D&D 5E When did Role become Roll?

"Why would a rogue advise a wizard on which spell to cast? "

In-character, in-game: well maybe the rogue has been in this kind of situation before, seen a spell work and can advise the wizard accordingly since they have knowledge the wizard does not. or maybe the rogue has noticed some telltalle clues and is asking for a detect inviibility or maybe the the rogue has senses the wizard does not and... etc etc etc... the number of cases is very long.

Out-of-character (player to player - even if that player offering advice is GM) if the wizard player is new to the game or new to the class and is struggling and it is affecting their enjoyment and/or the enjoyment of others. For me as a Gm i find it better to offer help/advice to new players or players trying out new characters than it is to let them struggle in the midst of play.

of course, one should not equate offering advice with telling someone what to do.

"What is a character? A character is a personality with wants, needs, and life views/beliefs that in many cases differ from yours. Notice I didn't mention class, race, skills, modifiers, etc. These are game mechanics, the tools and techniques your character uses to achieve what they desire. But what is it your character desires?"

i as player and as Gm emphasize the character being the intersection of) the background/persona and the mechanics/stats. The mechanics covers a lot of things about your character and their makeup and should work hand-in-glove with the persona, background and personality - not be considered separate from them. A wisdom of 18 and proficiency with Insight and perception are not just tools - they tell you a lot about how perceptive and aware your character is as a regular thing, normally, day to day. Choosing to roleplay that character as ACTUALLY "self-absorbed and clueless about whats going on and what others feel" is IMO "not role-playing your chosen character (though of course it could be a deception the character is using to cover their study of others.)

IMO telling someone to move all the mechanical elements out into this second tier of relevance - those are all just tools and not the character - is seriously skewing the " role" away from the "chargen."

if you want to play a character you see as clumsy... choose a low dexterity.
If you want to play a character whose background is former slave turned gladiator - choose high combat relevant stats and choices.
if you want to play a character with high dexterity - don't choose a background of an overweight librarian.


IMO one of the risks of a Gm emphasizing a dramatic separating mechanics and "character" is the tacit encouragement of the rocket scientist idiot. Some can choose to lowball certain stats if one thinks they can "roleplay" around the mechanics because they themselves are smart enough or savvy enough to catch the clues their character should be missing. That lets them invest those points in areas with more concrete mechanical payoffs.


that is only part of it but for me i am happiest (and generally find the players are too) when the chargen mechanics, the character background/personality and the roleplay all work together and share in the resolution of a scene or challenge and the more one starts to dominate the others the less robust the gameplay feels.

others will certainly see it differently.

Satyrn said:

Aye. But I was hoping a comic would be a humorous way to imply I don't see this issue like you, that whatever foundation of ideas or facts you built your opinion on is foreign to me.


I'm also confused that you seemingly dismissed all importance of implication in an essay you've described as a polemic. I mean, I've always seen implicaton as the key tool in polemics - the way you say the really nasty things without having to actually say them.

Click to expand...

It is true that implication is a tool or qualification of polemic. But I was not trying to be nasty towards anyone. If it came across that way, my apologies to any who took it so.

nswanson27 said:

Fair enough - but then you might want to change your language a bit with how you describe your position. Many of your statements come off as if it were absolute and a closed topic, not merely your opinion and open for discussion/debate.

Click to expand...

I agree. My choice of style could have been better. In spite of how I described it, I would like to find a middle ground where role and roll can work well together. And GM's and players on this site who have already given their input are helping to do just that.

Bruce Grabowski said:

Good points. I think a better expression I could have used would have been "I'm out to get you" rather than adversarial. As adversity, as you show, is built into the game. And success is a better term than winning, it feels a little more open-ended. Your last paragraph brings up many interesting nuances that shows how the game can be both difficult and complex and as a result require many interpretations.

Click to expand...

Further, just because the game need not have adversarial action between the various players, doesn't mean it must not. One of my fondest memories of playing was a campaign where my character and another PC were bitter rivals.

While DMing, I cannot become an adversary for the players, but the NPCs certainly can. Players do not face the same constraint of unequal power as DM--player conflict and can engage more freely in conflict. Some games the PCs form a cohesive group; other games light rivalries develop and the occasional game has the PCs pitted at each others throats. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] is another player who enjoys a wide range of potential PC--PC adversarial play.

The main trick is to make sure the adversarial behaviour stays between the PCs and doesn't develop into player rifts.

Its not that the game is so complex that requires many interpretations. The social dynamic in play at every table is different because personal attitudes and preferences differ. That dynamic dictates what "good play" means for that table.

iserith said:

When did Role become Roll?

Easy!

Role, or roleplaying, is when the player decides what the character does - how he or she thinks, acts, and what he or she says. The player may make that determination on whatever basis he or she wants and is still roleplaying. Certain, specific kinds of roleplaying can be worth a reward such as Inspiration in D&D 5e wherein the player is rewarded mechanically for playing to the character's established personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws.

Roll, or rolling the dice, happens when the DM decides what the player described as wanting to do has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. At that point, role becomes roll: the DM engages the mechanics of the game via the rules and dice are often rolled to determine a result.

And round and round it goes to produce, hopefully, an exciting, memorable story of bold adventurers confronting deadly perils and a good time is had by everyone at the table.

Click to expand...

Well put, especially the last paragraph. I suppose I am still working out the balance that will keep me engaged and provide gaming sessions that fit your last paragraph.

Bruce Grabowski said:

Well put, especially the last paragraph. I suppose I am still working out the balance that will keep me engaged and provide gaming sessions that fit your last paragraph.

Click to expand...

What specific challenges are you encountering either as a player or DM (or both) that make whatever balance you're trying to achieve elusive?

Bruce Grabowski said:

I'm not sure I understand how you don't see any issues to discuss. The very points I made can be discussed. I would like to get your feedback, as I want to have a better understanding of what would make for a good balance between roll and role.

Click to expand...

I believe he does not see any issues to discuss because the answer to "what would make for a good balance between roll and role" is whatever an individual group decides upon. If a group is happy with their balance of roll and role, whatever percentage that may be, then there is no issue.

Issues arise when the players in the group do not agree upon those percentages, but your post does not go into detail about any issues you might personally be having. So, without describing any specific issues, and all percentages representing a good balance for somebodies group, there wasn't anything else to discuss.

What specific issues are you having?

I've said it before, but it bears repeating...

As long as everyone in the group is enjoying themselves, you're playing it the right way. If not, you're doing it wrong.

As far as the base argument — I happen to agree, in that something that is off-putting to me at the table are players (or GMs) who take an adversarial tone and try to “win” by defeating whoever is on the opposite side of the GM screen. To that end, an amount of trust is required between GM and player to work together to both be fair, and to have a fun game out of which arises a really great story. If others want to play adversarially at their tables, more power to them, but I’ve personally always had less fun doing that.

I do disagree putting all the onus on the players - the GM can be just as adversarial as a player, and it leads to the same place just as quickly. I also think the argument can be phrased less as a condemnation (as [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION] points out) and less of a “one true way” argument but still get the original point across.