PDA

View Full Version : Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play



LibraryOgre
2022-10-21, 06:20 PM
So, someone had a really good suggestion on social skills that I feel embarrassed for not thinking of... roll, then role-play.

I mean, we do it all the time on combat, right?
"I'm gonna hit him with my sword!"
*miss*
"You swing high, missing entirely."

Why not do it with social skills?

"Ok, your persuasion roll failed abyssmally. What does that sound like?"

Rather than giving an impassioned, virtuoso, speech, then rolling horribly, roll horribly, then give a decidedly messed up and weird speech. Don't try to justify why your fabulousness failed... play the failure.

animorte
2022-10-21, 06:31 PM
I really like this and have played a bit similar, but not consistently enough for it to be noteworthy. I believe it requires a fair amount of immersion from everyone involved. For that, it’s fantastic at the right tables.

Will certainly try to incorporate this more. It sounds great.

The Insanity
2022-10-21, 06:32 PM
Wait. You mean there are people who don't play this way?

Shinizak
2022-10-21, 06:52 PM
Wait. You mean there are people who don't play this way?

not surprising, considerably more people are new to RPGs than are experienced at them.

NichG
2022-10-21, 06:58 PM
Whether this will be satisfying depends on whether the reason one wishes to roleplay is in order to depict, versus if it is in order to experience.

This serves the purpose of depiction well, but doesn't resolve the issues that can come up when system flat variance and lack of interdependence of factors doesn't align with the sense of a scenario when it comes to roleplaying in order to experience.

So like lots of things, it's up to taste...

MrStabby
2022-10-21, 07:21 PM
Hmm. We dend to do the opposite. We say what we want our characters to say, we make the points we wish them to make... and these decisions the players make determine the DC that the characer must meet on their rolls.

Tanarii
2022-10-21, 08:57 PM
Because unlike combat, there's usually not a complex set of rules interacting with multiple rolls to resolve the situation.

Because everyone knows how to describe what they're intending to accomplish and what method they're using. "I persuade" isn't enough information needed by a DM to resolve the situation and determine outcomes and consequences.

Because persuade rolls succeeding don't mean impassioned fiery speeches and failures don't mean wierd speech, they mean the creature you're trying to convince wasn't convinced. You described someone failing after saying "I perform" not "I persuade".

Because everyone knows how to talk in general. I've yet to meet the unicorn of the forums, a TTRPGer with poor social skills in the form of being unwilling to participate in social pillar stuff by talking. With the caveat that they are not being told that TTRPG talky-time (which isn't the same thing as roleplaying) is about dramatic acting or even just funny voices, at which point almost all players won't. (Edit: also ... players being less than decisive because all too often DMs present it as a totally wide open situation, not providing enough information for players to make informed decisions, to the degree the players aren't even sure what the goal is here ... fairly common. But IMO that is better addressed as a DM-side issue, because it is not exclusive to social pillar stuff.)

But mainly because it breaks the model: Players say what they want to do, DM determines resolution method, DM communicates the result. Switching to players say what they want to do, DM determines resolution method, player backfills why the results isn't inherently bad gaming. It smells a lot like narrative gaming (which isn't wrong in itself), but it isn't even that as long as the player doesn't define anything other than the character.

Mostly tho, it rubs me wrong. Which is a personal issue. :smallamused:

Quertus
2022-10-21, 09:31 PM
So, someone had a really good suggestion on social skills that I feel embarrassed for not thinking of... roll, then role-play.

I mean, we do it all the time on combat, right?
"I'm gonna hit him with my sword!"
*miss*
"You swing high, missing entirely."

Why not do it with social skills?

"Ok, your persuasion roll failed abyssmally. What does that sound like?"

Rather than giving an impassioned, virtuoso, speech, then rolling horribly, roll horribly, then give a decidedly messed up and weird speech. Don't try to justify why your fabulousness failed... play the failure.

I’ve heard this many times before, and I still consider it a terrible plan. Here’s why.

Explaining the approach you are using is important.

From the strength-based intimidation thread, we have the example of having killed most of the cultists of Ytherg, the party wants to get information from one of the survivors.

Now, because cultists of Ytherg undergo a lot of torturous physical training, the DC to intimidate them with physical violence is high (let’s call it DC 30). Whereas the DC to intimidate them with threats of contaminating their body with salt, Ytherg’s bane, is low (say, DC 10). Threats to friends and family are “normal” (call it DC 20, why not?), whereas it happens that the cultist in question absolutely hates the other cultist who survived - threatening to hurt him is an automatic failure (“He ate my egg. I’m glad he’s dead.”)

So, if the player recites Westley’s “To the Pain” speech from The Princess Bride? That’s threatening physical violence, I respond with, “roll intimidate, DC 30”.

If the player goes all Wat, and says, “Uh, betray us, and I will fong you, until your insides are out, your outsides are in, your entrails will become your extrails I will w-rip... all the p... ung. Pain, lots of pain.”? That’s threatening physical violence, I respond with, “roll intimidate, DC 30”.

If, however, they had done their homework (or just gotten lucky - perhaps their player just heard someone use the phrase “salt in a wound” earlier that day or something), and threatened Salt contamination, I would have said, “roll intimidate, DC 10”.

Or I might have left off stating the DC, actually, and likely had Sense Motive reveal clues (especially if they threaten the other cultist). EDIT: I might also just skip the roll entirely, if I know their bonus means that they’ll automatically succeed or automatically fail given this particular approach, and stay in “roleplaying (talking) mode” rather than breaking to obvious mechanics. Feels more natural that way, IMO.

Speaking of Sense Motive,

The Devil’s in the Details

Conversations can take sudden turns when you say the right (or wrong!) things. Like, if you mention Gandalf to someone who knows that he’s dead, or mention that you’re a _______ at a ________ (insert example of your choice here)? Those tactical decisions matter (sometimes a lot), which is why we have battle maps and round by round tactics rather than “roll combat - ok, you win/lose”.

And, yes, often Sense Motive (and, more often, just asking why) is used to notice and understand why someone suddenly became more friendly / apathetic / guarded / helpful / generous / whatever, at least at my tables.

Let’s do the Time Walk Again

Suppose the player failed the intimidate against the cultist, then, as their “failure” speech, threatened to rub salt on their open wound?

Or any other “whoops - that changes things” detail.

No. Just no. Unless your NPCs are flat, personality-less blocks of wood, who would never react to any details other than “I rolled a #”, it’s a bad plan.

And if your NPCs lack any personality whatsoever, it’s not a table where I’m going to care about social interaction with NPCs.

Don’t waste my time

Honestly, I hate the purple prose, I hate listening to a description of how an Attack happened. I already know all the relevant details in most cases, and I’ve yet to have a GM who wasn’t as transparent as water glass air the void of space when it comes to “hinting” with descriptive text, so just don’t bother. It irritates me more than mood music. Don’t give me - or, worse, anyone else - fiddly little +1 bonuses unless you can make them last all day, don’t say stuff that doesn’t matter, don’t put a gun in the first act you aren’t going that isn’t possible to use in the second, and don’t waste my time with descriptive text that can be cut from the scene and we lose nothing.

Now, I love the occasional bit of description done right. The occasional “holds up, guys - do you realize that…” followed by a master story teller framing what just happened in the perfect poetic light. That’s bloody brilliant, 10/10, worth every second, would highly recommend.

Constant meaningless descriptive text? Gag. :smallyuk:

——-

So, that’s my take on why I’d take the :smallmad: stance if some GM irl suggested doing this at a table. It shows that the game lacks conversational/social depth, and will waste hours of my life I’ll never get back with meaningless drivel.

Thankfully, I’ve never had to fight this particular fight irl.

KorvinStarmast
2022-10-21, 09:56 PM
not surprising, considerably more people are new to RPGs than are experienced at them. True.


Mostly tho, it rubs me wrong. Which is a personal issue. :smallamused: It isn't the basic game loop, but I have been at two tables where people did it, and it kinda worked. But, all of the players were quite experienced RPGers who had played a variety of systems.

Tanarii
2022-10-21, 10:02 PM
It isn't the basic game loop, but I have been at two tables where people did it, and it kinda worked. But, all of the players were quite experienced RPGers who had played a variety of systems.
Experience with a variety of systems is why I don't like it.

Absolutely it can work. But that doesn't have anything to do with experience. It has to do with what kind of game experience the players are looking for. Do they want to have to improvise having a situation and deciding what to do and how to do it, and be told the results? Or do they want to improvise justifying the roll of a die by describing what success / failure looks like? IMX folks that want the latter tend towards becoming GMs. But that's not universal.

King of Nowhere
2022-10-22, 02:43 AM
Wait. You mean there are people who don't play this way?

Most people take the opposite approach: they roleplay through the interactiin (or even describe how they approach the conversation), and what they say - whether they make good arguments, if they use background details that touch on the npc cords - determines the dc. If the arguments they use are good or bad, it may even mean authomatic success/failure.

Quertus explained why that approach is preferred in a lot more detail

Satinavian
2022-10-22, 04:21 AM
Personally i think as default you should roll afterwards. Because arguments do give quite significant situational modifiers and also often it is not that obvious what pwople even want from the interaction, which would also significantly alter the difficulty.

Also, as i rarely play games where the result of the roll relies more on randomness than skill, i usually can make a good guess about the outcome even before the roll.


However, if the roll really is out of the ordinary (e.g. games with fumble rules, iteratively exploding dice triggering or has critical successes for skills that get rolled), usually an explaination afterwards is given. Some misunderstanding or some detail that explains it.

Jay R
2022-10-22, 08:26 AM
It's a good idea, but you've taken it too far.

You need to start by role-playing, so the DM can set a DC for the check.

If you're trying to convince the baron to send out some knights to stop the invading orcs, I need to know if you tell him how many orcs there are, how much damage they're doing, and that the orcs are heading towards the village where his daughter is.

Then I can set a DC, and you can roll a Diplomacy check.

This is no different from the fact that in a fight, I need to know what weapon you've drawn, where you're standing, which enemy you're attacking, and whether you're trying to just attack, trip, bull rush, or disarm before you can roll for it

Having said that, you're certainly right that explaining the success or failure after the roll can be great. Here is my best example of how that adds to the fun.


The game was Flashing Blades, a musketeer game. The rogue in the party had decided to learn the Etiquette skill, which takes three months. He'd spent two weeks on it. To make a successful role, you have to roll your Charm or less on a d20. And he had a low Charm score of 8. Note that you are trying to roll low, not high.

The party went to a high-status party, and at one point, the rogue decided that he was going to go talk to the duke's daughter, who was surrounded by noble suitors. They tried to tell him that he cannot go introduce himself to her; he needs a proper introduction. But he decided that since he was learning Etiquette, he could do it anyway.

So he barged through a collection of high-level nobles and introduced himself to her, and said, "I want to make an Etiquette roll to impress her."

So, he is attempting to use a cross-class skill he has not in fact learned, in competition with several masters of the skill, having already misbehaved, in a high-stress environment, and would have had to roll an 8 or less (if he had the skill at all).

All of the above role-playing is needed before I can interpret the roll.


He rolled a 20. Critical fumble.

I said, "You compliment her beauty, look soulfully into her eyes, take her hand gently, bend over it, raise it to your lips ... and f*rt."

This is what you're talking about -- interpreting the roll in role-playing terms. And it can really add to the game.

Sneak Dog
2022-10-22, 09:42 AM
Describe the action, approach and tools. Maybe roll some dice. Describe the outcome. That's the roleplaying gameplay loop in a nutshell.

In combat a player declars their character attacks someone with a sword. Some dice are rolled. The GM declares the outcome and describes that the swing strikes the armour and finds a dent in the armour to strike a blunt blow, mayhaps inviting the player to add a line of victorious dialogue how clumsy the foe is.

In social encounters the player declares their character scaring someone by showing off that they can magically create fire in thin air. Some dice are rolled. The GM declares the NPC is cowed and asks what exactly the player is attempting to get from this NPC.

And as mentioned before, the approach and tools adjust the DC for the action. Good approaches and tools make things easier, poor ones harder.

kyoryu
2022-10-22, 12:06 PM
So, someone had a really good suggestion on social skills that I feel embarrassed for not thinking of... roll, then role-play.

I mean, we do it all the time on combat, right?
"I'm gonna hit him with my sword!"
*miss*
"You swing high, missing entirely."

Why not do it with social skills?

"Ok, your persuasion roll failed abyssmally. What does that sound like?"

Rather than giving an impassioned, virtuoso, speech, then rolling horribly, roll horribly, then give a decidedly messed up and weird speech. Don't try to justify why your fabulousness failed... play the failure.

Because we don't do that with combat.

We position, choose our weapons, often times choose which attack we're doing.

And really, the input from roleplay shouldn't be "how good your speech was". It should be "what your leverage is, and how you're applying it." How are you convincing someone it's in their best interests to do what you want? Threats? Bribes? Offers? Appeal to virtue?

That's the same rough level of detail as we do in combat, it's the equivalent of "who is where, and fighting with what weapon, and what moves are they using?"

EDIT: Or, I could just read the whole thread and say "What JayR said."

MoiMagnus
2022-10-22, 01:27 PM
en give a decidedly messed up and weird speech. Don't try to justify why your fabulousness failed... play the failure.

IMO there are 3 legitimate answer to "What happen when a player RPs the perfect speech/argument to persuade someone?".


The GM determines that it is an automatic success, no roll required. On this positive side, this incentivise the players to try to find said perfect argument. On this negative side this penalise players that are bad at social skills IRL, and it's easy for the GM to unwillingly (or willingly) pick their favourite among the players. Note that in this mindset, if the speech/argument was just "good" and not perfect, then the GMs grants advantages and/or decreases the DC of the check.
As you suggested here, the GM ask for the roll first, and ask the players to only make perfect speech/arguments if they succeed at the roll, and instead ask them to make poor ones. On the positive side, this really pushes player to have fun with the way they RP, narrating disastrous failures as much as spectacular success, and the GM can even give to the active player the control of the NPCs for the duration of this narration. On the negative side, this can really frustrate players on the "problem-solving" side as they can't actually win using their good arguments.
Lastly, what seems to be what you consider the default rules is that the rolls happens after the player made their RP, and in case of failure the GM finds some ways for the action to fail, at least partially. It can be a good place for the GM to put a "No, but...", for example "While the king refuse to listen to your argument, his heir seems clearly annoyed by the refusal, and subtly hint that he might be more open to compromises than his father.". This solution combines the pros and the cons of both previous approaches, and is probably the one that put the most burden on the shoulder of the GMs.

NichG
2022-10-22, 01:46 PM
IMO there are 3 legitimate answer to "What happen when a player RPs the perfect speech/argument to persuade someone?".


The GM determines that it is an automatic success, no roll required. On this positive side, this incentivise the players to try to find said perfect argument. On this negative side this penalise players that are bad at social skills IRL, and it's easy for the GM to unwillingly (or willingly) pick their favourite among the players. Note that in this mindset, if the speech/argument was just "good" and not perfect, then the GMs grants advantages and/or decreases the DC of the check.
As you suggested here, the GM ask for the roll first, and ask the players to only make perfect speech/arguments if they succeed at the roll, and instead ask them to make poor ones. On the positive side, this really pushes player to have fun with the way they RP, narrating disastrous failures as much as spectacular success, and the GM can even give to the active player the control of the NPCs for the duration of this narration. On the negative side, this can really frustrate players on the "problem-solving" side as they can't actually win using their good arguments.
Lastly, what seems to be what you consider the default rules is that the rolls happens after the player made their RP, and in case of failure the GM finds some ways for the action to fail, at least partially. It can be a good place for the GM to put a "No, but...", for example "While the king refuse to listen to your argument, his heir seems clearly annoyed by the refusal, and subtly hint that he might be more open to compromises than his father.". This solution combines the pros and the cons of both previous approaches, and is probably the one that put the most burden on the shoulder of the GMs.


I tend to build systems where rolls are not used to evaluate success or failure, but rather are used to obtain information that can be used to determine how to change the argument in the direction of one that would be successful. E.g. the duke can never be persuaded of something that taken as a whole just sounds like a bad deal for him. But if you succeed in a roll, you get to know what you'd have to offer in order to get what you're asking him to do. And if you succeed on a higher DC, you get to know the exact minimum you'd have to offer.

Telok
2022-10-23, 01:06 AM
Because unlike combat, there's usually not a complex set of rules interacting with multiple rolls to resolve the situation.

Actually there are complex sets of rules for interpersonal interactions. We're just used to them and don't think about it most of the time while we're in our own culture. Cross culture you get anything from both sides assuming the other person is terribly rude to full sitcom or SNL skit situations.

I visited another continent, there's this meme going back decades that the people there are terribly rude. Turns out the local culture rule is if they say "hello, good day" then it's horribly rude ti not respond in kind. Memorize two greeting/response phrases plus words for yes, no, please, thank you, and "i need coffee". Spent a wonderful three weeks there, everyone was nice & polite... and all conversation starts with that "hello, good day" exchange.

So the social stuff is just as complicated, we just tend to gloss over a lot of stuff if we're within our own culture. Just like experts in any field will gloss stuff over or assume others in their field have the same jargon.

You can do exactly the same multiple roll stuff with words that you can with combat. Its just a matter of how much detail you want to put in, how much time you want it to take, and how familiar with the subject you assume the users are. That last assumption is a bugger tho.

KillingTime
2022-10-23, 07:35 AM
We mix it up, but I like the roll first approach.

When you roll an attack, you're testing your characters ability to swing a sword.
You don't force the player to describe the series of feints and cuts she makes to force the opening which lands the hit. You roll against the skill of the character and then describe the result.

Likewise when you make a social interaction you're testing against the character's ability not the player's.
An eloquence bard with expertise in persuasion is going to know the right things to say in a situation where the player is likely to bumbling tongue-tied fool. Setting the DC post-facto on the basis of the player's description is punishing to socially awkward players who want to play a socially competent character.
Likewise a perceptive, inquisitive rogue should be able to investigate a complex puzzle based on the skills of the character not the description of the player.
You wouldn't set the AC of an enemy based on how martially proficient the player is.

King of Nowhere
2022-10-23, 07:53 AM
I tend to build systems where rolls are not used to evaluate success or failure, but rather are used to obtain information that can be used to determine how to change the argument in the direction of one that would be successful. E.g. the duke can never be persuaded of something that taken as a whole just sounds like a bad deal for him. But if you succeed in a roll, you get to know what you'd have to offer in order to get what you're asking him to do. And if you succeed on a higher DC, you get to know the exact minimum you'd have to offer.

that too. I've asked for sense motive "figure out why they don't want to help you" as much as I asked for diplomacy "figure out how persuasive you were".

Quertus
2022-10-23, 09:35 AM
I tend to build systems where rolls are not used to evaluate success or failure, but rather are used to obtain information that can be used to determine how to change the argument in the direction of one that would be successful. E.g. the duke can never be persuaded of something that taken as a whole just sounds like a bad deal for him. But if you succeed in a roll, you get to know what you'd have to offer in order to get what you're asking him to do. And if you succeed on a higher DC, you get to know the exact minimum you'd have to offer.

Very much this. Game designers, take note!


We mix it up, but I like the roll first approach.

When you roll an attack, you're testing your characters ability to swing a sword.
You don't force the player to describe the series of feints and cuts she makes to force the opening which lands the hit. You roll against the skill of the character and then describe the result.

Likewise when you make a social interaction you're testing against the character's ability not the player's.
An eloquence bard with expertise in persuasion is going to know the right things to say in a situation where the player is likely to bumbling tongue-tied fool. Setting the DC post-facto on the basis of the player's description is punishing to socially awkward players who want to play a socially competent character.
Likewise a perceptive, inquisitive rogue should be able to investigate a complex puzzle based on the skills of the character not the description of the player.
You wouldn't set the AC of an enemy based on how martially proficient the player is.

Yea and no.

Any system worth playing the fight, you don’t just “roll combat” - you’re “testing the player” with what they attack / what maneuver they use / what Spell they cast / etc.

Similarly, you “test the player” with their approach. And you don’t “punish the socially awkward player” - you set the same DC for Westly’s “to the pain” speech as Wat’s “fong you” blunder, as they’re both “threats of physical violence”.

So, absolutely, Character skill tells how far you can get. But player skill tells what direction you’re headed.

GloatingSwine
2022-10-23, 11:00 AM
Similarly, you “test the player” with their approach. And you don’t “punish the socially awkward player” - you set the same DC for Westly’s “to the pain” speech as Wat’s “fong you” blunder, as they’re both “threats of physical violence”.


But you also set the same DC for a third person description of what their character is going to do as long as it contains sufficient detail for you to set one, and if it doesn't you prompt for that detail.

Because the socially awkward person is also going to feel really bad if you make them stumble over acting the scene out because you're making them embarass themselves by looking silly in real life.

Roleplaying is not acting.

Tanarii
2022-10-23, 11:30 AM
Actually there are complex sets of rules for interpersonal interactions. We're just used to them and don't think about it most of the time while we're in our own culture. Cross culture you get anything from both sides assuming the other person is terribly rude to full sitcom or SNL skit situations.Acknowledged. I was talking about game rules, and of course I'm talking about D&D. Other systems exist with social combat rules, or use a generic resolution system with multiple decision points and rolls for any and all resolutions.

animorte
2022-10-23, 11:33 AM
Roleplaying is not acting.

I believe I have to disagree with you here a bit. There is certainly a difference between the two, but they’re mostly the same.

In both of them, you are embracing a character. You are expected to have an idea of what that character wants and needs. What is it about their past, present, and future that drives their decision-making process?

The biggest difference between the two is probably having a script. The actor can often be told about their character and the world they’re in, even so much as what they’re supposed to say and do. While role-playing, you have more reign to design details of your character, especially what you’re doing and saying.

But in both of them, it still helps to be aware of why they are as they are. Being good at one can translate many skills to the other. Admittedly this is not always the case. Some people can’t function without a script and others rebel against the structure.

NichG
2022-10-23, 11:46 AM
Roleplaying can be many things, including acting and non-acting. Roleplaying games can indeed use player skill to determine whether a hit lands or what someone's 'AC' is. There are LARPs like this. They can also not do so.

Declarative absolute statements about what all other people always or never do at their tables are almost always wrong.

Tanarii
2022-10-23, 11:46 AM
In both of them, you are embracing a character. You are expected to have an idea of what that character wants and needs. What is it about their past, present, and future that drives their decision-making process?"What's my motivation?"


The biggest difference between the two is probably having a script.It's making the decision for the character in the fantasy environment that is the heart of roleplaying.

Too many folks equate Roleplaying to the player talking as if the character at the table, which is often correlated with acting. Improvisational at least. But that's not the Roleplaying part. Making decisions for the character is the Roleplaying part.

Quertus
2022-10-23, 11:52 AM
But you also set the same DC for a third person description of what their character is going to do as long as it contains sufficient detail for you to set one, and if it doesn't you prompt for that detail.

Because the socially awkward person is also going to feel really bad if you make them stumble over acting the scene out because you're making them embarass themselves by looking silly in real life.

Roleplaying is not acting.

Oh, absolutely correct! Kudos! I actually feel rather embarrassed for not catching & commenting on that earlier. :smallredface:

So, yes, reciting “to the pain” or “fong you”, *or* just saying how you sharpen your knife while talking about peeling the skin of an apple, or whatever you describe in 3rd person, all falls under “physical threat”, all has the same DC.

EDIT: that was not clear, at all (my player must have rolled poorly) - point is, any physical threat results in the same DC, regardless of how it’s delivered, including “in character” vs “3rd person”, not just “to the pain” vs “fong you”.


I believe I have to disagree with you here a bit. There is certainly a difference between the two, but they’re mostly the same.

In both of them, you are embracing a character. You are expected to have an idea of what that character wants and needs. What is it about their past, present, and future that drives their decision-making process?

The biggest difference between the two is probably having a script. The actor can often be told about their character and the world they’re in, even so much as what they’re supposed to say and do. While role-playing, you have more reign to design details of your character, especially what you’re doing and saying.

But in both of them, it still helps to be aware of why they are as they are. Being good at one can translate many skills to the other. Admittedly this is not always the case. Some people can’t function without a script and others rebel against the structure.

Roleplaying is making decisions for the character, as the character. It’s starting at the motivation, and trying to figure out the action / line. It’s asking the question, “WWQD?”.

Acting is the exact opposite. It is starting at the action / line, and, if necessary, asking the classic actor question, “what’s my motivation?”, in order to get the delivery correct.

So they’re related, in the same way “hot” and “cold” are related - they’re related in that they’re opposites.

EDIT: I see ninjas! :smallbiggrin:

PhoenixPhyre
2022-10-23, 12:02 PM
My struggles with roll first are twofold. First, it encourages menu/button based play. Hit the biggest number on your sheet to win. No thanks.

Second, and worse, many times I'm not even sure that a roll is needed until about halfway through the talking. And certainly not what kind of roll or what the DC will be.

I need to know what you're trying to do (intent) and how you're doing it (method), as well as any other particular details you care to provide. I don't need exact words, because your characters aren't speaking English at all. So exact words aren't really useful except for the players. Which is fine. But doesn't influence the roll. A "I want to ask him to do X, talking up his honor" statement works as well (or not) as a flowery speech. Details matter, but not how the player presents them to me. And I'm more than willing to prompt for details or ask clarifying questions. That's a big chuck of my job as a DM.

Tohron
2022-10-23, 12:18 PM
I immediately thought of this (https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=850) comic from DM of the Rings, which illustrates one way to do this in rather hilarious fashion.

animorte
2022-10-23, 12:39 PM
"What's my motivation?"

It's making the decision for the character in the fantasy environment that is the heart of roleplaying.
Yes, very much what I was getting at.


Roleplaying is making decisions for the character, as the character. It’s starting at the motivation, and trying to figure out the action / line. It’s asking the question, “WWQD?”.

Acting is the exact opposite. It is starting at the action / line, and, if necessary, asking the classic actor question, “what’s my motivation?”, in order to get the delivery correct.

So they’re related, in the same way “hot” and “cold” are related - they’re related in that they’re opposites.

EDIT: I see ninjas! :smallbiggrin:
I was prepared to fight this battle on top of my hill, so bring it on! :smalltongue: :smallcool:

I actually liked where you were going with your response right up until you blatantly said "hot" vs "cold." The parallels between the two are enough that if you have experience with both, it really doesn't feel nearly as different as all that.

Just out of curiosity, how many other people here have experience in acting, as a character in a production of some sort?
- I'll answer for myself: I've spent half of my life in that environment (acting, improv, dance, costume design, light and sound technician, set building, publicity... literally everything) so I legitimately speak from experience.

Getting into D&D about 10 years ago (it was 3.5e), role-playing was initially difficult for me because I kept telling myself everything was just as you say: hot and cold. I stepped back and finally began to draw the parallels. Sometimes an actor will need to improvise at various points with the understanding of their character's motivation, script or not. I realized that all I needed to do was understand the motivation and not be afraid to step into my character's mind a little bit. Everything after that was so much easier.

Now, I'll admit that many different people have varying experiences of the matter, but they're not nearly as opposite as you think. The player is using similar understanding to guide their character through the environment. Role-playing just opens up the idea of talking about what you want your character to do instead of pretending to be the character.

To build off of your metaphor, running water: It's closer to turning on the water and letting it run through the faucet vs picking up the hose and pressing the button.

Quertus
2022-10-23, 01:06 PM
I was prepared to fight this battle on top of my hill, so bring it on! :smalltongue: :smallcool:

I actually liked where you were going with your response right up until you blatantly said "hot" vs "cold." The parallels between the two are enough that if you have experience with both, it really doesn't feel nearly as different as all that.

Just out of curiosity, how many other people here have experience in acting, as a character in a production of some sort?
- I'll answer for myself: I've spent half of my life in that environment (acting, improv, dance, costume design, light and sound technician, set building, publicity... literally everything) so I legitimately speak from experience.

Getting into D&D about 10 years ago (it was 3.5e), role-playing was initially difficult for me because I kept telling myself everything was just as you say: hot and cold. I stepped back and finally began to draw the parallels. Sometimes an actor will need to improvise at various points with the understanding of their character's motivation, script or not. I realized that all I needed to do was understand the motivation and not be afraid to step into my character's mind a little bit. Everything after that was so much easier.

Now, I'll admit that many different people have varying experiences of the matter, but they're not nearly as opposite as you think. The player is using similar understanding to guide their character through the environment. Role-playing just opens up the idea of talking about what you want your character to do instead of pretending to be the character.

To build off of your metaphor, running water: It's closer to turning on the water and letting it run through the faucet vs picking up the hose and pressing the button.

So… sell me on the idea that the improv actor, who knows the character of his character, and is making decisions for that character, giving lines in character for that character, should fall into the “acting” bucket rather than the “roleplaying” bucket.

My stance is that an actor can roleplay, and a roleplayer can act. But which they’re doing is based on definitions that are… ok, not exactly opposites, but mutually exclusive steps: making decisions based on personality, or attempting to “personify” (act out) those decisions. The latter is, in acting, often done initially in absence of understanding of the underlying motivations, whereas the former definitionally cannot be.

The writer (hopefully) understood the motivations of the characters when they wrote the script, the writer hopefully was in roleplaying mode (and many books and movies fail when the writer fails this step, IMO). But the actor (in script stance, with a script, as opposed to your improv actor) starts with the line, and has to do the opposite, work backwards towards the personality and motivation (or just ask “what’s my motivation?”).

It’s that direction, personality/motivation -> action, vs action -> motivation/personality, that are opposites.

Where does your hill stand now?

EDIT: let me try again. The improv actor could be both roleplaying and acting. They could also simultaneously be setting up the next lines / a joke, or choosing not to use profanity despite it being in character because their audience is 5-years-olds - they could be acting, roleplaying, and metagaming. But “roleplaying” is the part where they choose based on the character, “acting” is instantiating / delivering the chosen lines / actions.

GloatingSwine
2022-10-23, 01:57 PM
I believe I have to disagree with you here a bit. There is certainly a difference between the two, but they’re mostly the same.


No.

You can't act in the third person descriptive, you can roleplay in the third person descriptive and in every other situation than persuasion that is the expected mode of action.

A player who does not want to act should be able to describe how their character approaches a persuasion attempt and should never be required to act it out if they do not wish to.

And if you disagree then you should consider whether you would tell your players next session that they're allowed to punch you in the face instead of rolling dice for damage.

animorte
2022-10-23, 02:15 PM
So… sell me on the idea that the improv actor, who knows the character of his character, and is making decisions for that character, giving lines in character for that character, should fall into the “acting” bucket rather than the “roleplaying” bucket.

My stance is that an actor can roleplay, and a roleplayer can act. But which they’re doing is based on definitions that are… ok, not exactly opposites, but mutually exclusive steps: making decisions based on personality, or attempting to “personify” (act out) those decisions. The latter is, in acting, often done initially in absence of understanding of the underlying motivations, whereas the former definitionally cannot be.

The writer (hopefully) understood the motivations of the characters when they wrote the script, the writer hopefully was in roleplaying mode (and many books and movies fail when the writer fails this step, IMO). But the actor (in script stance, with a script, as opposed to your improv actor) starts with the line, and has to do the opposite, work backwards towards the personality and motivation (or just ask “what’s my motivation?”).

It’s that direction, personality/motivation -> action, vs action -> motivation/personality, that are opposites.

Where does your hill stand now?
I'm still proud up here, believe it or not. The weather is nice.

I'll admit that I like your argument. It's not necessarily wrong, but I don't feel that is gets the full picture. I'm aware some of this is likely biased by my own personal life and perspective.

Whether or not the writer understood the motivations while writing, the actor still needs to address that (most often without the writer's assistance).

I have been in many productions in which we're discussing character things with the director and stage manager. One of the common tasks (generally learned in early theater classes) is reading the things you know about your character and writing down a journal from that character's perspective. How did your character get here? What made them this way? Yes, technically with this exercise you're working your way backwards. A similarity with your PC is that you don't know the world they're in, but they should. And, provided you had a session zero that grants any insight to what's going on, this parallels initial script summaries and reading. You made that character sheet and they're starting with or near this group of people. How did you come to know them and how did your character get there? For many people this is still a process of working backwards; many on GitP have admitted as much. Some players prefer to build a PC concept and then figure out the backstory.

Another exercise in acting is comparing your personal experiences to the character. This helps to embrace everything they're capable of and you don't need to ask the director why you're moving stage left while making a certain statement. You know why because your character knows why and you start to tell the director why you need to move. Sure they still give you direction and have a grand view of the work in its entirety. In the work force, I've learned the scope of different views. The floor view, department view, building view, and helicopter view. This parallels with actors, technicians, stage managers, and director. One of the greatest consistent lessons in such an environment is that some of the best ideas to improve production come directly from the floor.

Many times actors understand the character they are portraying well enough that a scene can be taken in another direction. Sometimes this is done because one actor forgot a line or a set piece failed to make an appearance. These scenes either take a new path to the the objective or stay the course until it falls apart. This is the difference between bloopers and trivia. "Haha, let's watch this blooper reel of the actors screwing up and dropping character" vs "Did you know that this thing almost ruined the scene and this actor stayed in character to keep it going? They actually kept that take or changed the script to suit it."

A notable difference between acting and role-playing is the script. The biggest difference is in approaching the character from first person vs third person.


And if you disagree then you should consider whether you would tell your players next session that they're allowed to punch you in the face instead of rolling dice for damage.
Just gonna stop you right there, buddy. You might want to take a step back and check yourself. :smallconfused:

I never said anything about forcing any of my players to act. They can always choose how they want to portray their characters. I'm just expressing my own view that role-playing and acting aren't necessarily as different as people think, based on my own experiences.

Quertus
2022-10-23, 02:58 PM
I'm still proud up here, believe it or not. The weather is nice.

I'll admit that I like your argument. It's not necessarily wrong, but I don't feel that is gets the full picture. I'm aware some of this is likely biased by my own personal life and perspective.

Whether or not the writer understood the motivations while writing, the actor still needs to address that (most often without the writer's assistance).

I have been in many productions in which we're discussing character things with the director and stage manager. One of the common tasks (generally learned in early theater classes) is reading the things you know about your character and writing down a journal from that character's perspective. How did your character get here? What made them this way? Yes, technically with this exercise you're working your way backwards. A similarity with your PC is that you don't know the world they're in, but they should. And, provided you had a session zero that grants any insight to what's going on, this parallels initial script summaries and reading. You made that character sheet and they're starting with or near this group of people. How did you come to know them and how did your character get there? For many people this is still a process of working backwards; many on GitP have admitted as much. Some players prefer to build a PC concept and then figure out the backstory.

Another exercise in acting is comparing your personal experiences to the character. This helps to embrace everything they're capable of and you don't need to ask the director why you're moving stage left while making a certain statement. You know why because your character knows why and you start to tell the director why you need to move. Sure they still give you direction and have a grand view of the work in its entirety. In the work force, I've learned the scope of different views. The floor view, department view, building view, and helicopter view. This parallels with actors, technicians, stage managers, and director. One of the greatest consistent lessons in such an environment is that some of the best ideas to improve production come directly from the floor.

Many times actors understand the character they are portraying well enough that a scene can be taken in another direction. Sometimes this is done because one actor forgot a line or a set piece failed to make an appearance. These scenes either take a new path to the the objective or stay the course until it falls apart. This is the difference between bloopers and trivia. "Haha, let's watch this blooper reel of the actors screwing up and dropping character" vs "Did you know that this thing almost ruined the scene and this actor stayed in character to keep it going? They actually kept that take or changed the script to suit it."

A notable difference between acting and role-playing is the script. The biggest difference is in approaching the character from first person vs third person.

I’m guessing you missed my EDIT, which is a shame. It went like this:
Let me try again. The improv actor could be both roleplaying and acting. They could also simultaneously be setting up the next lines / a joke, or choosing not to use profanity despite it being in character because their audience is 5-years-olds - they could be acting, roleplaying, and metagaming. But “roleplaying” is the part where they choose based on the character, “acting” is instantiating / delivering the chosen lines / actions.

In context of your post, when the players are “working backwards” with their characters, they aren’t roleplaying. When they don’t know the world, they can’t roleplay (part of why my characters are “not from around here”, so I don’t have that problem, and get to enjoy Exploration). Angry’s “recent” article about roleplaying isn’t about roleplaying, it’s about character creation mid-game. Actors can absolutely “roleplay”, and actors and roleplayer can roleplay and act (and metagame), all seemingly as the same action. But they’re discrete, just like how an actor can sing and dance and emote, but they’re 3 distinct concepts, just accomplished in a single fluid action. (EDIT: “emote” is probably the wrong word; let’s simplify it to “smile”, as I don’t think anyone would mistake singing, dancing, or smiling for one another.)

Where do we stand now?

animorte
2022-10-23, 03:25 PM
But “roleplaying” is the part where they choose based on the character, “acting” is instantiating / delivering the chosen lines / actions.
Yes, that’s fair. One of the prime differences between the two, and well said.


In context of your post, when the players are “working backwards” with their characters, they aren’t roleplaying. When they don’t know the world, they can’t roleplay (part of why my characters are “not from around here”, so I don’t have that problem, and get to enjoy Exploration).
Don’t know about this one, can’t role-play? For me, being able to role-play the character and what they’re doing actually helps to explore the world.


Where do we stand now?
I’ve taken a step lower down my hill to offer a hand in agreement. You have basically admitted it’s a bit more alike than you initially stated and I have admitted it’s a bit more different than I initially stated. It’s wonderful to respectfully approach the game from different perspectives. That’s good enough for me!

Thanks for your time and input. It’s one of the few topics I’m passionate about.

icefractal
2022-10-23, 04:27 PM
While it's fine to base in-game social interaction entirely on the character's bonus, it's also fine to have player skill play a part - it's ultimately up to what kind of challenges the gaming group prefers.

People act like it's morally wrong to have a system where someone's RL ability constrains their social interaction in any way.

Well is it morally wrong for 3.x D&D to exist? Because that's a system (and there are many more) where someone's RL tactical / rules-grokking ability constrains their character's effectiveness in combat.

Like, say I make a warrior with Int 20, Profession (military officer) +20, Knowledge (tactics) +20. Meanwhile you make one with Int 10 and neither of those skills. But then it turns out I don't know the combat rules, have no intention to learn them, and don't want to take advice either - so my action generally consists of "run toward whatever enemy seems the most important this round (taking AoOs) and attack them once with a standard attack" whereas you do know the system and use effective tactics (avoiding AoOs, making full attacks, using special abilities when applicable). Well hmm, it looks like the supposed "master tactician" is making observably worse decisions and being less effective than the "normal guy". So - has something unethical occurred? Is the GM a bad person for using a grid-based combat system rather than having us each just "roll combat" to determine results?

Pex
2022-10-23, 05:16 PM
I prefer role then roll. The shy/socially awkward players still need to say something. If they are Honest True happy playing the game but letting others do the talking, fine. Everyone is enjoying the game, presuming the player is still participating in exploration and combat. However, when they interact with the game they need to interact. I'm not looking for Shakespeare. Give me the idea you want to convey. He can still have a success, even an autosuccess if the player happens to choose the right motivation for the NPC at that particular moment as the situation warrants. Having the player participate and see his ideas succeed will encourage more participation. For social skills, as with any skill, I always have the player who initiated the need for a check to make the check. I do not let the players choose who has the highest modifier to make the roll. Only when I prompt for a check any player may roll, with or without advantage, will I allow them to choose the PC with the highest modifier. It does happen from time to time.

The Insanity
2022-10-23, 09:02 PM
Even if you roll first you still have to roleplay (that's kinda the point of rolling first, so you know what to roleplay). Has anyone stated otherwise?

Tanarii
2022-10-23, 09:41 PM
Even if you roll first you still have to roleplay (that's kinda the point of rolling first, so you know what to roleplay). Has anyone stated otherwise?
Roleplaying is making a decision for what your character does in the fantasy environment, which must proceed resolution. All you can do afterwards is description of the why of the resolution came about, which IMO isn't roleplaying. No decisions involved.

If decisions ARE being made during the description, then the GM would have to determine how to resolve them all over again. Which would defeat the purpose of the exercise.

The Insanity
2022-10-23, 10:39 PM
To me roleplaying is just that, playing a role. I don't consider making ooc decisions to be roleplaying.

Quertus
2022-10-23, 10:42 PM
Yes, that’s fair. One of the prime differences between the two, and well said.

I’ve taken a step lower down my hill to offer a hand in agreement. You have basically admitted it’s a bit more alike than you initially stated and I have admitted it’s a bit more different than I initially stated. It’s wonderful to respectfully approach the game from different perspectives. That’s good enough for me!

Thanks for your time and input. It’s one of the few topics I’m passionate about.

:smile:


Don’t know about this one, can’t role-play? For me, being able to role-play the character and what they’re doing actually helps to explore the world.

Ah, that’s… hmmm… imagine trying to roleplay a “Paladin” or a “Jedi” or a “Euthanatos” or a “Demonette” with zero understanding of what the word means. Or handing two people from a thousand years ago “Batman” and “Superman”, with no explanation of their personality or backstory (let alone the world they come from). That’s the type of thing I was referencing when I said “can’t”. Did I misread the context of your statement about not understanding the world?

Tanarii
2022-10-23, 11:11 PM
To me roleplaying is just that, playing a role. I don't consider making ooc decisions to be roleplaying.
Making decisions for what your character does is playing their role.

Describing results is description, or possibly acting out description.

animorte
2022-10-23, 11:20 PM
That’s the type of thing I was referencing when I said “can’t”. Did I misread the context of your statement about not understanding the world?
Ah, I see what you mean. That’s why I tried to make a point of “taking time to learn your character” so that you can role-play them in any given setting.

I believe you are referring to the character itself while I am specifically referencing everything else around them and how they might interact with it. Sound about right?

Lucas Yew
2022-10-24, 12:58 AM
I support the "roll first, act out results" workflow. It's just more fair.


Because the socially awkward person is also going to feel really bad if you make them stumble over acting the scene out because you're making them embarass themselves by looking silly in real life.

Roleplaying is not acting.

QFT (and tracking).

GloatingSwine
2022-10-24, 02:19 AM
I support the "roll first, act out results" workflow. It's just more fair.

The full workflow is:

Describe what you want to do and how in enough detail that the DM can use it to set a DC.
Roll if appropriate.
Act out the results if you want.

The first two are how every other check in the game also works. The third bit is an am-dram thing you can bolt on to conversation scenes if you want to.

King of Nowhere
2022-10-24, 02:51 AM
We rarely act discussions in character anyway.
Especially now that the party is having lots of meetings with politicians to make big decisions. Those meeting irl would last for hours, with everyone talking indirectly.
So I'm like "translated from political speech: they don't trust you because you kept for yourself the artifact that was loaned to you" player "i used that artifact only for good, and i helped them many times"
And that's supposed to represent a lenghty talk in a political meeting.
By the way, in a political meeting i let the player with highest diplomacy roll, because in that case they can have the most persuasive guy make the argument. But if all players csn suggest wjich arguments to use, they get to participate

GloatingSwine
2022-10-24, 03:15 AM
I never said anything about forcing any of my players to act. They can always choose how they want to portray their characters. I'm just expressing my own view that role-playing and acting aren't necessarily as different as people think, based on my own experiences.

With the distinction that they're absolutely nothing alike and are two completely distinct processes.

Roleplaying in tabletop terms means deciding what your character would do and declaring that action to make it real in the game.

Actors might do roleplaying in order to inform their acting, but that's not a similarity between acting and roleplaying, that's an actor doing roleplaying.

icefractal
2022-10-24, 03:32 AM
A lot of people do consider IC discussion to be part of roleplaying. Which isn't even always for any stakes / applying to any roll, it can be talking around the campfire.

And related to that, roleplaying isn't limited to the decisions you make, unless you take a generous enough view on "decisions" that you're seldom not making one. For example, the group just raided a drow fortress and got out with a bunch of nice loot, but one of them died in the process.

So how does your character feel about that? Despair that their friend died? Excitement that they're now rich? Both, maybe feeling a little guilty about the latter? Angry at the drow? Accepting, because after all you were killing them too? Nonchalant, this is just another Tuesday for you? And are you the type to mention any of this, now that there's finally a chance to relax? Or respond when others do?

Unless your reaction is pretty extreme and leads to the party splitting or something, any of this discussion is going to lead to the same end result - the party packs up camp the next day and heads for the nearest city to sell the treasure. So this is not likely to be a significant decision point. But depending how the conversation goes, it could be one of the more memorable moments in the campaign.

Now if your group could give less of a **** about that kind of thing - fine. Plenty of different play styles out there. But to say it's not roleplaying? Nope, completely disagreed.


Incidentally, you may get the impression from this thread that I'm a big fan of talking IC. Honestly, no, it's fun sometimes but hard to do on demand, especially when the stakes are high. But to me, this is basic fairness. If someone were to say "Number crunching has no place in TTRPGs!", then I'd say they're wrong and can **** off with that attitude. Just because they don't personally like it, doesn't make it invalid. So logically, that applies to acting-as-player-skill too - not liking it doesn't make it invalid for the game.

King of Nowhere
2022-10-24, 04:21 AM
Acting is different from roleplaying. In the rpg context, i'd say acting is a subset of roleplaying: when you act in character you're always roleplaying, but it's not the only way. When you say "my character gives a lenghty and moving speech", you're also roleplaying.
Acting is good when you can pull it off, but should never be required; some people are uncomfortable with it

animorte
2022-10-24, 07:55 AM
With the distinction that they're absolutely nothing alike
It’s fine that you feel this this way, but I would appreciate it if you would stop telling me how blatantly wrong I am just because we have different views.

and are two completely distinct processes.
Yes, and I said as much myself:

A notable difference between acting and role-playing is the script. The biggest difference is in approaching the character from first person vs third person.
I’m not sure if official definition helps any, but I’m not fabricating this concept…

verb: roleplay
1: to act out the role of
2: to represent in action

I’ve played with enough different people to know that #2 definition is absolutely what most people prefer to do, including myself most of the time. A few months ago my (less experienced) brother was DM and made the statement, “This is a role-playing game. There will be penalties if you don’t start getting into character.” After the session I pulled him aside and informed him about how wrong and unrealistic that expectation is. Acting specifically is not for everybody. Immersion itself is nice, but acting is not whatsoever a requirement for it.

Basically this:

Acting is good when you can pull it off, but should never be required; some people are uncomfortable with it

NichG
2022-10-24, 11:46 AM
Not every group needs to be an environment that would make every potential player comfortable either. If a group wants to require acting because the people in that group enjoy it, as long as they communicate that clearly to people they're talking with about joining, there's nothing wrong with that either.

"I wouldn't want to play with a group that requires..." Is different than "Groups should not require..."

This is already understood implicitly for other things. I know players who don't want to learn how to build mechanically viable characters according to the rules or don't want to learn how things work and make mechanically backed choices. It's fine for tables to accommodate those players. It's also fine for tables to say 'that's a significant part of why we're playing this game, so maybe this campaign isn't going to be to your tastes'

Stop being offended by the existence of groups who play in ways you wouldn't want to be a part of. It's enough to say 'that's not for me, because ...'

KorvinStarmast
2022-10-24, 01:12 PM
Describe the action, approach and tools. Maybe roll some dice. Describe the outcome. That's the roleplaying gameplay loop in a nutshell.
{snip}
And as mentioned before, the approach and tools adjust the DC for the action. Good approaches and tools make things easier, poor ones harder. And the 'why' it doesn't work need not always be revealed by the GM. Sometimes, NPCs have secrets they are trying to keep.

My struggles with roll first are twofold. First, it encourages menu/button based play. Hit the biggest number on your sheet to win. No thanks.

Second, and worse, many times I'm not even sure that a roll is needed until about halfway through the talking. And certainly not what kind of roll or what the DC will be.

I need to know what you're trying to do (intent) and how you're doing it (method), as well as any other particular details you care to provide. I don't need exact words, because your characters aren't speaking English at all. So exact words aren't really useful except for the players. Which is fine.

I prefer role then roll. It flows easily, and also allows a DM to uncover a case where no roll is needed and play can still continue.

Making decisions for what your character does is playing their role. Describing results is description, or possibly acting out description. What puzzles me was that there was any disagreement on that. Learn something new each day. :smallcool:

Acting is different from roleplaying. In the rpg context, i'd say acting is a subset of roleplaying: when you act in character you're always roleplaying, but it's not the only way. When you say "my character gives a lenghty and moving speech", you're also roleplaying.
Acting is good when you can pull it off, but should never be required; some people are uncomfortable with it As a DM, I find that insufficient.
If we go back to intent/approach/objective/other things done to ensure success as what the player needs to offer (I agree that they don't need to write out a five minute speech, we are playing a game here) the player needs to tell me what points they are going to cover or emphasize. In D&D 5e, this offers me a chance to see that it creates advantage (or disadvantage) per Chapter 7.
(If you go back to the movie Flashdance, the stand up comedian is dying up there on stage. Then he switches his approach, and seques into his next joke via a reference to the Pittsburg Steelers, which gets the audience - all Steelers fans - to warm up to him. That' a nice case of "this approach offers advantage on the persuasion / performance roll" based on a circumstance / approach)

Otherwise, if they are just waxing eloquent, the crowd will wander off as they are not sure WTF the PC, no matter how eloquent, was talking about.

Tanarii
2022-10-24, 02:16 PM
What puzzles me was that there was any disagreement on that. Learn something new each day. :smallcool:

The mistaken idea that talking in character = roleplaying started to spread heavily after TSR did their storytelling pivot in the mid 80s starting with Dragonlance, and White Wolf pushed it a lot in the 90s too. Talky-time can be roleplaying, but it's contingent on it being something other than (in effect) describing a scene. Roleplaying requires some kind of decision being made on behalf of the character.

The biggest problem with roll first, describe what/how your character said it in-universe second: players tend to sneak in (usually retroactive) decisions in the process. And thats a problem when those decisions either would have changed the details of the resolution, or require the GM to go through the whole cycle again: intent/approach -> resolution -> outcomes/consequences.

Another potential problem is when player description attempts to define outcome or consequence. That's only potential, because some GMs are fine with that. And in some TTRPG systems it's fully intended that players should do that.


So how does your character feel about that? Despair that their friend died? Excitement that they're now rich? Both, maybe feeling a little guilty about the latter? Angry at the drow? Accepting, because after all you were killing them too? Nonchalant, this is just another Tuesday for you? And are you the type to mention any of this, now that there's finally a chance to relax? Or respond when others do?Those are motivations until they impact a decision being made for the character taking some kind of action. In other words, they're potential roleplaying until a decision is made on how/what the character attempts to do based on them.

False God
2022-10-24, 02:44 PM
My experience is that people who "role then roll" are either simply jumping the gun because they got a good idea, or trying to game the DM for better bonuses or to skip the check entirely with the right words.

I generally agree that "roll then role" is the proper approach, but you still have to describe what you want to roll for before the DM can tell you if there's a roll available and determine a DC for it. For some folks that description of what they want to roll for is more prosaic than it needs to be, which puts them into "role then roll" territory.

But I think this is also a D&D problem more than it is in other more RP-heavy systems. Those systems often explicitly promote "role then roll" because yes, good roleplay is supposed to make things easier or even eliminate checks, because the point is to encourage more roleplay, rather than reliance on "did the dice say I succeeded?".

Stonehead
2022-10-24, 03:25 PM
We mix it up, but I like the roll first approach.

When you roll an attack, you're testing your characters ability to swing a sword.
You don't force the player to describe the series of feints and cuts she makes to force the opening which lands the hit. You roll against the skill of the character and then describe the result.

Likewise when you make a social interaction you're testing against the character's ability not the player's.
An eloquence bard with expertise in persuasion is going to know the right things to say in a situation where the player is likely to bumbling tongue-tied fool. Setting the DC post-facto on the basis of the player's description is punishing to socially awkward players who want to play a socially competent character.
Likewise a perceptive, inquisitive rogue should be able to investigate a complex puzzle based on the skills of the character not the description of the player.
You wouldn't set the AC of an enemy based on how martially proficient the player is.


No.

You can't act in the third person descriptive, you can roleplay in the third person descriptive and in every other situation than persuasion that is the expected mode of action.

A player who does not want to act should be able to describe how their character approaches a persuasion attempt and should never be required to act it out if they do not wish to.

And if you disagree then you should consider whether you would tell your players next session that they're allowed to punch you in the face instead of rolling dice for damage.

It's so funny how these types of threads about such a minor idea descend so quickly into "What is roleplaying?" "You're wrong because I'm different.


More on topic, it's an interesting idea that I've tried before, saying something dumb after a bad role or surprisingly profound after a good role. To me it only really works with characters that are themselves not super great at conversation. It's believable for the bumbling sidekick to say something dumb and ruin the plans, and other times say something innocuous and get the "Say that again, that's brilliant" response.

For trained diplomats though, it's more likely they failed because their opponent was just too stubborn and entrenched in their ideas to be affected, not because they said anything wrong. In those circumstances, there's not much of a point to roll first.


Personally, I don't mind player-skill influencing the outcome of social skills. In combat, player skill does actually come up. Both in building an effective character, and in positioning, target prioritization, statistical estimations, and all sorts of things. You don't need to "punch your dm in the face" to be good at combat, but you do need to be good at the game of combat.

Same thing with other areas of play like investigation and exploration. Some times you can get away with "I roll perception to find everything there is to find", but more often there's still the choice of where to look, what to do with what you find and using your character's equipment/skills cleverly.

If the party comes upon a castle with a locked front door, you don't roll IQ to get the DM to tell you that climbing in through the window is easier than digging a tunnel under the moat. (This may not be true for everyone, but it is true in my games, and I suspect it's true in the majority of games)

KorvinStarmast
2022-10-26, 03:20 PM
The mistaken idea that talking in character = roleplaying started to spread heavily after TSR did their storytelling pivot in the mid 80s starting with Dragonlance, and White Wolf pushed it a lot in the 90s too. Talky-time can be roleplaying, but it's contingent on it being something other than (in effect) describing a scene. Roleplaying requires some kind of decision being made on behalf of the character. Roll then role play is more or less an improv prompt, improv comedy prompt, style of game. It's inside out of how the game is played: (https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=4)
1. DM describes situation
2. Player describes actions (include intentions if that's important to what one is doing)
3. DM narrates outcome.
(Dice are only rolled when necessary to act as an RNG when an outcome needs that for resolution).

My experience is that people who "role then roll" are either simply jumping the gun because they got a good idea, or trying to game the DM for better bonuses or to skip the check entirely with the right words. No, they are not (at least not in the current D&D edition). See How to play, above, from the Basic Rules (https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=4). You do NOT have to roll the dice to get to step 3.
1. The DM describes the environment. The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s
around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on).
2. The players describe what they want to do. Sometimes one player speaks for the whole party, saying,
“We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times, different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines an esoteric symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions. Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer
wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.
This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or
locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon. In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions. But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure.
The people who are doing it wrong are the players who roll the dice and declare that it was {some} ability check.

Ability Checks
An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results. No, I don't have to roll to successfully go up and down stairs at the tavern, unless there is some reason that I might fail to be able to achieve that mundane task. (Example, an NPC rogue has deliberately put goose fat or oil on the stairs ...)

For other game systems, a different set of conventions may be used. As I played more sessions of Dungeon World (Fellowship) I began to like the success, partial success, not success convention of the 10+, 7-9, 6- outcomes on a 2d6 triggered of a state attempt or intention to {do X}. The game loop was similar but different.

False God
2022-10-27, 02:24 PM
No, they are not (at least not in the current D&D edition). See How to play, above, from the Basic Rules (https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=4). You do NOT have to roll the dice to get to step 3.
1. The DM describes the environment. The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s
around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on).
2. The players describe what they want to do. Sometimes one player speaks for the whole party, saying,
“We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times, different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines an esoteric symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions. Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer
wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.
This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or
locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon. In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions. But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure.
The people who are doing it wrong are the players who roll the dice and declare that it was {some} ability check.
No, I don't have to roll to successfully go up and down stairs at the tavern, unless there is some reason that I might fail to be able to achieve that mundane task. (Example, an NPC rogue has deliberately put goose fat or oil on the stairs ...)

For other game systems, a different set of conventions may be used. As I played more sessions of Dungeon World (Fellowship) I began to like the success, partial success, not success convention of the 10+, 7-9, 6- outcomes on a 2d6 triggered of a state attempt or intention to {do X}. The game loop was similar but different.

Thats nice. But what the rules say don't invalidate my experience.

icefractal
2022-10-27, 03:44 PM
Well fine, but my experience is that most players who roleplay before rolling are just playing the game as they perceive it to work, not up to some nefarious scheme to gain unfair advantage.

Also, I don't really want to play a game where there's no difference between "asking for something reasonable with a good incentive to agree" and "do what I say because I'm cool and you suck". That sounds about as entertaining as "Instead of stating any action to search for the missing villagers, just roll a Solve Things check ... 25? It turns out evil gnomes have been kidnapping them via the abandoned aquaduct system, you tracked them down and now you're in battle with the gnome king."

kyoryu
2022-10-27, 03:47 PM
Thats nice. But what the rules say don't invalidate my experience.

I'm sure a lot of people do that.

But it doesn't change the fact that:

1. That's not what the rules say to do, so they're explicitly not following the rules.
2. Lots of people have other experiences.

I think we all agree that what you've described is an anti-pattern and shouldn't be done, and isn't what anyone is advocating here. It's also not how the game is explicitly called out as to be played.

Tanarii
2022-10-27, 08:19 PM
It's absolutely possible to for player skill to change the requirements for resolution. That's a feature of approach mattering, not a bug. Usually.

But there's definitely a point at which it can feel like it's crossing the line into trying to game the GM instead of trying to do something that seems like it'd logically be more advantageous to do, or have better consequences. Or even the dreaded "it's the way my character would do it", making a decision based on character motivations (aka roleplaying).

And even then, "intent & approach with an eye to convincing the DM then (maybe) roll" is still not necessarily a table problem, any more than "roll then (possibly talky-time) description the outcome" is automatically a table problem.

Easy e
2022-10-31, 01:23 PM
Honestly, as I read the thread I am surprised how many people have the GM narrate results rather than the players!

I am surprised by that.

Tanarii
2022-10-31, 01:39 PM
Not everyone wants to run a game where a check is inherently a narrative mechanic. DMs are free to describe the outcomes and consequences of a check in terms of a character or anything in the game world. Players, if it's not a narrative game, don't. That means if they describe outcomes at least, they're limited to outcomes related to something their character did right or wrong.

And even then, it's very hard to restrict an outcome to the character only, because they're usually trying to affect the game world.

PhoenixPhyre
2022-10-31, 01:54 PM
Honestly, as I read the thread I am surprised how many people have the GM narrate results rather than the players!

I am surprised by that.

That's what fits (in 5e at least) the most basic game loop:



The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.

1. The DM describes the environment. The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on).

2. The players describe what they want to do. Sometimes one player speaks for the whole party, saying, “We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times, different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines an esoteric symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.

Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.


Fundamentally, players do not narrate results. They only describe attempts. That may or may not be 1st person and may or may not be detailed. But players don't have the authority to say "Grog does <X>", they only have the authority to say "Grog tries to do <X>".

DMs may delegate parts of step 3 to the player (a la "how do you want to do it?"), but that's still fully subject to their ultimate authority and responsibility for the description and the narration.

Easy e
2022-10-31, 02:55 PM
That's what fits (in 5e at least) the most basic game loop:



Fundamentally, players do not narrate results. They only describe attempts. That may or may not be 1st person and may or may not be detailed. But players don't have the authority to say "Grog does <X>", they only have the authority to say "Grog tries to do <X>".

DMs may delegate parts of step 3 to the player (a la "how do you want to do it?"), but that's still fully subject to their ultimate authority and responsibility for the description and the narration.

Thanks for sharing this and that explains a lot of how many D&D players have been conditioned to play TTRPGs.

It is amazing to me how much the initial TTRPG experiences shape how players see the "right and wrong" ways to play TTRPGs. Instead, it is mostly learned behavior and preference. Fascinating.

Tanarii
2022-10-31, 03:40 PM
Yes, it's a conditioned thing. But from my experience, it's also what the vast majority of players want. They generally don't want to control the world. They want the GMs to tell them what happens when they try to do something. Because as everyone has GMd knows, it's a lot of mental overhead.

It's not global, and it's not universal even within those that generally want outcomes and consequences handled by the GM.

Anyone who has GMd should be able to handle a narrative game. That doesn't mean they all want to, sometimes they need a break from it. But I'd expect they'd be more inclined to it, since their "conditioning" allows them to do it.

And even those players that generally want to have the GM handle outcomes and consequences will often presuppose the success and effect when declaring an action, as opposed to just stating their intent and approach.

animorte
2022-10-31, 04:37 PM
Yes, it's a conditioned thing. But from my experience, it's also what the vast majority of players want. They generally don't want to control the world.
I pretty much agree with most of what you’ve said here, but this small part about players not wanting any control of the world doesn’t really feel right.

I do think that most players are comfortable with this discussed sequence and outcome, but also than that (especially new players) don’t really know how to make their mark without stepping on the DM’s creativity proverbial toes.

I specifically had a problem with this when I first started (and several other areas; I was a craptastic new player).

icefractal
2022-10-31, 04:45 PM
While I'm fine playing narrative games with shared world control, my default assumption is the GM controlling the world while the players control their PCs. And more often that not, that's what I'm looking for, because exploring the fictional world is one of my fun-sources in TTRPGs, and exploring something that you yourself are creating isn't really the same.

That said, I think most people assume their character's success at simple actions ("I shout 'enough excuses!' and kick open the door!" vs "I attempt to shout 'enough excuses!' ... *wait for response* ... and then try to kick open the door.") because rollback is preferable to awkward pausing there.

And for that matter, a lot of actions are phrased as completed with the understanding that the GM will treat it as an attempt. For example:
Player: "I leap off the balcony and drive my spear into the dragon from above." (rolls a miss)
GM: "You land squarely on the dragon, but your spear glances off its steel-like scales, barely leaving a scratch."

Even though that's technically not phrased as an "attempt", most people would read that as a normal interaction, rather than as the player declaring that their attack must hit.

Tanarii
2022-10-31, 05:39 PM
Yes exactly. And if you're not careful as a DM, or as a player in a narrative game, those declarations of assumed success lead to an assumption that if the roll fails, it's because of some (hilarious) blooper on the characters part.

Ideally before calling for a check, a GM should known the Intent and Approach based on the players declaration, and know the Outcomes and Consequences of success/failure (and possibly critical success/failure, or incremental success, etc). But of course we don't always do that. Half the time we're winging it, because players declare the damndest things.

PhoenixPhyre
2022-10-31, 05:43 PM
Half the time we're winging it, because players declare the damndest things.

Half? You're being generous.

Stonehead
2022-11-01, 10:11 PM
Honestly, as I read the thread I am surprised how many people have the GM narrate results rather than the players!

I am surprised by that.

I wonder if everything that's said after the dice hit the table is considered part of the "results" or not. Because a player describing how their character smashes down the door with a headbutt is different than a player describing what they see on the other side of the now smashed door.

Consider the following example:
Player: "I want to jump the chasm."
DM: "Ok, roll Acrobatics."
*nat 20*
DM: "Crit success"
Player: "I do a backflip across to show off to the other party members."
DM: "After landing safely on the other side, you see..."

Would anyone here consider that the player narrating the results? The player still doesn't have any control over the game world, only over their character.

Tanarii
2022-11-02, 03:41 AM
Would anyone here consider that the player narrating the results? The player still doesn't have any control over the game world, only over their character.
Agreed. That's a good example. But the downside to that is that a failure always means the PC has to describe how they messed up. It can't be something outside the character.

icefractal
2022-11-02, 05:21 AM
In the case of diplomacy, it'd usually make more sense for the GM to describe the outcome rather than the player, because although it's a roll for the player it's really the NPC's reaction that's relevant - the same speech could convince one person but not another.

And I find that it's usually not necessary to assume the PC did anything stupid when they fail, it's just that the person they're trying to convince is too cautious/suspicious/stubborn, or happens to be unreceptive to them in particular. I guess if they rolled extremely badly that could represent a notable screw-up.

The roll can really be considered as a guide for how to interpret their argument as the NPC. Enough to make them friendly? Interpret things in a positive light, ignore mistakes when possible, etc. Low, they're unfriendly or even hostile? Assume anything they say is potentially a lie, and that they may well be fools or have ill intent.

KorvinStarmast
2022-11-02, 07:18 AM
Half? You're being generous. Which reminds me, did anyone get adopted last time? :smallbiggrin:

Agreed. That's a good example. But the downside to that is that a failure always means the PC has to describe how they messed up. It can't be something outside the character.
Some players really get into that, and some don't.

Quertus
2022-11-02, 07:35 AM
Ideally before calling for a check, a GM should known the Intent and Approach based on the players declaration, and know the Outcomes and Consequences of success/failure (and possibly critical success/failure, or incremental success, etc).

So… while I agree in the general case, I don’t actually agree for “ideal”. IMO, in the idea circumstance, the GM needn’t know the Intent at all, and can simply run game physics on the stated actions, and get to be surprised at the results. “Down, Down, Up, B? But that’s the standing backflip. Why would you want to do a standing back flip at the edge of the chasm?”

kyoryu
2022-11-02, 09:19 AM
So… while I agree in the general case, I don’t actually agree for “ideal”. IMO, in the idea circumstance, the GM needn’t know the Intent at all, and can simply run game physics on the stated actions, and get to be surprised at the results. “Down, Down, Up, B? But that’s the standing backflip. Why would you want to do a standing back flip at the edge of the chasm?”

I disagree with that, simply because no game system has fine enough resolution to really handle that level of detail.

I mean, that works great for situations that match up with the "arrow model" of action resolution - the PC has a lot of uninterrupted control of the setup of the action, they perform some action, and then some result unfolds.

Lots of actions - maybe most - aren't like that. If you're trying to grapple someone near a cliff, for instance. Maybe you want to toss them off a cliff, maybe you don't. Either way, lots of things are happening during the resolution of that action, and the ultimate intent of the character is going to impact those things. No system can really capture all of those little things... perhaps one could give the player control over what results they get, but these systems are also accused of being "meta".

Conversations, especially, are exchanges. They're a back and forth. You say stuff, see how people respond, and then adjust to get closer to your desired outcome.

The only real reason that I can see, for any practical use, to prefer not declaring your intent is if you are presuming an adversarial GM and deliberately want to hide information from the GM.

Easy e
2022-11-02, 10:22 AM
Excellent point about "exchanges" and conversations. That is what goes on when you let a player narrate results, but the GM has ultimate say in setting the final reality.

Here is how it has worked for me in the past. *Long winded example ahead*

Player: I want to jump the chasm.
GM: Great, that is an acrobatics check
Player: <Rolls dice> I got a 17
GM: That is a success.
Player: Great, I step back a few feet, take a running start, and leap across the chasm with a single stride. When I get to the other side, I attach a rope and throw it back across to my team on the other side.
GM: Great, you do manage to leap across the chasm. However, when you get to the other side, you slide on the loose rock and barely manage to keep your feet. So, you want to look for a place to secure a rope?

Or:

Player: <Rolls dice> I got a 9.
GM: That is a failure.
Player: Urgh, I do not want to fall into the chasm. Ummm.... I guess a I take a few steps back, start my run, but just as I get ready to jump I loose my nerve and pull up. I tip toe to the edge and look over the edge, and then say, "Heck no am I jumping that" as I point down.
GM: Ha, ha. Nice. Okay, you lurch to a stop just before getting to the edge. However, your momentum carries you a bit too far, and your torch falls from you hand and down into the blackness below..... and it keeps falling.
Player: "Heck no am I jumping that!"
GM: Great, now what?

Stonehead
2022-11-02, 10:31 AM
Agreed. That's a good example. But the downside to that is that a failure always means the PC has to describe how they messed up. It can't be something outside the character.

I would hardly consider that a downside, but my tastes aren't universal.

I will say though, I don't think it means you always have to. If the player doesn't have any additional input on how their character jumps the chasm, they just keep quiet and the GM goes straight into describing the other side. Similarly, if the player doesn't want to describe their character's failures, the GM can go straight into describing the consequences.


I disagree with that, simply because no game system has fine enough resolution to really handle that level of detail.

I mean, that works great for situations that match up with the "arrow model" of action resolution - the PC has a lot of uninterrupted control of the setup of the action, they perform some action, and then some result unfolds.

Lots of actions - maybe most - aren't like that. If you're trying to grapple someone near a cliff, for instance. Maybe you want to toss them off a cliff, maybe you don't. Either way, lots of things are happening during the resolution of that action, and the ultimate intent of the character is going to impact those things. No system can really capture all of those little things... perhaps one could give the player control over what results they get, but these systems are also accused of being "meta".

Conversations, especially, are exchanges. They're a back and forth. You say stuff, see how people respond, and then adjust to get closer to your desired outcome.

The only real reason that I can see, for any practical use, to prefer not declaring your intent is if you are presuming an adversarial GM and deliberately want to hide information from the GM.

I 100% agree with this. Actions are "inputted" through language, which is famously vague and imprecise. The "Game Physics" are handled by peoples' imaginations, and sometimes some math. It's never going to be a purely deterministic system because people are inconsistent creatures.

Understanding the player's intent is important to cover the gaps between what the player meant by the words they said, and what the GM assumed those words meant. Same thing in reverse for the game world.

Quertus
2022-11-02, 11:51 AM
I disagree with that, simply because no game system has fine enough resolution to really handle that level of detail.

I mean, that works great for situations that match up with the "arrow model" of action resolution - the PC has a lot of uninterrupted control of the setup of the action, they perform some action, and then some result unfolds.

Lots of actions - maybe most - aren't like that. If you're trying to grapple someone near a cliff, for instance. Maybe you want to toss them off a cliff, maybe you don't. Either way, lots of things are happening during the resolution of that action, and the ultimate intent of the character is going to impact those things. No system can really capture all of those little things... perhaps one could give the player control over what results they get, but these systems are also accused of being "meta".

Conversations, especially, are exchanges. They're a back and forth. You say stuff, see how people respond, and then adjust to get closer to your desired outcome.

The only real reason that I can see, for any practical use, to prefer not declaring your intent is if you are presuming an adversarial GM and deliberately want to hide information from the GM.

Deliberately want to hide information from the GM? Definitely. Adversarial GM? Not so much.

Explaining how I’m moving troops, I don’t tell the GM that I left my left flank exposed (or whether I did so on purpose); I let them roleplay the opponents’ reaction. (The GM in question actually pointed out my “error”, and I just smiled in response, and did not take the opportunity they gave me to change my declared actions. Good times.)

In a conversation, I don’t tell you whether I said something “stupid” to check whether you were paying attention, to evaluate whether you’re the type to correct me (and how), as a way to ask your opinion on the topic, because I misspoke, because it’s secretly not as dumb as it sounds, or because I really am just that dumb. I just take the “say something stupid” action, and you respond accordingly, in ignorance of my intent.

Cris Johnson certainly didn’t tell Liz Copper that he let himself get beat up on purpose, let alone why.

So, no, I don’t feel that stating “Intention” is part of optimal play. If your GM is good enough, actions can speak louder than words about those actions. But I otherwise agree that it’s good in the general case.

kyoryu
2022-11-02, 12:03 PM
I 100% agree with this. Actions are "inputted" through language, which is famously vague and imprecise. The "Game Physics" are handled by peoples' imaginations, and sometimes some math. It's never going to be a purely deterministic system because people are inconsistent creatures.

Understanding the player's intent is important to cover the gaps between what the player meant by the words they said, and what the GM assumed those words meant. Same thing in reverse for the game world.

Even if you had a game system that was detailed and precise enough to actually just handle "input" sufficiently, and it was still fast enough to actually work, then it would end up requiring players to basically become experts in each skill (oh, I want to make this guy go down without moving further, which exact grab and takedown should I use, again?)

Though, the PbtA-esque "okay, you succeeded, here's some options for what that means" is an interesting option as well. But a lot of people seem to feel that's narrative/meta/whatever for some reason. I think there's this idea that the "arrow model" of task resolution is actually an ideal universal model. And I just find it lacking.

Tanarii
2022-11-02, 07:44 PM
The only real reason that I can see, for any practical use, to prefer not declaring your intent is if you are presuming an adversarial GM and deliberately want to hide information from the GM.
If the DM doesn't know the Intent as well as the Approach, they can't properly determine the Outcomes and Consequences. Depending on the system, they may not even be able to determine the method of Resolution.

Quertus
2022-11-02, 09:11 PM
If the DM doesn't know the Intent as well as the Approach, they can't properly determine the Outcomes and Consequences. Depending on the system, they may not even be able to determine the method of Resolution.

I’ve told you where I moved my chess piece - are you telling me you honestly cannot move your piece without me telling you my Intent? :smallconfused:

PhoenixPhyre
2022-11-02, 11:47 PM
I’ve told you where I moved my chess piece - are you telling me you honestly cannot move your piece without me telling you my Intent? :smallconfused:

TTRPGs are not and cannot be chess. They are utterly different both conceptually and operationally. For one thing, the DM is not the opponent of the players. Not even when he is voicing the antagonists.

Beyond that, chess has implied intent and closed rules (every possible interaction is defined in the rules and anything else is forbidden). Neither of those apply to a TTRPG.

I reject the relevance of the analogy.

Satinavian
2022-11-03, 02:08 AM
So… while I agree in the general case, I don’t actually agree for “ideal”. IMO, in the idea circumstance, the GM needn’t know the Intent at all, and can simply run game physics on the stated actions, and get to be surprised at the results. “Down, Down, Up, B? But that’s the standing backflip. Why would you want to do a standing back flip at the edge of the chasm?”
"I take out my whittling knife and one of the logs and craft a..."

Of course you often need intent. Or do you think, having detailed description of the log and every knife move and requiring both player and GM to have deep knowledge about whittling and properties of wood and wasting an hour of game time on details no one cares about would really be more ideal ?

Rules tend to maintain a level of abstraction for good reasons. But that always also means that certain very different actions and different circumstances are handled the same rules-wise. And that different outcomes are also handled the same rules-wise (most crafting rules e.g. only care for price and quality if you have the needed materials and tools). Intend is necessary to decide what actually happens.

Quertus
2022-11-03, 05:28 AM
"I take out my whittling knife and one of the logs and craft a..."

Of course you often need intent. Or do you think, having detailed description of the log and every knife move and requiring both player and GM to have deep knowledge about whittling and properties of wood and wasting an hour of game time on details no one cares about would really be more ideal ?

Rules tend to maintain a level of abstraction for good reasons. But that always also means that certain very different actions and different circumstances are handled the same rules-wise. And that different outcomes are also handled the same rules-wise (most crafting rules e.g. only care for price and quality if you have the needed materials and tools). Intend is necessary to decide what actually happens.

Sigh. “Often” is not “always”. Never considered the possibility that I was being pedantic, and claiming that I considered it “optimal” when we were at those exceptions? Because the post I was referring to referenced “optimal”, and I said I agreed in the general case, just not in the optimal case.


TTRPGs are not and cannot be chess. They are utterly different both conceptually and operationally. For one thing, the DM is not the opponent of the players. Not even when he is voicing the antagonists.

Beyond that, chess has implied intent and closed rules (every possible interaction is defined in the rules and anything else is forbidden). Neither of those apply to a TTRPG.

I reject the relevance of the analogy.

You know, there’s a habit on these boards to find any difference between the example and the reality, and use that to reject the example, without actually demonstrating that the difference is relevant, or that the example isn’t still applicable. It’s like the thought version of an ad hominem.

And I already gave another example, of “I told you how I deployed my troops, I don’t need to point out that I left my left flank open, or whether it was by Intent, for you to roleplay the opposition, do I?”

Given that that was an RPG, by all means, prove how ”I moved units” is substantially different from the chess example of “I moved units”, and that therefore your rejection of the chess example is valid. I’ll wait.

kyoryu
2022-11-03, 10:08 AM
TTRPGs are not and cannot be chess. They are utterly different both conceptually and operationally. For one thing, the DM is not the opponent of the players. Not even when he is voicing the antagonists.

Beyond that, chess has implied intent and closed rules (every possible interaction is defined in the rules and anything else is forbidden). Neither of those apply to a TTRPG.

I reject the relevance of the analogy.

There are some people that want RPGs to be, effectively, Chess, and to remove any interpretive role of the GM. They believe that any time the GM has to interpret/make a ruling/etc. is a failure case of the game.

Often, they accept that GM rulings are necessary given the current state of technology and time to run a game, but fervently desire that to not be the case.

I'm.... not one of those people.

lesser_minion
2022-11-04, 04:48 AM
And I already gave another example, of “I told you how I deployed my troops, I don’t need to point out that I left my left flank open, or whether it was by Intent, for you to roleplay the opposition, do I?”

If the task is "giving an order to a military unit", the corresponding Intent is that the unit does what you want them to. A failure judged against that Intent would be the unit somehow misinterpreting your orders (e.g., by charging the wrong guns) or the unit refusing to carry them out.

There might be a call for another check later, depending on the complexity of whatever you have planned for that flank.

Quertus
2022-11-04, 05:43 AM
If the task is "giving an order to a military unit", the corresponding Intent is that the unit does what you want them to. A failure judged against that Intent would be the unit somehow misinterpreting your orders (e.g., by charging the wrong guns) or the unit refusing to carry them out.

There might be a call for another check later, depending on the complexity of whatever you have planned for that flank.

The task was “winning a war”. My method was “troop movements that left my left flank open” (though obviously not worded as such). Stating my Intent would have been as counterproductive as stating my Intent with a Chess move.

Satinavian
2022-11-04, 06:46 AM
In such a situation as GM i would still make sure there is no misunderstanding if a player seems to do something such risky. Additionally, if the character had high enough warfare skill (or rolled high enough), i would explicitly warn him that the left flank would be open if he did so.

That is very different from chess, even if the rules handled unit movement pretty clearly.

lesser_minion
2022-11-04, 06:59 AM
The task was “winning a war”. My method was “troop movements that left my left flank open” (though obviously not worded as such). Stating my Intent would have been as counterproductive as stating my Intent with a Chess move.

In this context, 'task' is the specific thing you're rolling for, not the bigger objective you're doing that thing in support of. If you defined the task as "winning a war", your table wouldn't concern itself with specific troop movements or even battles -- it'd just be an opposed strategy check against the enemy faction and then you'd narrate the victory of whoever rolled higher.

Intent is literally just "this is what I want to achieve with this specific dice roll". Without it, there is no way to determine what success and failure mean. It's true that you don't always need it, but the results aren't always good. For example, "I jump over the chasm to the ledge" -- natural 20 -- "That's a 45, so you land gracefully on the far side, completely avoiding the spiked wall behind it. What do you want to do next?" vs. "I jump over the chasm to the ledge" -- natural 20 -- "That gives you a jumping distance of 40 feet, which is far further than the width of the chasm and the ledge, so you slam face-first into the spiked wall behind it and die horribly. Roll a new character."

Quertus
2022-11-04, 08:17 AM
In such a situation as GM i would still make sure there is no misunderstanding if a player seems to do something such risky. Additionally, if the character had high enough warfare skill (or rolled high enough), i would explicitly warn him that the left flank would be open if he did so.

That is very different from chess, even if the rules handled unit movement pretty clearly.

That’s your good, and was the good of the GM in question.

The difference there is that the entirety of “Chess” is encapsulated by the board state, whereas, in an RPG, communication and (theoretically) shared mental landscapes are involved. So the “checking for misunderstanding” is a property of how they differ; whereas “not needing to explain Intent” is a property of how they’re similar.


In this context, 'task' is the specific thing you're rolling for, not the bigger objective you're doing that thing in support of. If you defined the task as "winning a war", your table wouldn't concern itself with specific troop movements or even battles -- it'd just be an opposed strategy check against the enemy faction and then you'd narrate the victory of whoever rolled higher.

The results of comparing the troop movements apply a bonus or penalty to the “results of the war” roll?

Satinavian
2022-11-04, 09:36 AM
That’s your good, and was the good of the GM in question.

The difference there is that the entirety of “Chess” is encapsulated by the board state, whereas, in an RPG, communication and (theoretically) shared mental landscapes are involved. So the “checking for misunderstanding” is a property of how they differ; whereas “not needing to explain Intent” is a property of how they’re similar.Yes, i probably would not need to know the intent in this case to handle the situation. But it would be interesting anyway and it would not be harmful if i knew it was because the player thinks "Our maneuver is too fast for the enemy to exploit it", "It's a trap. I want them to attack", "You know, actually i like the other side more and that is the perfect opportunity to turn coat", "Eh, they are weakened and can't attack the flank anyway"

As said, i would not need to know, but the GM is a player as well and might derive pleasure from deeper understanding of what is going on. Similarly, i sometimes tell my players afterwards what really happened and they missed, if they didn't find out.

lesser_minion
2022-11-04, 11:21 AM
The results of comparing the troop movements apply a bonus or penalty to the “results of the war” roll?

Framing something as a task implies that you're not particularly concerned (from a mechanical perspective, at least) with any details finer than it. So a "win the war" task means folding years of intelligence-gathering, logistics, troop movements, supply-line raids, magic, etc into a single dice roll. It's the grand strategy equivalent of resolving a swordfight as an opposed Swords check.

If you're actually commanding armies, moving troops, raiding supply lines, etc. as a player, then the war isn't won by a "Win the war" task, it's won by winning.

Quertus
2022-11-04, 12:39 PM
Yes, i probably would not need to know the intent in this case to handle the situation. But it would be interesting anyway and it would not be harmful if i knew it was because the player thinks "Our maneuver is too fast for the enemy to exploit it", "It's a trap. I want them to attack", "You know, actually i like the other side more and that is the perfect opportunity to turn coat", "Eh, they are weakened and can't attack the flank anyway"

As said, i would not need to know, but the GM is a player as well and might derive pleasure from deeper understanding of what is going on. Similarly, i sometimes tell my players afterwards what really happened and they missed, if they didn't find out.

Oh, definitely! It can certainly be fun to learn what people were thinking after the fact (if it doesn’t become obvious in play). It’s just not necessary to know in order to resolve the action.


Framing something as a task implies that you're not particularly concerned (from a mechanical perspective, at least) with any details finer than it. So a "win the war" task means folding years of intelligence-gathering, logistics, troop movements, supply-line raids, magic, etc into a single dice roll. It's the grand strategy equivalent of resolving a swordfight as an opposed Swords check.

Pardon the stupid question, but… if it’s not “I pick the lock (base 75% success) with improvised tools (-50% success)”, if the math-affecting details don’t belong here… where do they belong?

The roll is “the outcome of the war battle (oops)”, the modifiers are formulated from details that start with “I position my troops thusly”, and include interactions based on the proceeding moves.

If it has been an “oops”, and I was just bluffing with my smile and refusal to change my deployment even when the error was pointed out to me, and the opposition has capitalized on that error, it would have been a huge penalty to the roll.

lesser_minion
2022-11-04, 05:29 PM
Pardon the stupid question, but… if it’s not “I pick the lock (base 75% success) with improvised tools (-50% success)”, if the math-affecting details don’t belong here… where do they belong?

It's not a silly question, I phrased what I was saying pretty badly. Let's go back to the swordfight example:

If the jarl is frantically trying to disarm his own champion -- before either the champion kills him or the jarl's berserkers arrive -- you could easily go with "both of you, roll Swords" and narrate an outcome depending on who wins and how decisively. Perhaps it's a minor defeat for the jarl, so the GM narrates him receiving a moderate wound and being unable to intervene as the berserkers burst into the room and execute his best friend right in front of him. You can certainly consider details -- maybe +2 dice for the champion since he's wearing armour, +1 because his Kriegsmesser has longer reach than the jarl's broadsword, and +1 because he is far more willing to harm his adversary, but you wouldn't be resolving individual moves or sword swings, or even D&D-style handwavey 'attacks'.

If you instead turned to the game's combat system, there wouldn't be an opposed Swords check any more -- you'd see the Jarl fail a parry on round four, roll for injury yielding a moderate wound to the torso, and on round five the berserkers would arrive. Once you've broken out the combat system, the actions you declare become more limited in scope. The jarl's goals here are to survive and prevent his friend's death, but he's rolling for things like parries (Intent: turn aside my friend's attack without returning it. Approach: block my enemy's weapon with my own). Perhaps he tries to disarm his friend (Intent: my friend is no longer holding a sword. Approach: I try to close in and bind up his sword with my own, then wrest it from his hands). Perhaps he goes for a tackle (Intent: my friend falls to the floor, and hopefully loses his sword too. Approach: I want to slip past his blade, grab him, and throw him to the floor). But even if he fails the disarm, he can go for the tackle -- or even use a later round to try the disarm again.

The same sort of thing goes for a battle. If you're resolving a battle quickly without breaking out any mass combat rules, then you give a brief description of what you want to achieve and the GM considers all apparently relevant details to decide what you need to roll and come up with an idea for what the consequences might be (if you were exposing your army's flank in this scenario, you absolutely would need to call attention to it, because this simply isn't that precise a resolution method and things like that would normally just be glossed over). At least to me, the example of deploying your army with an exposed left flank strongly implies that you have broken out the mass combat rules, from which it follows that the tasks you're defining are much more limited in scope -- "send troops to hold this position"; or "relieve the right flank with a cavalry charge", for example.

Also, I've never even held a sword, so apologies if the swordfight is nonsensical.

Tanarii
2022-11-04, 05:44 PM
"I attack X" has both implied Intent (do damage/effects to x) and implied Approach (with your weapon). The GM can then Resolve using any system combat rules, before moving on to Outcomes (damage/effects) and Consequences (maybe they run away, attack you back, ignore your pitiful attack and move to clobber an ally, etc).

It's just a really simple process that flows through the process easily with (usually) predefined Resolution.

As soon as you start getting into universal systems like Ability Checks or Skills, this usually goes out the window. Because "I persuade X" doesn't give either Intent (what?) or Approach (how?). The GM may not be able to apply the universal system, especially if it has assumptions like:
1) don't roll if it's automatically successful or failure
2) GM chooses resolution method from a variety of options depending on Intent and especially Approach.

Your "I persuade" may not require a roll, or might not even include the ability check/skill/resolution method you were thinking would apply when you declared the activity. (For example it might actually be an attempt to Deceive, or Perform, or Orate, or Fellowship, or even something not normally socially related.)

lesser_minion
2022-11-04, 06:14 PM
Yeah, a parry or a disarm doesn't necessarily need to be explained beyond "I try to parry" or "I try to disarm him". In the swordfight example above, a GM would hopefully also realise from the context that they should check before turning it into a potential lethal riposte or counterattack. I doubt I'm the only player of TTRPGs who isn't really sure precisely how you'd use a sword to disarm an opponent who was wielding a much larger one (although to be fair, when I wrote the disarm, I probably had them wielding similar blades), so this is pretty helpful.

As for "I persuade him", it might be acceptable, if the context makes it clear what you want to persuade 'him' of, but I'd probably want to hear at least a little more than that.

Quertus
2022-11-05, 06:33 AM
“I persuade my mommy to feed me… by crying my hungry cry.” vs “I cry my hungry cry”.

“I confirm that they have ‘seemingly omniscient’ knowledge of the battlefield… by leaving my left flank exposed (when they shouldn’t be able to notice that through conventional means).” vs “<actions that leave my left flank exposed>”.

“I trick them to deploy the units I need to wipe out first… by leaving my left flank exposed (in a scenario where those units would be best suited to capitalizing on that ‘mistake’)” vs “<actions that leave my left flank exposed>”.

“I attempt to get arrested, buying time for my team to deal with the assassin that is after me… by attacking <someone>” vs “I attack <someone>”.

“I attempt to clue in a faction that I’m forbidden to interact with directly (and that maybe wouldn’t believe me if I told them)… by taking an out of character action of attacking <someone>” vs “I attack <someone>”.

“I get my opponents to stop actively searching for their missing friends (after making sure that the plan will continue without my further involvement)… by letting myself get captured” vs “I stand and fight”.

“I attempt to keep my friend the jarl alive… by utilizing nonlethal incapication methods like ‘disarm’ and ‘grapple’” vs “I respond with playbook [disarm, grapple, <strike to subdue>, <movie head trauma>]”

I find it optimal when I don’t need to state the intent, when the outcome flows naturally from the stated actions. Yes, sometimes you have to state the intent, but I always consider that suboptimal. Whether because the GM is clueless, I am clueless (see “never even held a sword before, don’t know what moves would cause what “), there’s bad communication between myself and the GM, or the scenario just isn’t adequately fleshed out and 3-dimensional enough to be interacted with, needing to state Intent is a sign of the suboptimal.

lesser_minion
2022-11-05, 08:52 AM
I find it optimal when I don’t need to state the intent, when the outcome flows naturally from the stated actions. Yes, sometimes you have to state the intent, but I always consider that suboptimal. Whether because the GM is clueless, I am clueless (see “never even held a sword before, don’t know what moves would cause what “), there’s bad communication between myself and the GM, or the scenario just isn’t adequately fleshed out and 3-dimensional enough to be interacted with, needing to state Intent is a sign of the suboptimal.

I don't particularly disagree with this statement.

However, 'intent' in this context doesn't quite have its ordinary meaning, and doesn't need to be explicit. It's specifically referring to a goal that's being used to 'close' a test. If I'm asking you for a Command test to move your soldiers, you might get an "Are you sure you want to do that? You'll leave this flank unprotected", but I can 'close' the test easily without needing an explanation of why that flank was left unprotected.

Tanarii
2022-11-05, 11:50 AM
However, 'intent' in this context doesn't quite have its ordinary meaning, and doesn't need to be explicit. It's specifically referring to a goal that's being used to 'close' a test*. Indeed. If the player can't communicate to the GM what it is they are trying to accomplish, it is not possible for the GM to choose the correct resolution method, Outcomes, or Consequences. Unless the player is executing a specific hard-coded rules button-press 'action' that has at least implied intent built in, with defined Outcomes. (The Consequences still may be difficult to determine though. Many rules don't consider that part.)

Nothing against hard-coded rules button-press where appropriate ... but we're talking about social skills in this thread. Systems with hard-coded rules button-press for social are far and few between, and they don't seem to be very popular.

And even outside social skills, there are tons of systems where hard-coded rules button-press don't exist at all, or don't exist outside of combat rules. So understanding the necessity of Intent, built in or not, is critical to understanding Resolution.

Quertus
2022-11-06, 07:00 AM
Indeed. If the player can't communicate to the GM what it is they are trying to accomplish, it is not possible for the GM to choose the correct resolution method, Outcomes, or Consequences. Unless the player is executing a specific hard-coded rules button-press 'action' that has at least implied intent built in, with defined Outcomes. (The Consequences still may be difficult to determine though. Many rules don't consider that part.)

Nothing against hard-coded rules button-press where appropriate ... but we're talking about social skills in this thread. Systems with hard-coded rules button-press for social are far and few between, and they don't seem to be very popular.

And even outside social skills, there are tons of systems where hard-coded rules button-press don't exist at all, or don't exist outside of combat rules. So understanding the necessity of Intent, built in or not, is critical to understanding Resolution.

Almost every one of the examples I gave had a social component.

So what skill roll would you have the player roll to determine whether their berserkers killed their unconscious / disarmed / disabled Jarl? How is that better than roleplaying the berserkers?

What skill roll would you have the players roll to determine if they get arrested for assault? How is that better than roleplaying the police?

What skill roll would you have the players roll to determine whether and how their left flank gets attacked? How is that better than roleplaying the opposition?

I’m not understanding how the GM cannot “choose the resolution method” for “I disarm my Jarl” / “I attack <person>” / “I move my troops in accordance with the rules”.

Tanarii
2022-11-06, 10:08 AM
I’m not understanding how the GM cannot “choose the resolution method” for “I disarm my Jarl” / “I attack <person>” / “I move my troops in accordance with the rules”.
The first two are a statement of Intent.

If there are hard-coded button-push rules for Disarm and Attack, and those rules have sufficient implied Intent that all that's needed is the key word and Intent of the target, the DM invokes those rules for Resolution.

If there no rules, the DM may require more information. Or the Intent already provided, activity and target, may be sufficient.

The last one is the player skipping Intent to invoke the movement rules. That may be fine as long as nothing in the movement rules requires explicit Intent, only be embedded implied Intent of "I want my character to end up here" for the GM to resolve. Or it might require additional information.

Tying back in to Social: "I persuade X" is almost never sufficient Intent, nor Approach. Certainly not in any version of D&D.

Edit: I skipped your other questions because they aren't relevant to a Intent, Approach, Resolution, Outcomes and Consequences discussion. Any of those scenarios will require some combination of resolution cycle and making decisions (Roll vs Role) throughout. The Resolution cycle will likely be invoked multiple times, although it might not result in any dice being rolled (automatic success/failures).

kyoryu
2022-11-06, 11:58 AM
I don't think anybody is arguing that declaring Intent is some kind of platonic ideal. I think people are arguing that given the coarseness of systems, and the amount of back and forth that often happens at below the "tick rate" of games, that it is often the best way to deal with those imprecisions.

Tanarii
2022-11-06, 12:37 PM
I mean, I'd say the opposite. Declaring Intent (and Approach) is a necessary part of activity adjudication in any system where the process is: player declares what they do, GM Resolves Outcomes and Consequences.

Some systems just have enough hard-code rules button-push Actions with embedded Intent (and often Approach) that players can instead declare the Action without an Intent (or Approach), or with minimal additional information (e.g. target, end point of a move, etc).

Stonehead
2022-11-07, 03:01 PM
I’ve told you where I moved my chess piece - are you telling me you honestly cannot move your piece without me telling you my Intent? :smallconfused:

I've told you the angles my character's arm bends - are you telling me you cannot honestly cannot move his throwing axe without knowing my intent?:smallconfused: