[DM Question] Roll-Play or Role-Play

[Mort]

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.

What if the player stinks at riddles or puzzles but wants to play a character that doesn't - they just can't (this is a legitimate answer at some tables, I'm just checking)? But doesn't this heavily discourage players from going outside their comfort zone?

On the flipside - what about the player that can smooth or fast-talk just about anything. What's to prevent him taking average stats and little skill in diplomacy and still dominating the diplomatic arena?

or the guy who's brilliant at riddles and puzzles but takes low int characters (yet still solves all the riddles and puzzles). Are all his characters just assumed to be idiot-savants?

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.

What about new players? They can't always be good from the get go. At the very least, I allow input from other players until the player feels comfortable in his role.

 

[jdrakeh]

First, the "roleplay versus rollplay" distinction is pretty meaningless, given that everybody has a different idea of what constitutes "roleplay" in the context of our hobby. That said. . .

I personally only ask players to roll for stuff that matters in the context of the larger game. Climbing a cliff to escape a pack of attacking worg dispatched by the BBEG? Sure, I'll call for checks. You might even fall to your death if you fail enough of them. Building a campfire? No skill check required.

I recently heard a horror story about a guy who forced his PCs to make a roll to build a campfire during the course of their journeys. There were no special circumstances or anything. They were merely setting up camp for the night. None of them passed the roll. The campfire went out during the middle of the night and all of the PCs froze to death.

To make a long story much shorter, the GM in the aforementioned tale apparently crowed about his mad GM skillz after this TPK event. He is no longer welcome at local game tables. The moral of this story? Don't make players roll for stupid !@#! like building campfires.

 

[logan9a]

I just could not believe you needed to roll to move out of a 1st story window. 1 STORY!

Obviously you have not had to jump out of many first story windows. Things happen, ankles get twisted, debris exists and trips you up. Weird, random things that you don't take time to account for when you are in a hurry/stressed/in combat. That being said, thank god I don't play D&D.

Peace!

Logan

 

[Mort]

First, the "roleplay versus rollplay" distinction is pretty meaningless, given that everybody has a different idea of what constitutes "roleplay" in the context of our hobby. That said. . .

I personally only ask players to roll for stuff that matters in the context of the larger game. Climbing a cliff to escape a pack of attacking worg dispatched by the BBEG? Sure, I'll call for checks. You might even fall to your death if you fail enough of them. Building a campfire? No skill check required.

I recently heard a horror story about a guy who forced his PCs to make a roll to build a campfire during the course of their journeys. There were no special circumstances or anything. They were merely setting up camp for the night. None of them passed the roll. The campfire went out during the middle of the night and all of the PCs froze to death.

To make a long story much shorter, the GM in the aforementioned tale apparently crowed about his mad GM skillz after this TPK event. He is no longer welcome at local game tables. The moral of this story? Don't make players roll for stupid !@#! like building campfires.

I witnessed something similar in my college days. The DM had us get into a truck and drive to our destination. He made the driver roll for EVERY "condition" that came up (and by condition I mean "you're about to turn left make a driving roll", "you want to pass that car? make a driving roll"). Every time the roll was failed (which was often) something bad happened (wheel blew, crash happened etc). It got so ludicrous that I had to step out in the hall every few minutes so they wouldn't see me laughing. 3 hours of real game time and we weren't even close to our destination. After an additional similar experience the next session (I went again to see if the first one wasn't a fluke), I never went back.

Something funny though: several people there really seemed to enjoy this type of game, so goes to show different tastes for everyone.

 

[WayneLigon]

I recently heard a horror story about a guy who forced his PCs to make a roll to build a campfire during the course of their journeys. There were no special circumstances or anything. They were merely setting up camp for the night. None of them passed the roll. The campfire went out during the middle of the night and all of the PCs froze to death.

Stuff like this is why they still hold blanket parties.

I have to wonder how many people leave the hobby each year because they experience stuff like this and don't have any other gaming experiece to compare it with?

In regards to the OP's question: We normally make rolls only for stuff that counts. Learning what stuff counts and what things should pass by without a roll is part of learning to be a good GM.

 

[jdrakeh]

Stuff like this is why they still hold blanket parties.

Another, slightly less awful, example of his 'realistic' DMing apparently came from earlier in the same game session. When the players stopped during travel to investigate the scene of an apparent bandit raid, he had their horses run away, never to be found. Because they didn't specifically say that they had tied the horses up.

Now, I know what you're thinking. . . the horses weren't supervised, got spooked, and ran away, right? Nope. According to the players, they were in the immediate vicinity of the horses at all times and nothing happened to startle the horses. They just suddenly vanished because they weren't tied up.

I have to wonder how many people leave the hobby each year because they experience stuff like this and don't have any other gaming experiece to compare it with?

Quite a few, I'd wager. These players were lucky in that they were all hobby veterans letting the guy in question run a D&D game after hearing him brag about his extensive experience as a DM (he had been running games since the late 1970s, apparently). I guess it just goes to show that experience is not synonymous with talent.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Is this characteristic of how you play your home games?

No. However, I prefer TSR D&D, with my favorite being OD&D (1974), so the rules don't include a formal system of skills and checks. Such things are usually handled through role playing, rather than a die roll. If I think a roll is necessary, I'll usually just assign a % chance based on the PC and the circumstances. Sometimes I'll call for a roll against an attribute. I tend to handle these things with rulings, rather than rules for skills, et cetera.

 

[Korgoth]

I make a Debate roll to refute your arguments!

When I read your posts, I imagine that it's the kitten talking. +2 circumstance bonus.

 

[Korgoth]

What if the player stinks at riddles or puzzles but wants to play a character that doesn't - they just can't (this is a legitimate answer at some tables, I'm just checking)? But doesn't this heavily discourage players from going outside their comfort zone?

On the flipside - what about the player that can smooth or fast-talk just about anything. What's to prevent him taking average stats and little skill in diplomacy and still dominating the diplomatic arena?

or the guy who's brilliant at riddles and puzzles but takes low int characters (yet still solves all the riddles and puzzles). Are all his characters just assumed to be idiot-savants?

Fair questions. I'll take a shot a answering:

What if a slow chap wants to play a riddle master? I say that he can't. He can play a guy who thinks he's a riddle master, or a junior riddle master who is just starting out or something. But if he can't solve riddles or puzzles worth a darn, then he's not Puzzleboy. Just like if he can't decide between vanilla or chocolate, let alone whether to make camp here or push onward, he doesn't get to be Beloved And Manly Leader. He can obviously only hack Wishy-washy Milquetoast Leader.

What if a silver-tongued player shorts his charisma stats and still dominates? Just like he's allowed to excel at tactics even if he's playing Peasant Nebbish With No Training, he's allowed to continue to be smooth even if he's playing Uninspiring Lout. If there are rolls ever called for, his excellent play will likely offset any minuses. Bully for him and for his good play! But I prefer OD&D, which has no such skills, so it's not an issue. If he's smooth with a low CHA, I guess he's smooth but ugly (like Cyrano). Sounds like an entertaining character.

What if a puzzlemaster player plays a low INT character? That's fine... so he's good at puzzles and riddles. He may just have a poor memory, an anti-intellectual attitude or be uneducated. Or maybe he's actually dumb but (comically) makes the smarties look stupid as he makes short work of these stumpers.

What about new players? They can't always be good from the get go. At the very least, I allow input from other players until the player feels comfortable in his role.

I think input from other players is great. It helps you get better at the game. Although if the newbie is isolated from the party somehow... helpful input stops! Reinforces the aloneness.

 

[MrApothecary]

Often when I DM, I find myself just letting things pass without a roll if they are easy and unimportant. I mean, seriously, two carriages are two freaking feet apart, I'm not going to waste time to see if the elf sorcerer can step across during a chase and not fall and kill herself mundanely. Deaths can actually be fun, but boring, non-humorus ones are not.