I make you think it's your idea and then it gets done."

[swbuza]

With regard to your example about rolling for secret doors, some characters/players take very great satisfaction out of putting all their points in perception or finding secrets, or whatever. Some players want to tell the story with you, not merely have you tell them the story. If you always take that player agency away with narration, it is simply not as satisfying for some players. Your mileage may vary, but I have found that different people have different ideas about this both as players and GM's, and if we as GM's differ in opinions, then surely the players do too; and that's why I would never argue in favor of removing that storytelling tool from your backpack.

[Garmorn]

To answer the OP question. It depends upon how well I and or my players know the system. If one or both of us are new, I go over the character sheet every time the level. This does two things, if they are new, I can point out errors and go over how to use new powers with them even when there is no errors. I if I am new, it allows me to understand what the character can do. That allows me to have a better understanding how to involve/challenge the character.

As for the dice roll questions. I roll any passive rolls with out them knowing what is rolled. If they say the are actively doing something, then I will call for a roll. Either public or secret (i.e. dice tower) depending if the rest of the party will know the results.

[LordEntrails]

The wonderful thing about these games is their is no one way to run, or play, them. We all get to play them how we feel is best, and also must understand that what is right at one table may not work at another. And that also means that not every person is right for every table.

[Shandorf]

I think there's an assumption of mutual exclusivity here. Rolling dice does nothing to defeat "the theater of the mind" and, in fact, enhances it for some players. It is not always better for the players to know they are being railroaded by the gods. Sometimes it is worthwhile having the gods railroad the players without their knowledge. Believing random chance landed you in situation X is as much, of not more, theater of the mind than "You are in situation X because I said so and wanted it that way."

You said it perfectly. This is the reason I do this. It's still theater of the mind but the story is coming from my mind and it's being channeled through fudged dice.

[Shandorf]

I wasn't attempting to be critical (Apologies if that's how it came across), I was asking a genuine question. If you're going to fudge die rolls to move a story along, then why even have the players roll? When you do this, you are giving the illusion there is choice/randomness--when there really isn't. Why not use theater of the mind to move the story forward?

Fudge Example: Make an investigation/perception check. Player rolls a 1, but the GM fudges the number so the players discover the secret door that allows access to the rest of the labyrinth.

Theater of the Mind: You search the room thoroughly and after some time find a hidden lever in one of the wall sconces which activates a hidden door.

What's the benefit of fudging the roll?

And I've been DMing since 1979.

You didn't come across critical. I could just move the story along through narration but I just choose to do it through fudged dice. Same outcome, different ways to go about it.

[Kelrugem]

Yeah, indeed, swbuza described it well :)

(Oh, and sorry JonStormbringer, I still read your second message as "Why not playing with rolling dice at all?" instead of "Why then even rolling that one roll?" :) But on a second read I read that correctly now; I should not read threads while being occupied with a lot of things :D)

[JohnD]

Interesting discussion.

From the very start, character creation, I sit down and work through each character with every player - step by step. I have a very specific methodology I want followed that results in 19 out of 20 (or better) PCs that are sufficiently unique individuals, yet more or less overall balanced vs each other and the campaign environment I prefer my games to present. If possible, I do character creation as a 1-on-1 session, although I'll happily have two players on-line at the same time if needed (especially if one or both are people I've already gamed with). I also keep character sheet information private between myself and the player.

Occasionally I run a DM-PC to round out the group, although, the last two years or so I have been more inclined to allow them to adventure with that "hole" in the party; life is rarely perfect and if you're foolish enough to venture forth without a Cleric (for example), don't expect the ruin festering with undead to all of a sudden be festering with Orcs instead (undead Orcs possibly...). No Thief? That door will still be locked, that chest still trapped and you'll still have that 45' wall that someone will have to climb.

I fudge rolls on occasion, as dictated by the situation. Bad luck is one thing, but if the player does everything right, I'd prefer that bad luck result in a near-death experience rather than an in-between sessions character creation session. Or, yes there are times when something "needs" to be found... saying you find it is less satisfying than letting the Elf shine at finding secret doors, or the Dwarf at detecting anomalies in stonework... or even better the Elf being able to find the secret door because the Dwarf is muttering about something being 'off' about the stonework in this corner. Sometimes you need the Ogre to last one more round before dropping in defeat. Sometimes it dying this round or next round is immaterial, but your players take an action that will be memorable and "character building" if successful; it's all about facilitating the overall story on a broad sense but also in the micro details.

[Marquis_de_Taigeis]

I will look at the character sheets, mostly after level ups to make sure nothing has been missed and just to give myself a refresher on the new class abilities everyone has gained. With all the automation the FG offers ill also take a quick look mostly at the actions tab, to make sure all possible effects buttons are working correctly, (this is mostly just adding extra effects to spells for when they are upcast as needed). If they have gained any magic items ill normally add them to the actions tab in between game sessions with an apply effect button, so its easier to track where effects being applied are coming from.

As a group we do keep back up pdf exported versions of the characters on the discord server we use where each player has a private text channel for discussing backstory and receiving personalised world information that they may already know in between sessions

[Shandorf]

The wonderful thing about these games is their is no one way to run, or play, them. We all get to play them how we feel is best, and also must understand that what is right at one table may not work at another. And that also means that not every person is right for every table.

LordEntrails, you summed it up perfectly.

[Shandorf]

Here's the whole reason what motivated me to use this extension in the first place. My group was in the Underdark fighting Lolth. Of course, an epic battle ensued. They had a weapon that would kill her on a natural 20. The battle lasted hours. Did one 20 get rolled? Nope. They eventually whittled her down to 0 hp. I wanted a cinematic scene so that when I was ready to end the battle, I could input that 20 and reward my players with a battle well fought. The sounds of victory and delight on the other end of my headphones is music to my ears. They were happy they killed her. Not as happy as if they would have rolled that natural 20 however. I wanted a way to do that. For me, it's simply a story telling tool.