So Im finding that players dealing damage is really weirdly deflating.

So Im finding that players dealing damage is really weirdly deflating.

So Im finding that players dealing damage is really weirdly deflating. For examply you suceed on hack and slash but the player has d6 damage and rolls a 2. Just sometimes doesn’t feel right a lot of the time. I know i can’t do you kill them inatantly since that would take out the tension vut there must be a better inbetween.

30 thoughts on “So Im finding that players dealing damage is really weirdly deflating.”

  1. You feel you’re not doing enough damage to them?  I don’t even really pay attention to the damage, I just describe the action and when appropriate tell them which damage die to roll.  I try not to break the narrative flow for damage rolls.  They take care of it while I go on to the next victim…er…player.

  2. Lots of creatures have less than 10 hp (many have 3) so it’s not that bad but I understand your point. Fictionally the attack could help put the creature off balance for attacks by other characters

  3. I do try to give them extra benefits when they succeed but there is something about the evidence of seeing that low number which makes it hard to feel they have got something out of it.

  4. There’s no cure for low rolls. We had a case of Paladin vs Bugbear (in a larger mêlée) going the other night, and for like 6 rounds (this was D&D) it was just Bugbear misses, Paladin hits (rolls a 1 dmg), Bugbear misses, Paladin hits (rolls a 2 dmg). It looked less like fighting and more like whittling. Even the crits were anemic.

  5. Daniel Davis Hmm interesting. Maybe intent is the thing. If a player has specific intents maybe I should let that happen. For example my ranger wanted to shoot someone so they fall on others when enemies were climbing. I should of probably given that to him.

  6. Christopher Stone-Bush there is something problematic with doing that. It was discussed ages ago but I can’t remember right now. Might be that things become really safe.

    When you have 16 Hitpoints and you know you only take 5 from a monster you know you can “take 3 hits more”. 

  7. Isn’t there a solution to that problem written in the move?  if you roll a 10+ you have the option of leaving yourself open to do and extra D6 damage to the target.  I  allow the PC to make that decision after their initial roll.  Usually does the trick to kill mid ranged monsters and the PC feels like the 10+ paid off.

  8. Sean Worcester, i like the retroactive decision!  I also like leaving the temptation for Aid available after someone rolls a 6.  Somehow it always seems to suck in more unwise ideas and bad rolls.

  9. Michael Greene, I think my group has never actually rolled an Interfere against each other, but I expect i’d allow a retroactive one if it was a surprise sudden yet inevitable betrayal. Once combat was seriously joined, though, I’d probably allow or not depending on whether it made sense as “this is your roll to defend,” or if it was an attempt to break my sanity with recursion.

    Ultimately it’s the DM’s call when to allow/require a roll and when not to, right?

  10. I agree that I would allow interference rolls be made retroactively as well. I also agree that the GM needs to have the right to allow/deny this move being made retroactively. I figure as long as the GM follows the first rule “be a fan of the PC’s”, and makes sure that everything fits into the narrative it’ll be alright.

  11. Comsider thisjames day: Tim Franzke, the problem you presented with Christopher “HyveMynd” Stone-Bushs suggestion about heroes being able to calculate how many hits you can take cam be easily overcome only because it assumes the damage the heroes take is also static. The heroes will always be heroes who kick butt, but the monsters may not always be. So having players rolling damage taken but always dealing a static number would solve your problem. However, it suddenly makes the players completely predictable and in my opinion, that’s super boring. Even if the hero didn’t do much damage on a success, he still succeeded in not dying against a dangerous monster as well as penetrating their defense to land a hit. The low damage can easily be flavored negatively or positively. “Your flurry of blows pushes the orc chieftain back across the room in retreat, but you only land a couple of light blows during your onslaught.” “You nimbly dodge over the wyverns tail and bring your axe down hard. It’s knocked off balance by the blow, but it’s scales completely absorb the strike.” Though the b last one is more negative, it also reflects a much more dangerous enemy, and still gives another hero an opportunity to take advantage of the opening, especially if you tell them they saw the opening and ask them what they do. Dungeon world is a fluid, narrative game and how you or the gm r describes your actions in a success should change the situation you are in, and be interesting, if not rewarding for the entire party.

  12. One more suggestion james day. Fudge a roll. As a gm, that’s super bad form in most cases. If your character rolls low but does something cool, reward it with a monster takedown if the monster is close to death anyway. Tbh, I don’t usually even keep track of minor monster health(just bosses and stuff). If this orc already took a two handed chop for 1 damage, the next attack may be into an unprotected neck. The player feels cool, the monster dies, and you can always keep bringing orcs to the party or threaten them with more narratively interesting. If the player rolls well, reward with a cool description of kicking butt, and make excuses out of the environment and circumstances that make their successes real besides their low roll. even if it doesn’t have their desiredeffect, it will be much more interesting if that low dmg roll was cuz you kicked the orc down the stairs, not cuz you’re bad with your sword. I’ve definitely made my point. Twice. XD Good luck! 🙂

  13. Tim Franzke, I think he means to fudge the monster’s hit point total. Which, naw, I’m not in favour of. (I kind of think the whole point of “GM doesn’t roll” is break people of the habit of fudging like that.) But I do like the idea of explaining the low damage by adding other narrative consequences.

  14. colin roald  To each their own, but I guess I’m willing to sacrifice a few lower level monsters when I can always send in more or add in traps, or put them in a place  instead :).

  15. Tim Franzke  Welp, that was harsh looool. And yes, in encounters  with low-level threats, I prioritize making them feel like heroes and being ‘a fan of the players’ over taking the results of rolls exactly as rolled. I will kill a monster sometimes if it only has 1 health after an attack.

  16. I mean that isn’t wrong per se you know. I just think that “play to find out” is more important most of the time. To PTFO you follow the results of the dice rolls. If something is a minor or major encounter isn’t for you to decide I feel. A small fight can turn to deadly importance with just a few interesting move results.

  17. I think there is though a level where you the GM can step in a little bit if the players aren’t totally like no I want to beat this guy not that guy. For example if the players roll lower damage and there was one monster that had very low HP I would totally kill that one before damaging others. 

Comments are closed.