Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I GM'ed for the first time last weekend. The game was Warhammer Fantasy RPG 1st ed. The scenario was the one from the core rulebook; The Oldenhaller contract.
The first evening was character creation and introduction. The party arrived at Nuln and needed to find a tavern, which they do.
Next evening was the bulk of the scenario. It went badly to say the least. They couldn't make a die roll to save their lives! I kid you not! The party was nearly wiped out by three surprised bandits (with low characteristics, I might add). That was the first confrontation! How were they supposed to handle a bunch of cultists and a Beast of Nurgle!?

What should I as GM do in a situation like this? Lower the characteristics of NPCs or give the characters bonuses on their rolls? Other tips and solutions would be appreciated.

Cheers,
Beard

MasterBeard wrote:
I GM'ed for the first time last weekend. The game was Warhammer Fantasy RPG 1st ed. The scenario was the one from the core rulebook; The Oldenhaller contract.
The first evening was character creation and introduction. The party arrived at Nuln and needed to find a tavern, which they do.
Next evening was the bulk of the scenario. It went badly to say the least. They couldn't make a die roll to save their lives! I kid you not! The party was nearly wiped out by three surprised bandits (with low characteristics, I might add). That was the first confrontation! How were they supposed to handle a bunch of cultists and a Beast of Nurgle!?

What should I as GM do in a situation like this? Lower the characteristics of NPCs or give the characters bonuses on their rolls? Other tips and solutions would be appreciated.

Cheers,
Beard

Are they just rolling bad or is it they literally can't win? If it's the first case, make some jokes about it, keep the game rolling, and if it becomes a problem, then step in. Be wary giving out bonuses, but adjusting the NPCs can be fine. If it's the second, then definitely adjust the NPCs to a manageable range.

Mostly bad rolling. Some surprising situations arised, for example during a chase over the rooftops the high dexterity rogue failed the first, short leap while the dwarven trollslayer just flew across. Things like that.
Towards the end of the scenario the players were obviously frustrated. They still want to play though and that's good.

I can only assume that the scenario isn't unfair since it's a introduction scenario. I could be wrong though.

Thanks for the reply!

Cheers,
Beard

Keep in mind that as the GM, translating what a given roll result means into the narrative is largely a matter of your discretion. First and foremost, don't think of it purely as a succeed/fail binary. A failed roll could be interpreted as a setback rather than a simple failure. This can be the difference between giving your players hurdles which can be fun to overcome versus walls that they just can't get around. Take into account the players' characters when interpreting results: would a rogue really fall off a roof while the dwarf has no trouble? It is up to your judgment as a GM to interpret what a failed roll means given certain circumstances, including who is attempting the action. A relatively clumsy dwarf may well simply fall off a roof, as a result of a bad roll, but if an agile thief fails his roll maybe the narrative result is that he could not make it as far as he hoped, as opposed to falling.

But should the agile thief even have to roll to do something that would be second nature to him? Another important technique is to limit how often you call for rolling. Newer GMs tend to want to go "straight to the dice" - try thinking about it from the opposite extreme, where dice rolling is "the last resort." You should only call for a roll if there is a significant chance that the player could fail what they are attempting. Outside of combat, there are all sorts of ways the players can improve the circumstances enough to mitigate that chance. I like to say, if the players have come up with a good plan then the GM should not invoke dice to make it fail. Even in combat, where the rules of the game are more structured, make sure the players understand that they can make smart decisions, like using tactics or the terrian, to improve their chances. This will not only give them more opportunities to succeed but also help them engage more with what is happening in the world of the game, where Nurgle-worshipping cultists are on the loose, as opposed to "outside" of the game, where people are sitting around reading numbers on dice.

What the GM rolls is up to you. If a critical rolled by a big baddie will cause a total-party-wipeout, make it a fumble. As long as it is not blatant, and ruins the game. Keep the narrative going, and twist it as you see fit, but keep within limits.

 Manchu wrote:
Keep in mind that as the GM, translating what a given roll result means into the narrative is largely a matter of your discretion. First and foremost, don't think of it purely as a succeed/fail binary. A failed roll could be interpreted as a setback rather than a simple failure. This can be the difference between giving your players hurdles which can be fun to overcome versus walls that they just can't get around. Take into account the players' characters when interpreting results: would a rogue really fall off a roof while the dwarf has no trouble? It is up to your judgment as a GM to interpret what a failed roll means given certain circumstances, including who is attempting the action. A relatively clumsy dwarf may well simply fall off a roof, as a result of a bad roll, but if an agile thief fails his roll maybe the narrative result is that he could not make it as far as he hoped, as opposed to falling.

But should the agile thief even have to roll to do something that would be second nature to him? Another important technique is to limit how often you call for rolling. Newer GMs tend to want to go "straight to the dice" - try thinking about it from the opposite extreme, where dice rolling is "the last resort." You should only call for a roll if there is a significant chance that the player could fail what they are attempting. Outside of combat, there are all sorts of ways the players can improve the circumstances enough to mitigate that chance. I like to say, if the players have come up with a good plan then the GM should not invoke dice to make it fail. Even in combat, where the rules of the game are more structured, make sure the players understand that they can make smart decisions, like using tactics or the terrian, to improve their chances. This will not only give them more opportunities to succeed but also help them engage more with what is happening in the world of the game, where Nurgle-worshipping cultists are on the loose, as opposed to "outside" of the game, where people are sitting around reading numbers on dice.

You make some excellent points and I will definitely try to incorporate it in future sessions. I haven't thought of it like a narrative but it sounds like an awesome way to keep the game flowing and avoid getting the party killed because of abysmal dice rolling.
Thanks for your reply!

Cheers,
Beard

Looking forward to hearing about your next session ~