this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
11 points (62.8% liked)
rpg
3179 readers
1 users here now
This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs
Rules (wip):
- Do not distribute pirate content
- Do not incite arguments/flamewars/gatekeeping.
- Do not submit video game content unless the game is based on a tabletop RPG property and is newsworthy.
- Image and video links MUST be TTRPG related and should be shared as self posts/text with context or discussion unless they fall under our specific case rules.
- Do not submit posts looking for players, groups or games.
- Do not advertise for livestreams
- Limit Self-promotions. Active members may promote their own content once per week. Crowdfunding posts are limited to one announcement and one reminder across all users.
- Comment respectfully. Refrain from personal attacks and discriminatory (racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) comments. Comments deemed abusive may be removed by moderators.
- No Zak S content.
- Off-Topic: Book trade, Boardgames, wargames, video games are generally off-topic.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't agree with the overall view there.
The example the blog gives is: "I flash the barkeep my best smile, order a cup of ale and pay with a handsome tip and try to get him talking about the local rumours in a chatty friendly manner." The mistake in the reasoning is assuming the GM must call for a roll.
From my point of view, players don't call for rolls, the GM does. Players just say what they are trying to do. While the GM can call for a roll in a situation, they don't have to. Something might just succeed or not. What if the barkeep likes gossiping with anyone who walks in the door, no matter how persuasive the other person is?
It's also odd that they state in the d20 version of the example "the roleplaying doesn't actually affect the outcome" right after suggesting the GM give a +2 modifier to the roll for the roleplaying.
My guess they’re either a bad DM or have played with bad DMs who roll with it too much. Quoting 5e DMG:
A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success
You are not meant to resolve “everything” with the die. It’s about striking a balance. If a player roleplays amazingly for the situation, why roll for it? If they’ve tied 1000 knots before, why roll for one more?
Dice are neutral arbiters. They can determine the outcome of an action without assigning any motivation to the DM and without playing favorites. The extent to which you use them is entirely up to you. … Remember that dice don't run your game-you do.
The biggest mistake I see a lot of DMs make when asking for a roll is not fully understanding what success or failure of the roll really looks like.
For instance, picking a lock. Success is unlocking the door, but what is failure? It not unlocking? So we’re just going to sit here and roll and roll and roll until it’s unlocked. What’s the point? What does failure look like? Breaking the lock so it cannot be picked again? It taking a longer time to pick than if they’d succeeded, and there is a time pressure like a cults summoning ritual is near completion? A guard noticing from the other side of the door? The lock is a decoy or a trap?
You shouldn’t be calling for a roll unless there is a clear reason for it and the universe is at a bifurcation where success and failure lead to totally different outcomes that have meaning and ramifications.
If your rogue, who is crazy good at lockpicking, comes up against a very normal locked door, just let them unlock it unless there’s a meaningful failure for their action.