Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

[Quertus]

I was prepared to fight this battle on top of my hill, so bring it on!

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

To me roleplaying is just that, playing a role. I don't consider making ooc decisions to be roleplaying.

[Quertus]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

What puzzles me was that there was any disagreement on that. Learn something new each day.

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]

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]

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]

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:
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. You do NOT have to roll the dice to get to step 3.

Spoiler: How to play from Basic Rules Page 4

Show

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]

No, they are not (at least not in the current D&D edition). See How to play, above, from the Basic Rules. You do NOT have to roll the dice to get to step 3.

Spoiler: How to play from Basic Rules Page 4

Show

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]

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]

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]

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.