PDA

View Full Version : Dice, Decision, Action! (Or which order do you make moves in?)



Atcote
2011-09-15, 05:30 PM
Playing with a new group just recently, I realised something very simple but quite important between us.

The order in which actions and their outcomes take effect.

As in, in my other group, when making, say, a diplomacy check, we tend to go:

Words (what the PC is saying) -> Dice (The tiny aneurysm in the NPC's mind that changes their mind or hardens their resolve) -> Outcome (The NPC either agrees or disagrees based on the diplomacy check).

My new group, explicitly a player, however prefers to do it this way:

Dice -> Words -> Outcome

Naturally, I rolled (ba-da boom) with his new order, as it was something I'd never given much thought to. I like this system as well; while my old one meant that your character had made up his mind about what he was going to say, and it was just the recipient's decision if they agreed with that resolve, the newer order lets them modify their response, in the vein of this (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=850). Naturally, this can lead to some very funny outcomes on a low roll, but can lead to the character seemingly losing their resolve.

What do you guys do? Does it depend on the game you're using? Or the mood of the story? Or do you go by the book?

Madeiner
2011-09-15, 05:47 PM
As a DM, i sometimes take the dice -> effect route.

The downside of not telling why you are rolling is that the player doesn't know which modifiers he has to use.

But i found much nicer to ask a dice roll, and if it fails narrate "the mage points a finger at you. In a flash, you lose you balance and drop down dead". This way i can narrate the scene knowing the outcome, and feels much more natural.

It's also good for narrating critical hits, fumbles, etc.

Atcote
2011-09-15, 06:01 PM
Well, you could also look at it in a more generalised view as:

Player Says -> Dice Say -> DM Says

or

Dice Say -> Player Says -> DM Says

This is explicitly (well, probably, I imagine there's a few variable situations there) on when the player performs an action, not when the DM has an NPC do something that isn't in reaction to a player's move.

Totally Guy
2011-09-15, 06:17 PM
Task - Intent - (Agree Task and Intent match) - (Explicit Failure Consequences) - Dice

This is straight from Burning Wheel which is the system I have the most experience running.


Task is the player saying what their guy does. It might take the form of in-character speech or it can be out of character description of actions.
Intent is the player saying what that task will accomplish.
I, as GM, then look at whether the task and the intent are suitable for each other, they are well defined, etc. If so I set a difficulty and, if not already explicit, name the skill/stat to be rolled. (At this point I could also opt to say yes to the player and not have a roll at all.)
I, as GM, then state what will happen should the roll fail.
Then the player rolls. If they succeed then the Intent is accomplished. If the roll fails then my consequences happen.

Remmirath
2011-09-15, 10:42 PM
Words/actions - dice - outcome for most things, but we don't always keep to it. For a diplomacy check we'll sometimes do dice - words - outcome, because the dice to some extent effect the words. If I roll very poorly on a diplomacy check, then I'll say exactly what my character says, but if I roll very highly I'll have to resort to 'like that, but better' for instance.

The diplomacy check is really the only exception we usually make to that, at least that I can think of. Sometimes bluff for similar reasons as well, and we don't always do those in the same way anyhow.

rubycona
2011-09-15, 11:30 PM
We tend to rule of fun this instance.

For instance, we often start with player-dice-result. So, a player will make some nice, epic speech... and then roll a one. So I'll say, "Actually, what you said was more like X..." or I'll let the player fill it in, depending.

Sometimes rolling a one is so fun. Sometimes we'll get into laughing arguments, trying to one up each other on how the player could have possibly failed worse, and we'll collaboratively pick our favorite "fail" scenario. Though we're all often laughing so much it's hard to get back into the game... By Core, I know you can't crit fail or succeed skill checks, but depending on the circumstances and the group's mood, we often do crit fails/success, just for grins and giggles.

So while we default to player-dice-outcome, and the majority of scenarios go as described in the OP, we very often just run with whatever suits the present mood of the group.

Mango Fox
2011-09-16, 02:58 AM
I think that the order you use has something to do with your gameplay style in general. Fully declaring your actions and then rolling for the outcome is more in line with a simulationist mindset. Rolling first and then altering your description of the action to match the roll is more in line with a narrativist mindset. Personally, I'm a much bigger fan of the latter.

As an example, let's say you've hunted down an ex-PC who betrayed your party, and now you're about to attack. If you are using a Decision -> Dice -> Action playstyle, you describe your attack, and then roll the dice. Now, it's all out of your hands. You might miss, you might hit. It's all very realistic, but it's also disappointing when you make a terrifying speech about putting an end to your adversary, and then roll a 1 on the attack roll.

On the other hand, if you're using a Dice -> Decision -> Action playstyle, you now have complete control over how the attack takes place, and you can choose exactly why you succeed or fail.

Critical Failure: "I raise my sword to strike, then stop in place, shocked to see the horrible physical transformation that has obviously taken place in my comrade."
Miss: "Furious, I lunge at him, swinging my sword recklessly in a wide arc."
Hit: "'Let's end this now'. I slash across his chest, just enough to to hopefully anger him."
Critical Hit: "'Did you really think you could escape us that easily?' I remark with a sneer, before ramming my sword through his chest."

Of course, people might accuse me of god-moding. I prefer to think of it as cooperative storytelling, though. :smallwink:

hewhosaysfish
2011-09-16, 06:27 AM
As an example, let's say you've hunted down an ex-PC who betrayed your party, and now you're about to attack. If you are using a Decision -> Dice -> Action playstyle, you describe your attack, and then roll the dice. Now, it's all out of your hands. You might miss, you might hit. It's all very realistic, but it's also disappointing when you make a terrifying speech about putting an end to your adversary, and then roll a 1 on the attack roll.

On the other hand, if you're using a Dice -> Decision -> Action playstyle, you now have complete control over how the attack takes place, and you can choose exactly why you succeed or fail.

I've often though (generally when reading internet arguments debates about social skills in RPGs) that here there's kind of a double standard between physical and social actions.

When a players says "I jump across the pit", rolls a check and fails, then player and DM alike will accept that this means he didn't jump across the pit - despite the players declaration that he did. His declaration is implicity assumed to be a description of his intent rather than his action and simply declaring it does not make it fact; it doesn't actually happen until the dice say it has.

However if the same player makes a convincing speech to an NPC but then fluffs the Diplomacy check, then the most common approach is to allow the speech to stand and try to invent reasons why the NPC would not be swayed by it. By describing the character's speech, the player has made it happen; for someone to say that it hasn't is going back on events earlier in the game (even if it was only 5 seconds earlier).

Perhaps, it's because social actions are (or are seen as) more personal to a character than physical actions. The DM cannot use his authority as arbiter of the rules to veto a character's words because that would be taking control of the character's thoughts and feelings away from the player; but he can veto a character's physical actions because they are not tied to the character's personality in the same way.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

LrdoftheRngs
2011-09-16, 09:03 AM
What I have done back when my players were just learning the concept of roleplaying, is that I would give them a choice: Say what they are saying in character and possibly get an added bonus to their roll or just go by the dice and what it says on their character sheet (Obviously this works best for Diplomacy, Bluff, and the like, but it could be stretched to other skills). Now, however, I go by Dice-->Words-->Outcome for negotiations.

Serpentine
2011-09-16, 09:16 AM
"What do you intend to do?"
"How do you intend to do it?"
"Roll dice."
"Here is how it pans out." + if failure, "here's what you can do instead"; if excess success, "here's what you can also do if you want".

I don't mind if my players do it the other way round, though. Most of the time they're very creative in their interpretations of their rolls.

Gamgee
2011-09-16, 09:48 AM
There's no consistent pattern in my group.

Player 1: The ADHD/ always asleep guy. I tell him it's his turn and he'll lazily roll dice, unless its combat then he wakes up.

Player 2: Dice > Applesauce > Kill stuff > Kittens > Talk (maybe). This guy doesn't really make any sense, I don't think it's valid to consider him in the normal context of a human being because he has so little consistency other then screwing up usually by killing things.

Player 3: Dice > Hide Check > Is it safe? > Repeat. Once in combat he lay there like a slug hoping to not be noticed, it didn't work. Only thing consistent about him is his ability to not want to do anything in the game.

Sometimes I have to wonder why the hell they play this game. *sigh*

dsmiles
2011-09-16, 10:01 AM
We run:

Decision -> Dice -> Effect

sdream
2011-09-16, 10:10 AM
I don't think this is as flexible as it is being made out here.

Intent always has to go first so you know what is being attempted (attack, etc)

Then dice rolling has to happen so you can determine success.

Then some extra description has to happen to clarify the results.


Anybody can give extra descriptive filler at any time, but the minimum is always:

Player: zap em
:roll:
Somebody: crap

In a very long combat, the minutia of all the different actions uses up much of the parties patience (in sort of a conservation of description sense), whereas, when a single roll makes a big impact (crits, and fumbles, and fast resolution systems) SOMEONE with a habit of wordiness will want to give the results the epic description they deserve.

Atcote
2011-09-16, 07:16 PM
I don't think this is as flexible as it is being made out here.

Intent always has to go first so you know what is being attempted (attack, etc)

Then dice rolling has to happen so you can determine success.

Then some extra description has to happen to clarify the results.


I get what you mean there, but in some cases there's a difference between intent (I will convince him to side with me with diplomacy) and what you do to do that ('I will appeal to his moral character' vs 'I will make him realise the scale of this threat/problem.'). There can be huge differences in what they use in order to convince; this of course doesn't apply if someone 'fluffs' their action, as in:

Player: 'I want to use my diplomacy on him.'
*rolls a successful number*
DM: 'Okay, he agrees with you now.'

This just takes the intent without method; if players choose to play like this it's usually fine, but there's just a bit more flavour in thinking how you do it (If I DM, I usually make them think about how they're going to do something, just for dynamic effect). A good example can be the difference when using something like Intimidate ('I will smash your family heirloom' versus 'I will kill your precious daughter') can vastly impact their actual reaction to you, regardless of whether you are successful or not.