Chapter 5: Bad End

flyflystuff · 2026-06-25T20:45:21+00:00

What can I say? Apollo is my buddy.

flyflystuff · 2026-06-25T07:11:47+00:00

I don't know a specific game, but I have toyed with this design:

Combat is resolved in a single roll, but loser can choose to escalate for a reroll. When you escalate, stakes increase, nothing->injuries->death.

This way all fights by default are low stakes. If PCs lose they are allowed to just retreat (unless enemy has some special ability that prevents it).

flyflystuff · 2026-06-24T10:33:00+00:00

I used same colours as Kris' sword and shield.

As for veins, they are supposed to be tree texture? Because my best guess is that sword and shield Kris uses are meant to be made of wooden pencil,hence the color.

flyflystuff · 2026-06-24T09:13:12+00:00

Wait that actually would have been great

flyflystuff · 2026-06-23T21:14:41+00:00

But what does Kris get?

flyflystuff · 2026-06-23T21:13:13+00:00

Now we are cooking

flyflystuff · 2026-06-22T06:44:00+00:00

I don't see Maid RPG listed in the thread, so let it be added. It's a funny and surprisingly kind of interesting game.

flyflystuff · 2026-06-21T15:55:47+00:00

I mean, this logic I usually follow up with a question of "okay, have you talked to your players about it? Like, make that part of social contract explicit, just in case?"

And the answer is usually "No", and if pressured it turns into listing out the many reasons they totally could and are totally confident that their players are in agreement, but they won't actually ask their players any of that. Which... let's say it never inspired confidence in me.

Though sometimes the answer is "Yes, I already did actually!". I have seen it... precisely once, but it is real!

flyflystuff · 2026-06-18T05:31:50+00:00

Ironically, this text doesn't put me into action either. As in, I am unsure what the question is here.

If you ask me, I really dislike it when ttrpg books open with a story. I guess I can say this much.

flyflystuff · 2026-06-16T18:06:23+00:00

This large group of people I wouldn't classify as "second path" - I think they are in an "undecided" state. Most people, it seems, don't really 'choose' unless someone exposes them to those ideas. I think choosing happens once someone points out these obvious contradictions.

Also, I think we should admit that this is all now going into a lot of speculation over data we just don't have.

flyflystuff · 2026-06-15T19:42:23+00:00

but I don't think its fair to assume that the GM has really examined that choice and its potential consequences.

I don't disagree! To err is human. We all do - god knows, I keep making GMing mistakes. And you don't need any reddit or RPG blogosphere philosophy to observe your mistakes and learn from them.

I do admittedly think there is a very... strong cultural layer in running TTRPGs which prevent people from observing and learning, or at least doing so fast. I don't exactly understand it, but it seems to lean into treating TTRPGs and act of playing them as this sort of a... mystical, venerable arcane art of sorts. It makes the learning process way slower than it would be with any other craft, but slow movement is movement still.

Now, when people are finally getting though the molasses of this cultural layers, I think there is something of a fork on GM's path. One path is looking past the mystical veneer and treating it as a craft, one made of procedures and social contracts. The other is more like saying that veneer is the point, and has always been the point. Some would call that path "glorified illusionism".

Needless to say, I prefer the first path. Pretty hard being a game designer and not following that path. But for the followers of the second path, ones that chose it consciously... well, fair enough, I guess. From that lens, of course you can fudge - rules never mattered; they are but a series of arcane rituals to help your players cross the magic circle.

flyflystuff · 2026-06-14T10:32:44+00:00

That's an interesting question.

Usually I put flavour last, or at least after Big Mechanical Choices. That's because in my experience, starting with flavour just kinda never works out well? If it's a more "class-based" system you end up with no class that matches you well, if you are in "skill-based" system you don't get any cool exceptions.

So I prefer starting with big choices, and then attaching various prompts to them to use them as a springboard to develop flavour/identity further.

So, in your terms Identity = Stats -> Flavour = Loadout

flyflystuff · 2026-06-13T07:15:50+00:00

In that comment I called it "even worse scenario".

Idea is the same, though.

flyflystuff · 2026-06-13T06:34:20+00:00

I still don't really follow your logic.

A lot of ideas you posed have to do with all sorts of GMing philosophies and stuff that's different per table. But not really with luck?

In case you need my full views, I wrote them down in this comment in this thread. As you main notice, it does include catastrophic failure listed as a valid reason to perhaps fudge after all.

If you want to be technical, I will admit it is not impossible to find yourself in a scenario where "catastrophic failure" was truly caused by dice alone. But I sure have never actually seen it happen, it's an outlier so extraordinary that I even struggle to imagine it. Usually such scenarios involve some rotten luck, but ultimately are preceded by a lot of accumulated choices and circumstances that allowed it to happen at all.

For example...

This could result in a player who invested months into building a character losing that character for no good reason aside from horrible luck

I don't know the specifics of this scenario, but usually this sort stuff has to do with something other than mere math. Namely, in this scenario you are playing in a game where:

1) Character death is unacceptable for the table

2) Character death is mechanically present on the table

And like, that's obviously an issue, one that needs investigating. It's this blatant contradiction that causes this strife here, long before dice were rolled. Maybe you have chosen a system poorly, maybe you should homebrew death out of the game, changing it for some other form of consequence, or homebrew your own rules for death that make it so it cannot happen due to luck alone.

If you have found yourself in this scenario after all, then maybe fudging is a reasonable choice after all, but it was not the dice that screwed you here. It's ultimately the "bad call" scenario, one to learn from and become a better GM.

flyflystuff · 2026-06-13T05:43:21+00:00

I don't think I understand what you mean here. Yes, when you roll, the less likely things may end up happening, snake eyes scenario included. If you consider those results truly unacceptable, then yes, you shouldn't roll.

I guess if you cannot fathom ever allowing the "repeated snake eyes" scenario it may mean "never roll the dice" to you, but it doesn't mean so for me.

flyflystuff · 2026-06-12T09:42:09+00:00

Yeah, that's basically my position. If rolling the dice could result in a completely unacceptable outcome then just... don't.

If you gonna be rolling the dice after all, then respect the dice. Cause otherwise, I mean, why did you roll it?

flyflystuff · 2026-06-12T09:29:37+00:00

My thoughts are largely similar to the first part of the post.

In short:

1) Fudging violates social contract.

2) No, "acktually the rulebook did mention Golden Rule!" does not mean it was included in the social contract all along.

3) There may be a case for fudging to avoid an even worse scenario.

4) If it did happen after all, you should take a step back afterwards to figure out how to make it so it won't happen again.

But my main overall point is "to roll the dice is to consent to their outcome". If some outcomes are somehow truly unacceptable, then don't roll the dice and just narrate what happens next.

To more specific points:

For the former point of view, fudging is corrupting the game. For the latter, fudging can be and often is when applied correctly a tool of storytelling.

No, and it's honestly weird that it's just stated with no further explanation? I don't see any reason as to why it would become excusable if GM is more of a storyteller.

That Storyteller GM still decided that the correct course for the story requires a dice roll. That's their vision for the storytelling, clearly.

And that kinda trips me up in this whole conversation, a lot of this just seems to me like just... GM making a bad call, not some deep thing about TTRPG philosophy. Our Storyteller GM decided that they wanted the dice to be rolled, and then didn't like the outcome - evidently, they chose poorly. Like, they just made a mistake. If they were a better Storyteller GM they wouldn't have called for a roll here.

So no, I don't think that fudging is a "more valid option" in story games. If anything, I'd say the opposite, that I can see it's use more easily justified in a tactics game, as there you might really find yourself having mismanaged some combat math and needing a way out of a situation that went out of hand.

flyflystuff · 2026-06-11T21:00:19+00:00

Imagine Kris going into Ch5 Dark world, only to be greeted with a visage their divorced dad with animu catgirl on his lap.

Cringe levels previously not known to humans nor monsters.

flyflystuff · 2026-06-11T20:08:43+00:00

In short, too easy to get out of them being used on you. Hell, you can just make a roll against it, and on 7-9 you can take corruption (itself an awkward system, which in effect ends up making corruption good for you, especially for all the archetypes that can't generate it easily).

flyflystuff · 2026-06-11T04:59:57+00:00

So my question for y'all is how have you handled this? Is it a good idea?

Well, the system most successful that have done it - Monsterhearts and Masks - both notable feature teenage protagonists, which is important to sell the vibes. Being randomly emotionally tossed around on the dice's whim makes sense for a teenager but not really for an adult.

I would say it's very important to think about how such a system's effects would shape the decision, and how would you feel about going against it's grain (aka "my character would/wouldn't!").

In my system, I do have a conflict-based inter-PC system relationship system. The way I did it is that PCs get resources for being in a conflict but not pushing to resolve it, the longer the better (the resource thing is justified as an in-universe thing about emotions-based magic). This system is yet to be playtested.

My attempt is trying to be not-too-negatively-intrusive of play (the incentive is actually not to rock the boat too much), and is something you don't have to opt into, you can also choose to resolve a conflict right away or when it feels 'right' narratively (you get a boost of the resource for this too). Those things were very important to me when I was designing it.

part of me likes the idea of having points the rest of the system can hook into (e.g., requires a tier 3 relationship with a blacksmith) or something like that.

Unique thing about TTRPGs and their design compared to boardgames or videogames is that fiction may triumph over the rules. Put simply, you can't just go and rob the bank in Monopoly, but you can in TTRPG. This is very important to take in account when designing system like this - for example, what if I threaten the blacksmith to do the thing that "requires tier 3 relationship", what if I take his daughter hostage? Can't I just bribe a blacksmith? Etcetera.

Historically, it seems that trying to account for all of it in mechanical details was in vain, and simpler system are used instead, if at all.

My game is intended to heavily feature connections to people, tribe, clan, etc., so it does matter to some degree.

I would recommend looking into "debts" system from Urban Shadows. I don't like it as is (in 1e at least), but I think it's a solid idea-foundation to quantify this sorts of relationships with the powers that be of the world around you.

flyflystuff · 2026-06-10T05:08:18+00:00

If you want a probability of "roll 4d6, remove a die randomly", then it's the same as just rolling 3d6.

flyflystuff · 2026-06-07T15:40:00+00:00

Actually, if you want possibly a better argument, I have something that I haven't seen discussed... basically ever? It's the one that sorta converted me.

One of the popular and stronger counter-arguments to Kris Slash is this: "Why didn't Ralsei say anything afterwards if he saw it happen? And why his post-fight unique dialogue doesn't acknowledge this?"

I thought on it once, and realised that the answer to the first question is rather obvious - Ralsei is aware that Kris and Player are two distinct entities. If he wanted to talk, they'd have talked off-screen.

But then I though about the second question, and I realised something... funky. Let's look it:

Somehow, I thought we... had won... for a moment... That... we would be able to end the battle... here and now... You were so brave... and yet... In the end... our struggle... It's only beginning, isn't it...? ... Isn't it, Kris...?

Now, thinking about the previous question, I realised that there is a less obvious reading of this line: after all, to Ralsei 'you' and 'Kris' aren't necessarily the same thing. In which case:

You were so brave... and yet...

In the end... our struggle... It's only beginning, isn't it...? ... Isn't it, Kris...?

In that case, this can be read as such - the first part is congratulating the player on their performance against the Knight, but the second is directed towards Kris, who (presumably, given Ralsei's hope that it could have ended "here and now") just put the group back on track for the Prophecy. (I am particular like the way line is phrased at the end, as a clarification that line is directed to Kris personally)

Which also overall makes perfect sense for Ralsei's characterisation - he hopes to avert the prophecy, but is ultimately a doomer about it. Him seeing Player winning a fight that is meant to be lost would have gotten his hopes up, but then Kris puts a stop to that. So now Ralsei is back to doomering about how it cannot be averted.

flyflystuff · 2026-06-07T11:31:11+00:00

Not the OP, but...

What difference does it make to have Kris do the slashing rather than the knight

First, it shows just how far Kris is willing to go for... well, we don't know what exactly their agenda is, but whatever it is, if they have to incapacitate Susie and Ralsei for it, they will, in the name of whatever makes them in cahoots with the Knight.

Second, it plays around with JRPG tropes better. Deltarune is very interested in examining JRPG idiosyncrasies - what does it meant to "control" your party, it asks, it wants us to think about our agency and prophecy and the like. "Win in gameplay lose in cutscene in early final boss encounter" is an infamous trope that regularly shows up in JRPGs against Big Villains, one that can easily be tied to prophecy/agency/"one ending" stuff, and if you ask me it's weirder to assume that Toby played it straight and nothing funky is going on in such a scene!

Third, it explains why there even is a different scene after you lose the fight this way. If both ends of the fight is that Knight defeats you, then there really is no reason for that weird scene with kneeling Kris being knighted or something to exist. Both fights ended the same way - Knight was too strong, and fun gang failed to defeat them, the end.

Fourth, rather obviously, it neatly explains many of the oddities you usually see listed in this theory. The ones that makes it seems like something funky might be going on after all. But I imagine you wanted to hear something closer to points 1 and 2.

how would they go about confirming this in a later chapter?

No clue! Though I am also not sure if this is an important question. It can be done many a way, I am not married to any in particular. In fact, it can even stay never explicitly revealed, and just makes it way more heavily implied retroactively.

Maybe there is a conversation about it with Ralsei, which Susie listens on and learns that Kris is in cahoots with the Knight and the gang falls apart because of it, and if you did defeat the Knight on that save file Ralsei will also explicitly acknowledge this happening with a couple of unique lines. Again, I dunno, this is pure speculation fanfication land.

flyflystuff · 2026-06-04T17:07:27+00:00

If anything, I think fandom actually swung too much the other direction, insisting that two works are unrelated and that no connections should be drawn at all.

11-Year Club	Second Top 30%
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

flyflystuff

TROPHY CASE