[DM Question] Roll-Play or Role-Play

Plissken · Jun 27, 2008

What do you mostly do? I'm pretty new to D&D, started with 3.5. Probably 99% of the games I have played in were RPGA games. RPGA being rules strict and by the book as it is, the experience that I've had so far was fun, but not as fun as I imagined how I thought D&D should play out.

I found it annoying that the DM's (whoever was judging that day) would ask you for a climb check just to move out of a 1st story window, or ask you for a jump check just to jump over a small gap, or that convincing an NPC couldn't be done without the use of dice. I just could not believe you needed to roll to move out of a 1st story window. 1 STORY!

Is this characteristic of how you play your home games?

Although I never played it, I remember reading the fast-play rules for 2nd ed. AD&D and remembered that most everything seemed to be solved through role-playing. When dice needed to be rolled, it was in extreme conditions that you would use proficiency checks (i.e. jumping over an extremely large gap, where you had the chance of plunging to your death at 5.000 ft.)

GnomeWorks · Jun 27, 2008

That heavy use of mechanics is context-sensitive.

Jumping out a first-story window? Probably fairly easy... but if it's absolutely cruical that you do it right now, then that would - IMO - call for a skill check.

And skills for social encounters... I don't think any edition of D&D has really gotten that right. I'm sure someone will come in here and make a lot of noise about skill challenges in 4e, but really: no. If you're looking to actually model a social encounter in mechanics, 4e makes a nice gesture, but doesn't go far enough in making it all sensical.

All of the mechanical elements are there for resolving conflict. If an action is not easily correlated to a conflict going on, or if the price of failure is negligible, there's little reason to use rolls.

Aus_Snow · Jun 27, 2008

Take 10 is a godsend.

GnomeWorks · Jun 27, 2008

Aus_Snow said:
Take 10 is a godsend.

It really is!

Once you figure out that it's a good idea, and really understand how it works, you look at all your past experience with 3.5 and say to yourself, "Wow... I did a lot of stupid things, because I didn't know you could do that."

I had to constantly remind my players that they could take 10 on things.

tankschmidt · Jun 27, 2008

Plissken said:
Is this characteristic of how you play your home games?

Heck no. Although, I do play in a 3.5 game where the DM required a climb check to get over a six foot fence. I thought requiring a roll was pretty dumb, but his game, his call.

This codifying of the rules is definitely not necessary to play D&D, and a lot of the older editions encourage you to make stuff up on the fly. If I were your DM (I run an OD&D/C&C blend with some Mentzer thrown in), hopping out of a first floor window would cost you nothing and require no roll. Maybe you'd lose five feet of movement if we were using a battle mat, and you were in a tight spot. Climbing over a six foot fence would be your move for the round, but no roll would be required.

Deuce Traveler · Jun 27, 2008

Roleplay, but whatever is fun. And to make it fun is the domain of the Dungeon Master. I played two games during the latest Lake Geneva Con with Frank Mentzer. The first was a hack and slash and was great fun. The next was a five hour session where we got our horses stolen by dwarven horse thieves and we didn't have one encounter of combat and it was also great fun.

Dlsharrock · Jun 27, 2008

I used both the instances you mentioned in a recent game. Jumping through a ground floor window required a check because the PC in question was chasing a burglar NPC who just did the same. Had he failed the roll his splendid vault through the window would have been a slight scramble and he would have lost ground in the ensuing chase.

I used Diplomacy and Sense Motive in an interrogation of the same burglar in order to influence his willingness to answer truthfully and the players' judgement of what was a lie and what was truth respectively.

For just jumping through a window I wouldn't call a roll. For using persuasion or arguing I would, as it saves a lot of toing and froing between the player and DM and you don't get tangled up in that whole player's-opinion-barely-disguised-as-his-character's-opinion, which can get silly if you have a stubborn player or stubborn DM.

In theory my personal preference is for very rules-light roleplay. I just find this very hard to execute in D&D in practise.

Korgoth · Jun 27, 2008

Plissken said:
Although I never played it, I remember reading the fast-play rules for 2nd ed. AD&D and remembered that most everything seemed to be solved through role-playing. When dice needed to be rolled, it was in extreme conditions that you would use proficiency checks (i.e. jumping over an extremely large gap, where you had the chance of plunging to your death at 5.000 ft.)

That's how I run D&D. The dice are there for situations where the chance and/or consequence of failure is significant.

I don't use rolling for puzzles, riddles or talking. If the dragon asks you a riddle, you don't get to roll your Int check to solve the riddle. I ask a real riddle, and then you really solve it. Your wizard might have a really high INT, but if you stink at solving riddles then so does he. Likewise, if you can't talk your way out of a traffic ticket then neither can your rogue. Sorry, but the game is about talking and thinking, and if you want to be good at the game you have to get good at those real life skills.

Just like if your fighter is really smart and is supposed to be a master of small unit tactics, but you're too dense to ever flank the enemy or stage a competent ambush. You don't get to make a "Tactics" roll to have the DM tell you where you should move your fighter, so you don't get to make rolls to fake your way past other forms of intelligent play, either.

hong · Jun 27, 2008

Korgoth said:
That's how I run D&D. The dice are there for situations where the chance and/or consequence of failure is significant.

I don't use rolling for puzzles, riddles or talking. If the dragon asks you a riddle, you don't get to roll your Int check to solve the riddle. I ask a real riddle, and then you really solve it. Your wizard might have a really high INT, but if you stink at solving riddles then so does he. Likewise, if you can't talk your way out of a traffic ticket then neither can your rogue. Sorry, but the game is about talking and thinking, and if you want to be good at the game you have to get good at those real life skills.

Just like if your fighter is really smart and is supposed to be a master of small unit tactics, but you're too dense to ever flank the enemy or stage a competent ambush. You don't get to make a "Tactics" roll to have the DM tell you where you should move your fighter, so you don't get to make rolls to fake your way past other forms of intelligent play, either.

I make a Debate roll to refute your arguments!

RFisher · Jun 30, 2008

When I’m DMing, the thing is, I don’t want people to feel like the time and “points” (skill points, character points, whatev) they invested in their PC was a waste. No matter how silly I think an ability is, if the game has it and the PCs invested in it, I’m going to be looking for chances for them to roll against it.

Yeah, I’m going to try to not make them roll against it too much. But I’ll make them roll against it more often than I would call for a roll if the game didn’t explicitly list it as an ability.

If that makes any sense.

Of course, that’s one of the reason I prefer to run lighter, more abstract systems these days. (Or just systems that don’t have much in the way of mechanical “character building”.)

[DM Question] Roll-Play or Role-Play

Plissken

Explorer

GnomeWorks

Adventurer

Aus_Snow

First Post

GnomeWorks

Adventurer

tankschmidt

Explorer

Deuce Traveler

Adventurer

Dlsharrock

First Post

Korgoth

First Post

hong

WotC's bitch

RFisher

Explorer

Similar Threads