Stop rolling dice and play the game.

[PallentisLunam]

So I realize that this might be a personal hang up but I keep running into this problem where players want to roll some kind of perception check (often without saying what they are looking for) instead of interacting with the environment. This same problem comes up in social situations, rather than role playing people just throw a d20 and give me a number.

What's even worse is when a player gives some eloquent speech or says something like "I pull all of the books off of the shelf looking for the fake one that opens the secret door" and then before I can say anything they roll a natural 1. At that point their actions should have succeeded but they insisted on rolling and did so poorly, so I feel stuck. Of course I can just ignore the roll but how do I quash this mindset in the first place?

[Esprit15]

Rather than let them just roll, ask them what they do. "You're rolling search? Where are you searching, and what for?"

In the other case, give them a circumstance bonus, or if they did it right in the first place, don't bother with the roll. Most checks are to represent the semi-random results of what characters do, in the areas that they don't control. That bookshelf? The roll is more to see if they figure out which book activates the secret door without having to pull them all out. It's not different than having to roll a die to push a button, or even follow a list of instructions - non-sensical unless the player can still fail by their description of the event.

[Keltest]

You tell them, up front and with no ambiguity, that rolling a spot check will not actually increase the effectiveness of their searching the room. That, should there be a possibility of spotting something (or any other circumstance that would require a check), you will prompt them for it.

[Geddy2112]

I hate this as well. One player in my group is notorious for just rolling(not even announcing what) and then just shouting out "34 heal" or something. It is stupid, and if I were you as DM I would nip this in the bud-don't need to rip their heads off, but be firm that this is not allowed.

One easy fix is make taking ten and taking twenty mandatory for checks that don't matter, or when there is no active reason to roll. Players frequently rolling perception have usually been under "gotcha" Dm's who love to say "well you did not check" as random trees suddenly attack them or ghosts appear in walls for no reason. But a take 10 lets the player know their character is on the lookout for danger, and any obvious passive checks are accounted for. Hop a small rock, hear battle, notice the orcs are alive, whatever. Taking 10 when time does not matter is less rolling but the players still get to succeed.

The other is hard successes and hard fails- I don't care how high you rolled diplomacy, if your actions insult somebody they will at best forgive you, never like you. If a player does something that automatically succeeds, no roll is needed. Likewise, actions that require social interaction, particularly charisma skills have to be described and no roll is done unless the DM calls for one or the player asks. I won't require players to use perception to find things, but if they get a high score they will see a hint of where to look, but they still have to look(in the case of the books). You have to be careful not to abuse fiat powers, but they are needed to make the game smooth.

Rolls are most important when there is a time factor, and success can really mean life and death. Otherwise, I don't like them.

[PallentisLunam]

I've dealt with the retroactive declaration of rolls too. I actually had one player when would roll until he got something good and then try to say all the others were just him playing with his dice.

I feel like part of the problem is that my players are used to video games with dialogue trees and whatnot so their response to the great question (what do you do) is "what are my options?" To which I respond "anything you can think of" which scares them so they hide behind a mechanic which they know means they either did well or poorly and then want me to fill in the blanks.

[Thrawn4]

Skill checks are for situations where the outcome is unclear. If a character does something that is definitely going to work (or not), there is no roll necessary.

[kyoryu]

One thing to do in that case is to modify what failure *means*. Instead of failure meaning "you don't throw all the books" (because that would be dumb), instead have it be used to figure out whether they break the mechanism, trigger the trap, take out the book that disables the mechanism, make so much noise they attract attention, etc.

[Quertus]

Allow me to present the opposing point of view.

I personally hate it when the charismatic player trumps the chr-based character.

I view such things as a vector - what the player says determines the direction; the stats of the character determine the distance.

And, yes, you can insult someone and have them love you for it - see the roast in Liar, Liar. To do otherwise - to have role-playing be filled with "gotcha" moments that are lacking in vanilla rolls - is to encourage the behavior you hate. So adapt to serve your own best interests, and encourage your players to describe their actions more by making the numbers matter more than what is said.

To address your specific problem, I'd suggest picking a scenario - say, searching a room. Open the scenario by asking your players to put away their dice before you describe the scene. Then ask them to interact with the scene / ask them how they search the room. Afterward, get - and give, but mostly get - feedback.

If it didn't go too poorly, adapt based on their feedback, and plan another scenario. But do not just leave the mechanics behind - that unfairly bones the player whose character invested in these skills. Start training them what it sounds like to fail a check, so that they know when to try harder (roll again, or take a 20), or ask for assistance (aid another, or straight out have the guy with the high search skill check this area).

Do it right, and it should encourage players to roleplay the way you want, while still validating their choices.

and then want me to fill in the blanks.

This is a perfectly valid gaming style - the roll determines the effects, the DM narrates the finer points. Not usually my favorite, add I usually offer to narrate my own actions, but I've seen it done well (and done poorly, if course).

[EnglishKitsune]

So I realize that this might be a personal hang up but I keep running into this problem where players want to roll some kind of perception check (often without saying what they are looking for) instead of interacting with the environment. This same problem comes up in social situations, rather than role playing people just throw a d20 and give me a number.

Generally in this situation I do one of two things. If it's the Perception Variation, where they are being broad, I will mentally add a +5 to the difficulty as they are looking for EVERYTHING. If they specify, and say "I am looking for any hidden treasures" Or "I search the walls for hidden doors or switches.) I will not add the +5.

For Social Situations I make it clear going into it that they are in a Roleplaying Segment, and not a Roll-playing one. However this is also balanced by who I'm playing with. Several of my players in the past haven't been good talkers, even though their characters theoretically should be. If I know I am dealing with such a player I generally give them a few hints as to what to say then let them piece it together into an epic speech. Same if they roll badly, I feed them a few things and let them figure out exactly how to stuff their foot into their mouths.

What's even worse is when a player gives some eloquent speech or says something like "I pull all of the books off of the shelf looking for the fake one that opens the secret door" and then before I can say anything they roll a natural 1. At that point their actions should have succeeded but because they insisted on rolling and did so poorly. Of course I can just ignore the roll but how do I quash this mindset in the first place?

As others had said, I would simply state they didn't need to roll for it due to their description/actions and move on with the story. This has the added advantage of discouraging your first problem, as players gradually learn to describe their actions to minimize chances of failure. Also as I mentioned above with the +5 to DC. Consider secretly dropping the DC a little if their description doesn't necessarily trigger the right thing, but definitely aids them in achieving it.

[Comet]

Rolling the dice is playing the game. If the game has a skill called spot hidden, why would I be able to bypass that with sweet talking the GM? Are skills just there as a failsafe for bad players? When do you roll and when do you just describe what you do?

Players, especially new players, look for structure and mechanical if/thens because that's what makes this hobby make sense. Roleplaying and negotiation and collaboration are fine and cool but they are also potentially frustrating until you get on the same wave length with your group. The mechanics are there so that you can sit back and relax and not be on the spot for "good roleplaying" or whatever you're expected to do here.

Cut the players some slack, they're still getting used to things. Also, get rid of skills that you're not going to use. Having that diplomacy skill on your character sheet but not getting to use it is super frustrating.

[Quertus]

Rolling the dice is playing the game. If the game has a skill called spot hidden, why would I be able to bypass that with sweet talking the GM? Are skills just there as a failsafe for bad players? When do you roll and when do you just describe what you do?

Players, especially new players, look for structure and mechanical if/thens because that's what makes this hobby make sense. Roleplaying and negotiation and collaboration are fine and cool but they are also potentially frustrating until you get on the same wave length with your group. The mechanics are there so that you can sit back and relax and not be on the spot for "good roleplaying" or whatever you're expected to do here.

Cut the players some slack, they're still getting used to things. Also, get rid of skills that you're not going to use. Having that diplomacy skill on your character sheet but not getting to use it is super frustrating.

This.

If you're not going to have them roll for diplomacy, give all characters a number of social "HP" equal to, say, 1 + an additional 1 per 5 ranks in diplomacy. Whenever they make a serious faux pas, they take social damage. If they have any social HP left, it turns out OK. So, for example, if they insult the duke, they take a point of social damage. If they have any social HP left, he laughs it off; if not, he is insulted and refuses to deal with them.

Validate their choices.

[bulbaquil]

Having that diplomacy skill on your character sheet but not getting to use it is super frustrating.

Right. Particularly for social situations, over-emphasizing the roleplay over rolls simply makes it that there's no reason not to dump Charisma and/or never mechanically take social skills. If I, as the player, am a social butterfly who can charm and schmooze just about anyone under any circumstances, why shouldn't I dump CHA to 7, play a dwarf (further reducing it to 5) and not take any social skills? It doesn't matter if my Diplomacy check is a -3 if I never have to roll it. Conversely, if I as the player break out into a cold sweat even reading the word "interview", why should I bother trying to hike CHA or social skills? It doesn't matter if my Diplomacy check is a +23 if I never have to roll it.

[JAL_1138]

Checks are kind of a double-edged sword. Some players simply aren't very charismatic, but want to play someone who is. A high stat and a good bonus to a check help emulate that for them. Likewise, some players aren't that good at puzzles or riddles, but want to play a character who is, and a good Int and bonus to it can help model that, so that the player can roll Int to have the character figure out what the player themselves can't.

But, by the same token, you end up with OP's problem as well.

I'd do what Espirit15 suggested, for the bookcase example given--the nat 1 neans that yes, they take out all the books. A roll that would pass the DC would have meant they spotted the right book to yoink straight away.

For Charisma, it'd be tougher. You never want to hold a player's own social awkwardness against their character, if you can help it. We're all geeks here, and many of us--not all, of course, but many--likely have our own issues with social interaction (which is ironic, considering TTRPGs are social activities by definition). It's much more circumstantial--the player might have no clue that what they're saying is likely to be insulting to the NPC, or might be a social faux pas; the player may not be trying so much to give an exact quote for their character as say something they think might plausibly work instead of just saying "I roll diploma(n)cy." So you might even say something like "Are you sure that's what you'd say? The NPC would take serious offense under normal circumstances because [insert reason here]..." and give them a do-over if they want, or let them fall back to the straight-up roll and just narrate that their character tries to charm the NPC if the player would rather do that.

By the same token, you don't want the supergenius, ultra-experienced player whose minaxed character is a half-blind, quasi-feral barbarian with the Int of a brain-damaged macaque, the Wis of a particularly-clueless turnip, and the Cha of a diseased turkey-buzzard being the one to old-school their way through the dungeon without a hitch in record time, solve the riddle that's based on both high-level calculus and a complex cipher applied to the Esperanto translation of a piece of scholarly commentary on the poetry of an obscure Greek writer in 470 BCE, or smooth-talk their way past the guards while simultaneously bamboozling the guards out of all their money without rolling, no matter how well they RP it. (Extreme example for illustrative purposes only.)

It's a difficult balancing act between letting the character's abilities be different than the player's, and encouraging interaction and clever play, and respecting the die roll results.

[PallentisLunam]

Rolling the dice is playing the game. If the game has a skill called spot hidden, why would I be able to bypass that with sweet talking the GM? Are skills just there as a failsafe for bad players? When do you roll and when do you just describe what you do?

Players, especially new players, look for structure and mechanical if/thens because that's what makes this hobby make sense. Roleplaying and negotiation and collaboration are fine and cool but they are also potentially frustrating until you get on the same wave length with your group. The mechanics are there so that you can sit back and relax and not be on the spot for "good roleplaying" or whatever you're expected to do here.

Cut the players some slack, they're still getting used to things. Also, get rid of skills that you're not going to use. Having that diplomacy skill on your character sheet but not getting to use it is super frustrating.

This.

If you're not going to have them roll for diplomacy, give all characters a number of social "HP" equal to, say, 1 + an additional 1 per 5 ranks in diplomacy. Whenever they make a serious faux pas, they take social damage. If they have any social HP left, it turns out OK. So, for example, if they insult the duke, they take a point of social damage. If they have any social HP left, he laughs it off; if not, he is insulted and refuses to deal with them.

Validate their choices.

The problem with this is that the Diplomacy skill is for persuading people not talking to them. You don't walk up to the guard and roll a diplomacy check to say hi, which is what my players are doing. You walk up to the guard and say hi, hows it going? Say, would you mind letting me and my chaps pop into the ball for a quick second the we need to talk to the mayor it's really important and then roll a diplomacy check.

My issue isn't that the players are rolling dice to determine the outcome of their actions, my issue is that the players are throwing dice at the problem without truly understanding what they are doing or what they are trying to accomplish.

[Comet]

The problem with this is that the Diplomacy skill is for persuading people not talking to them. You don't walk up to the guard and roll a diplomacy check to say hi, which is what my players are doing. You walk up to the guard and say hi, hows it going? Say, would you mind letting me and my chaps pop into the ball for a quick second the we need to talk to the mayor it's really important and then roll a diplomacy check.

My issue isn't that the players are rolling dice to determine the outcome of their actions, my issue is that the players are throwing dice at the problem without truly understanding what they are doing or what they are trying to accomplish.

Okay, I see what we're talking about now. The players think they need to initiate dice rolls, but they do not understand the specifics of it so they just keep throwing and throwing and throwing.

I would just straight up tell the players when to roll the dice. They have clearly misunderstood how the game works, so just say "dude, it's okay, I'll tell you when to roll and what to roll, just focus on telling me what your character wants to do" should hopefully do the trick. Maybe they'll eventually figure out the flow of the game, maybe they won't. In the meantime, just smile and tell them that they didn't need to roll that spot hidden and that you'll inform when they do.

[Quertus]

The problem with this is that the Diplomacy skill is for persuading people not talking to them. You don't walk up to the guard and roll a diplomacy check to say hi, which is what my players are doing. You walk up to the guard and say hi, hows it going? Say, would you mind letting me and my chaps pop into the ball for a quick second the we need to talk to the mayor it's really important and then roll a diplomacy check.

My issue isn't that the players are rolling dice to determine the outcome of their actions, my issue is that the players are throwing dice at the problem without truly understanding what they are doing or what they are trying to accomplish.

Your "What's even worse.." scenarios sounded like players who understood full well what they were trying to accomplish... and sounded like the kind of player I'd like to have, actually, combining respect both for role-playing and for their stats. If you want to reduce the rolling, encourage them to tell you either their bonus, or the result of taking a 10 when they describe their actions to you. Ask for a roll if taking a 10 won't cut it.

As for the first group... "yeah, you described what everyone saw, now describe what I see" sounds perfectly valid to me, even without any additional qualifiers.

Responding to a social situation with, "23 on a diplomacy check" without any further explanation, though, only works in certain styles of play.

So, would you rather them roll, then you narrate, or have them put away their dice, and only roll when you ask for a roll? (I think those are the only ways mentioned so far - sorry if I missed someone's alternate solution). What path would you like to take to encourage them to role-play?

And what would your players rather do? Why?

Have you talked with them about your style preferences?

[Honest Tiefling]

I feel as if this link might help: The Angry DM's five simple rules for dating my teenaged skill system. It's a bit...Well, it's a bit on the angry side, what can I say? And it's more geared for a DM having other types of problems. One piece of advice in it is that players announce actions and questions. They can get across what they want, but don't declare rules. Heck, if you think it won't offend them, send them the link. It might help if they can understand things on the other side of the screen.

[PallentisLunam]

Your "What's even worse.." scenarios sounded like players who understood full well what they were trying to accomplish... and sounded like the kind of player I'd like to have, actually, combining respect both for role-playing and for their stats. If you want to reduce the rolling, encourage them to tell you either their bonus, or the result of taking a 10 when they describe their actions to you. Ask for a roll if taking a 10 won't cut it.

As for the first group... "yeah, you described what everyone saw, now describe what I see" sounds perfectly valid to me, even without any additional qualifiers.

Responding to a social situation with, "23 on a diplomacy check" without any further explanation, though, only works in certain styles of play.

So, would you rather them roll, then you narrate, or have them put away their dice, and only roll when you ask for a roll? (I think those are the only ways mentioned so far - sorry if I missed someone's alternate solution). What path would you like to take to encourage them to role-play?

And what would your players rather do? Why?

Have you talked with them about your style preferences?

Okay, the basic issue is throwing dice at the problem then sometimes they read the situation, nail it with exactly the right action, phrase, whathaveyou, and then roll poorly and I have a problem with the player doing everything right and then getting boned by RNG.

If everybody is standing in exactly the same place looking at exactly the same thing, unless there is something funny going on there's nothing else for someone to see unless they do something different. If there was I would have told them in the initial description everybody sees X but Jim you see Y.

I have discussed with my players that, "You meet the Queen" "I roll Diplomacy" is not proper etiquette at my table.

For most of my players these are their first games and they get dice fixation. I'm trying to draw them out of this and the few times I have managed it it has been more fun for everybody.

[Jay R]

Role-playing does not replace die rolls. Die rolls do not replace role-playing.
I fiddle with dice all the time; so do many players. Rolls don't count at my table until I tell them to roll.

You can't decide to "roll for Diplomacy" separate from telling me what you say and what your goal is, just as you can't roll for combat without telling me what weapon you're using, what the target is, and what move you're attempting.

I don't require my players to be diplomats, but I do expect them to describe the talking points. And if they want a circumstance bonus, they need to justify it.

Example 1 (wrong):
Me: You are allowed into the throne room, and walk up to the throne.
PC: I rolled a 26 on Diplomacy on the king.
Me: Rolls don't count until I say so remember?
PC: OK, I want to roll diplomacy on the king.
Me: What are you telling him?
PC: I don't know. All that stuff that guy at the fort told us.
Me: What are you trying to get him to do?
PC: I don't remember. Whatever that guy wanted us to ask him, I guess.

Example 2 (right):
Me: You are allowed into the throne room, and walk up to the throne.
PC: I take off my hat, bow low, and say, "Your Majesty, I bring you a message from the John Canyon, commander of the North Fort. A large army of orcs is approaching, expected to lay siege in four days. He needs reinforcements."
Me: Make a Diplomacy skill check, with a +2 bonus for having the details correct and for showing him proper respect.
PC: I remind him that his daughter Princess Leda is in Swan Village to the north, and in danger if the fort is overrun.
Me: Excellent. No roll is needed - that fact will convince him in any case.

[RazorChain]

So I realize that this might be a personal hang up but I keep running into this problem where players want to roll some kind of perception check (often without saying what they are looking for) instead of interacting with the environment. This same problem comes up in social situations, rather than role playing people just throw a d20 and give me a number.

What's even worse is when a player gives some eloquent speech or says something like "I pull all of the books off of the shelf looking for the fake one that opens the secret door" and then before I can say anything they roll a natural 1. At that point their actions should have succeeded but they insisted on rolling and did so poorly, so I feel stuck. Of course I can just ignore the roll but how do I quash this mindset in the first place?

This is simple. Rolls only matter when the GM asks for them. If a player in my game would ask to roll perception when he enters a room I would look at him in puzzlement and ask why? If he wants to roll something then he has to state that he searches the room where I would prompt him what he is searching for? Then we can start rolling some dice.

As for social interaction like fast talk or diplomacy which is often done in character then the roll represents how convincing the character is. A convincing lie or a good deal on the player part might warrant a bonus to the roll. This is so that the socially awkward roleplayer can play a silver tounged charmer and rely on rolls instead of his own social skills.

So in essence rolls only count when you ask for them.

[Darth Ultron]

This is the old Role Play vs Roll Play.

Some players just don't like to role play, and they will go out of their way to roll play everything. You might want to note that ''rolling a check'' is ''interacting with the environment''.

A good trick that works is....just ignore it. Let the player make any dumb roll they want, and you the DM just ignore the roll and say whatever you want.

Sometimes...if there is a good player inside to save....just adding more detail can stop the dumb rolls.

Now, another good trick is to simply make the game more exciting. Sadly, A lot of DM's think it is lots of fun to say talk to a pig farmer. Now, most players don't see that as much fun. But if you change ''pig farmer'' to ''demon lord'', that will be a lot more fun for the players.

Now to squash the mindset, you just need to make them be careful. Like take the bookshelf. One book is the trigger to the trap door....but three books are alarm/trap books....to stop this very thing. And pulling them off the shelf sets off an alarm or trap. Now, I'm a killer DM, so I'd so straight for the poison gas trap and try and kill a character. It might take a player a dozen character deaths, but if they have half a brain they will start to be careful.

[LudicSavant]

So I realize that this might be a personal hang up but I keep running into this problem where players want to roll some kind of perception check (often without saying what they are looking for) instead of interacting with the environment. This same problem comes up in social situations, rather than role playing people just throw a d20 and give me a number.

What's even worse is when a player gives some eloquent speech or says something like "I pull all of the books off of the shelf looking for the fake one that opens the secret door" and then before I can say anything they roll a natural 1. At that point their actions should have succeeded but they insisted on rolling and did so poorly, so I feel stuck. Of course I can just ignore the roll but how do I quash this mindset in the first place?

First you must quash your own mindset that roleplaying and rollplaying replace each other, and act as mutually exclusive categories.

Role-playing does not replace die rolls. Die rolls do not replace role-playing.

[Quertus]

Okay, the basic issue is throwing dice at the problem then sometimes they read the situation, nail it with exactly the right action, phrase, whathaveyou, and then roll poorly and I have a problem with the player doing everything right and then getting boned by RNG.

Several ways to solve this. You might emphasize, "well, that roll would fail, but you described the exact right action. Which would you rather we go with?" Also, the DC to search the box I put a ring in is likely much lower than the DC to search my room for the same ring, so by declaring the correct action, they may well have reduced the DC. Also, remember that you do not auto fail on a 1 (in 3.x). Also, I reiterate the idea of asking for a skill bonus rather than a roll when they declare their actions.

If everybody is standing in exactly the same place looking at exactly the same thing, unless there is something funny going on there's nothing else for someone to see unless they do something different. If there was I would have told them in the initial description everybody sees X but Jim you see Y.

Sounds like you're doing this perfectly. Kudos!

I have discussed with my players that, "You meet the Queen" "I roll Diplomacy" is not proper etiquette at my table.

For most of my players these are their first games and they get dice fixation. I'm trying to draw them out of this and the few times I have managed it it has been more fun for everybody.

If you've started drawing them out, and made it fun, it sounds like you're doing it right already. What do you need us for?

Role-playing does not replace die rolls. Die rolls do not replace role-playing.
I fiddle with dice all the time; so do many players. Rolls don't count at my table until I tell them to roll.

You can't decide to "roll for Diplomacy" separate from telling me what you say and what your goal is, just as you can't roll for combat without telling me what weapon you're using, what the target is, and what move you're attempting.

I don't require my players to be diplomats, but I do expect them to describe the talking points. And if they want a circumstance bonus, they need to justify it.

This sounds very reasonable.

Example 1 (wrong):
Me: You are allowed into the throne room, and walk up to the throne.
PC: I rolled a 26 on Diplomacy on the king.
Me: Rolls don't count until I say so remember?
PC: OK, I want to roll diplomacy on the king.
Me: What are you telling him?
PC: I don't know. All that stuff that guy at the fort told us.
Me: What are you trying to get him to do?
PC: I don't remember. Whatever that guy wanted us to ask him, I guess.

Example 2 (right):
Me: You are allowed into the throne room, and walk up to the throne.
PC: I take off my hat, bow low, and say, "Your Majesty, I bring you a message from the John Canyon, commander of the North Fort. A large army of orcs is approaching, expected to lay siege in four days. He needs reinforcements."
Me: Make a Diplomacy skill check, with a +2 bonus for having the details correct and for showing him proper respect.
PC: I remind him that his daughter Princess Leda is in Swan Village to the north, and in danger if the fort is overrun.
Me: Excellent. No roll is needed - that fact will convince him in any case.

You seem to have merged a few ideas here, which may obfuscate some of the underlying issues. Let's mix these examples up a bit...

Example 1 (wrong?):
Me: You are allowed into the throne room, and walk up to the throne.
PC: I rolled a 26 on Diplomacy on the king.
Me: Rolls don't count until I say so remember?
PC: OK, I want to roll diplomacy on the king.
Me: What are you telling him?
PC: I take off my hat, bow low, and say, "Your Majesty, I bring you a message from the John Canyon, commander of the North Fort. A large army of orcs is approaching, expected to lay siege in four days. He needs reinforcements."
Me: Make a Diplomacy skill check, with a +2 bonus for having the details correct and for showing him proper respect.
PC: I remind him that his daughter Princess Leda is in Swan Village to the north, and in danger if the fort is overrun.
Me: Excellent. No roll is needed - that fact will convince him in any case.

Example 2 (right?):
Me: You are allowed into the throne room, and walk up to the throne.
PC: I tell him all that stuff that guy at the fort told us.
Me: What are you trying to get him to do?
PC: I don't remember. Whatever that guy wanted us to ask him, I guess.
Me: Make a Diplomacy skill check.
PC: I rolled a 26 on Diplomacy.

I find it a little odd to give the character a bonus on diplomacy for the player remembering certain details correctly. I also find it odd to allow the player to metagame still needing a roll to determine whether or not to press the issue about the king's daughter. So, how about this example:

Me: You are allowed into the throne room, and walk up to the throne.
PC: I tell him all that stuff that guy at the fort told us.
Me: What are you trying to get him to do?
PC: I don't remember. Whatever that guy wanted us to ask him, I guess.
Mr: So, you tell the king that John Canyon, commander of the North Fort, has asked for reinforcements, because a large army of orcs is approaching, expected to lay siege in four days?
PC: Yeah. Oh, and I tell the king that stuff we learned.
Me: Which stuff?
PC: You know... the state of morale, the size of the army, how much food the fort has, the presence of his daughter at Swan Lake, the results of those divinations.
Me: Well, that would be a +6 circumstance bonus to the diplomacy roll to convince the king to send reinforcements, but pointing out the danger to his daughter is an auto-success.
PC: Cool. I would have gotten a 26... +6 is 32 on Diplomacy.

[kyoryu]

Role-playing does not replace die rolls. Die rolls do not replace role-playing.
I fiddle with dice all the time; so do many players. Rolls don't count at my table until I tell them to roll.

You can't decide to "roll for Diplomacy" separate from telling me what you say and what your goal is, just as you can't roll for combat without telling me what weapon you're using, what the target is, and what move you're attempting.

This. It ain't a boardgame. You do things in character, and use rules to resolve them.

Also, as you've pointed out, what you say and what you ask for frames the results of success or failure. You're not just "Diplomacizing". You're trying to get a result. How purdy you talk shouldn't really impact the die roll (IMO). Getting details, etc., may impact it, but the die roll is the die roll. The point of roleplaying it out is to focus everyone on the imaginary scene, and also to ensure that the GM understands the intent of what you're trying to accomplish.

Me: You are allowed into the throne room, and walk up to the throne.
PC: I tell him all that stuff that guy at the fort told us.
Me: What are you trying to get him to do?
PC: I don't remember. Whatever that guy wanted us to ask him, I guess.
Mr: So, you tell the king that John Canyon, commander of the North Fort, has asked for reinforcements, because a large army of orcs is approaching, expected to lay siege in four days?
PC: Yeah. Oh, and I tell the king that stuff we learned.
Me: Which stuff?
PC: You know... the state of morale, the size of the army, how much food the fort has, the presence of his daughter at Swan Lake, the results of those divinations.
Me: Well, that would be a +6 circumstance bonus to the diplomacy roll to convince the king to send reinforcements, but pointing out the danger to his daughter is an auto-success.
PC: Cool. I would have gotten a 26... +6 is 32 on Diplomacy.

So the players are doing something that they don't care about, to someone they don't care about, for reasons they don't care about, to get a result they don't care about???

That tells me you've got either got a critical lack of interest in your game. I don't expect my characters to remember every detail, but if they don't even know *why* they're talking to someone, then I have to question what they're even doing, besides following a script that I've written out.

[Enixon]

So the players are doing something that they don't care about, to someone they don't care about, for reasons they don't care about, to get a result they don't care about???

That tells me you've got either got a critical lack of interest in your game. I don't expect my characters to remember every detail, but if they don't even know *why* they're talking to someone, then I have to question what they're even doing, besides following a script that I've written out.

Or they're faliable human beings that don't have perfect memories, note that in the example after being given a bit of prompting and time to think the player was able to rember the details. People have "oh crap what was I supposed to be doing here?" moments in real life all the time after all.

[kraftcheese]

I've dealt with the retroactive declaration of rolls too. I actually had one player when would roll until he got something good and then try to say all the others were just him playing with his dice.

I feel like part of the problem is that my players are used to video games with dialogue trees and whatnot so their response to the great question (what do you do) is "what are my options?" To which I respond "anything you can think of" which scares them so they hide behind a mechanic which they know means they either did well or poorly and then want me to fill in the blanks.

I feel like the idea of a "paradox of choice/analysis paralysis" also comes into it; it's harder to weigh up what to do or say if your option are "everything physically possible", and easier when you're bound to options (i.e. a pass/fail as is the case in the die roll).

It's not necessarily a GOOD thing to have completely railroaded Red, Green, Blue Button choices, or that many people find decisions on their own tough in roleplaying, but I feel like having trouble with the sheer amount of options RPGs happens a lot.

[NichG]

Regardless of what you think about the role of rolls, these players are doing them wrong.
Rolling until you get a number you like and then calling it out with a skill without reference to what the system says about how to use that skill isn't how things work even if you embrace the skill aspects of the game fully.

I think you basically have two choices here - try to change the behavior or try to ground the behavior concretely.

To change - you need a table rule that says that all rolls have to be declared vocally and acknowledged before the dice leave the player's hand, or the roll just doesn't count for anything, period. It'll slow down combat a bit, but it'll be useful in preventing the knee-jerk rolling response from getting rewarded by letting those rolls do things that someone playing properly would be denied (such as giving someone an extra action-free spot check when they shouldn't have one, or letting someone negotiate action details after getting an idea what the result looks like)

To ground the behavior - make a concrete rule about spontaneous rolling that costs a risk but could give a benefit. For example 'if you wish to add uncertainty to a sure thing, you may wager a roll. This is a flat d20 roll with no intrinsic modifiers. Rolls of 11+ cause something better than normal to happen, but rolls of 10- cause something bad to happen that otherwise wouldn't. Bothering the dice gods risks their wrath, so every additional randomizing roll made in a given scene suffers a -1 for all previous rolls in the same scene'. Here you allow the behavior to persist and even reward it, but make it an active decision on the part of the players rather than an unconscious habit. Make sure to ask 'did you want to make a Random Roll?' so players don't feel like it's a gotcha, especially at first.

[Quertus]

So the players are doing something that they don't care about, to someone they don't care about, for reasons they don't care about, to get a result they don't care about???

That tells me you've got either got a critical lack of interest in your game. I don't expect my characters to remember every detail, but if they don't even know *why* they're talking to someone, then I have to question what they're even doing, besides following a script that I've written out.

Yeah, that was pretty bad, but not caring is only one possible reason for the player to be vague. There are plenty of other possible explanations:

• The player has a bad memory.
• The player missed a session.
• It was 6 months ago.
• The player is bad with names.
• Real life.
• The player gets stage fright.
• Bad experiences with other DMs.
• Random memory lapse.

But even if the player views the game as an excuse to hang out with his friends and doesn't really care about the game itself, or even if the player cares about the actions the party took, but doesn't really care about the plot itself, I see no reason to punish the party just because the party Face doesn't live up to my expectations for involvement. Just view it as an extension of your own statement, which I agree with wholeheartedly:

How purdy you talk shouldn't really impact the die roll (IMO).

[kyoryu]

Or they're faliable human beings that don't have perfect memories, note that in the example after being given a bit of prompting and time to think the player was able to rember the details. People have "oh crap what was I supposed to be doing here?" moments in real life all the time after all.

Details, names, whatever? Sure. I get that. That's pretty damn normal.

But *why you're there*??? That strikes me as strange.

It might be normal, I guess, if it's a more railroady campaign with "roleplay" scenes between fights. But I typically play games where the players are enacting *their* plans, not being told to go from Quest NPC to Quest NPC. So in that view, I really can't see how the players wouldn't know what they're there for. Because what they're there for is *their plan*, not "the thing Quest NPC 128 told them three weeks ago."

Because, yeah, I can totally see players not caring about that.

But even if the player views the game as an excuse to hang out with his friends and doesn't really care about the game itself, or even if the player cares about the actions the party took, but doesn't really care about the plot itself, I see no reason to punish the party just because the party Face doesn't live up to my expectations for involvement. Just view it as an extension of your own statement, which I agree with wholeheartedly:

See above. When I play, the "plot" isn't "the cutscenes that happen between fights." It's *the game*. SO not even knowing why you're there is kind of strange.

I mean, if the reason they're there is "Sergeant Bob told them to go and tell the king that the flooflewaffles have deployed the snigglefurg, and the wobblewats may fall, so that the king will consult with the wiggywats and get them to yargleklum the zizzlemats", then... yeah. They won't care. It's not their plan, they're not invested in it. So, if that's the case, then yeah, expecting them to remember that trivia is pointless. I wouldn't expect them to care about anything but the die roll, because that's the only real agency they have.

I'm more assuming that the players that Bad Thing is about to happen, and their response to that is "um, let's tell the king so maybe he'll send reinforcements!" In that case, I'd expect them to know, because it's *their plan*. Not mine.

So I literally *can't* let them just roll the dice in that case, because I have *no idea* of what it is they're actually trying to do.

[Mutazoia]

I've always dealt with ambiguous skill rolls with ambiguous results:

Player 1: (immediately after entering a room) I roll 25 on a spot check!
Me: Okay....you spot a bit of toilet paper that has stuck to the bottom of Player 2's boot, making him look like a total tool.

or

Me: The [NPC] stands up quickly.
Player 2: I sense motive....25!
Me: You sense that he didn't want to be seated any more for some reason.

or

Player 1: 25 heal!
Me: Okay....you stick close to Player 2's heel like a good doggy. You'll probably get a biscuit later.

Now, in some situations, I'm okay with making a roll in stead of a role. If Player 1 wants to sweet talk the bar-maid, I really don't think he needs to bust out with the corny pick up lines and try to chat me up IRL. If the character with the uber diplomacy skill wants to con the mid-level government functionary into waving the fee to license the party's war elephant, I'm going to expect at least a LITTLE role playing. Obviously, characters are going to have skills above that of the real person playing them, so you have to make a few allowances, but I (almost) never allow a player to simply roll, rather than role.