Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[The Shaman]

To use an example that is not a feature of a classic dungeon crawl, how about Diplomacy.I've seen this handled all sorts of ways. I've seen GMs who simply let the players put forth their plea to whomever they are trying to diplomacize and base the NPC's reaction purely on that. I've seen GMs allow players to simply say, "I'm doing Diplomacy. I rolled a 23." and base the NPC's reaction purely on that. I've seen GMs (and I'm one of these) who listen to the urgings the players make on behalf of their PCs and then have them roll.

I'm in that latter group as well.

I'm not of the belief that a player needs to be a good orator in order to have his character persuade an NPC. But I like for them to at least make some effort at explaining the reasoning they are using with the NPC before they roll the dice because it lets me portray the NPC's reaction better (and, given what I know of the NPC's motivations, I may apply a bonus or penalty). And of course it gives them a reason to pay attention to the game world factors that might influence things.

Exactly.

The player doesn't need to be eloquent - that's what the skill roll is for - but she does need to frame the argument being used to persuade, and that argument is weighed in the context of events in the game-world, the personality of the npc, and opposition arguments.

For me, it's not dissimilar from the way most roleplaying games resolve combat. The player rolls to hit, but first the player must choose what her character is going to do and how she is going about it, and the results are shaped by what the referee does with the opponent as well.

 

[Barastrondo]

Hmm, I must have been doing something wrong my last campaign - neither of the two women tried to curry my favor with cleavage...

My own wife won't do it, so I feel your pain. (Last thing she wants is to be seen as being given unfair advantage due to our relationship.)

But that tangent aside, I agree that a blend of description and die-rolling is just about ideal; description for the most part, die-rolling for when the outcome is genuinely in question or the character's abilities really should outstrip the player's perception of things. The description (some of which comes in after the die roll) paints the picture; the dice are there to make that final call.

And of course, there's also the tension of making that physical die roll. There's a lot to be said for the allure of the gamble -- particularly when you have the opportunity to alter the odds.

 

[TheUltramark]

Hmm, I must have been doing something wrong my last campaign - neither of the two women tried to curry my favor with cleavage...



(I must spread XP around again before giving to Barastrondo again)

It is even common knowledge I am vulnerable to cleavage attacks...still....nothin!...they know there is favor to be curried, yet that club remains in the bag -

 

[NewJeffCT]

But that tangent aside, I agree that a blend of description and die-rolling is just about ideal; description for the most part, die-rolling for when the outcome is genuinely in question or the character's abilities really should outstrip the player's perception of things. The description (some of which comes in after the die roll) paints the picture; the dice are there to make that final call.

And of course, there's also the tension of making that physical die roll. There's a lot to be said for the allure of the gamble -- particularly when you have the opportunity to alter the odds.

Ideally, there should be a balance between the rolling of the dice & description. However, my group is mostly old-timers and sometimes we're just too tired after a long week of work to put a lot of effort into lengthy description - either me as the DM, or some of the players.

Most of the time, when it comes to description, the players will start to describe what they do, and then if it gets beyond a certain point, I'll ask for a roll for whatever the appropriate skill is: Example - "I slide up to the guard and try to curry his favor with my cleavage..." ok, just kidding on that. But, if it is a Diplomacy situation, I'll let the player try to speak his or her mind first before asking for a roll - but, I'd also take into account that the guy playing the Sorcerer with a 20 CHA in the last campaign was generally a pretty quiet and sometimes moderately surly guy at the table (meaning, not exactly a 20 CHA IRL). I would also take into account what the player actually said as well.

And, I don't mean just diplomacy, either. Could be for an Arcana roll, Religion, History, etc. Example - "I look through some books in the old sage's library and try to find out what the runes on the 7 pointed star mean."

 

[Beginning of the End]

I won't say that if a player says, "I want the King to give us some Men at Arms to aid in our quest." and the GM says, "Roll Diplomacy." they're "doing it wrong". But I'll say that I think this is the kind of thing that some "old school" gamers contend has resulted in loss of flavor since the advent of Diplomacy as a PC skill vs. a player skill.

I'm not sure that contention is valid however because I bet there were plenty of GMs back in the day whose players said, "I want the King to give us some Men at Arms to aid in our quest." and the GM said, "Roll vs. Charisma."

There are actually explicit mechanics in OD&D for "roll to see if the NPC accepts the offer / what their reaction is to the PCs". In combination with morale rolls and monster reaction checks (which both used the same die roll and very similar resolution tables), in some editions it comes pretty close to providing a universal mechanic for resolving social interaction.

I'm not of the belief that a player needs to be a good orator in order to have his character persuade an NPC. But I like for them to at least make some effort at explaining the reasoning they are using with the NPC before they roll the dice because it lets me portray the NPC's reaction better (and, given what I know of the NPC's motivations, I may apply a bonus or penalty).

It becomes a question of specificity. There's another article at the Alexandrian on this topic:

My approach has largely evolved out of trial and error, but as I put it to analysis I suspect one of the reasons it works is because it tends to naturally find the right “sweet spot” not only for everybody involved, but for the particular situation under consideration. As a GM I set a relatively high threshold of “that’s enough specificity for me to make a ruling”, but if the players want more specificity than that — if there are more detailed choices that they feel are meaningful to the situation or to their character — then they are free to make those choices. (At which point I will assume they’re meaningful and take those details into account.)

 

[Mythmere1]

As the Primer's author, just a couple of points:

1) I'm glad that people aren't still reading it as a polemic against later versions of D&D. The reason I wrote it was in response to a flood of posts here on ENWorld, years ago, that ran roughly like, "We tried OD&D and it was just like 3e, but we had to put in the 3e rules because they weren't in OD&D." So the main intention of the Primer was to illustrate how to try out OD&D on its own terms. It's not easy to play a simpler version of a game after you've played a more complex version. It wasn't intended as being "the only way to play old school," or "why you should play old school," or even "this is a complete statement of what old school is." Just: "here's how to try out OD&D on its own terms when you're used to a more structured and detailed system."

2) It was also written before the whole old-school/new-school thing had become serious edition war territory, so the title sounds inflammatory now, but wasn't so much back when it was written.

Cheers!

 

[NewJeffCT]

2) It was also written before the whole old-school/new-school thing had become serious edition war territory, so the title sounds inflammatory now, but wasn't so much back when it was written.

Cheers!

Edition wars were much slower-paced in the old days, too. No email or internets around... however, if you look at old Dragon magazines from when 2E came out, you'll see letters to the editor in there accusing TSR of selling out or dumbing down the game. Not too different than today or back in 2000 when 3E came out - just that it took a month or two to respond after each monthly issue of Dragon back in the day.

 

[Water Bob]

I agree with the sentiment 100%, but I don't take that as waterbob's implication. I took his statements to say "rolling dice at all is a bad way to handle searches, traps, and, likely, diplomacy".

Then you haven't read my words, then. Misinterpretation happens when you skim.

 

[pemerton]

To use an example that is not a feature of a classic dungeon crawl, how about Diplomacy. I've seen this handled all sorts of ways.

<snip>

I'm not of the belief that a player needs to be a good orator in order to have his character persuade an NPC. But I like for them to at least make some effort at explaining the reasoning they are using with the NPC before they roll the dice because it lets me portray the NPC's reaction better (and, given what I know of the NPC's motivations, I may apply a bonus or penalty).

Most of the time, when it comes to description, the players will start to describe what they do, and then if it gets beyond a certain point, I'll ask for a roll for whatever the appropriate skill is

<snip>

I would also take into account what the player actually said as well.

And, I don't mean just diplomacy, either. Could be for an Arcana roll, Religion, History, etc. Example - "I look through some books in the old sage's library and try to find out what the runes on the 7 pointed star mean."

I agree with all this. In my earlier post, I said:

It seems pretty obvious to me that what the PCs do frames the context for dice rolls, and hence for the consequences of action resolution.

Description by a player of what his/her PC is doing is one of the things that provides the context for the dice roll, and hence for the consequences of action resolution.

The more sparse the player's description of what his/her PC is doing, the less context for action resolution. Therefore, presumalby, the less complex/sophisticated the consequences. A game that uses sparse descriptions for diplomacy is, presumably, one in which the participants don't especially care for complex consequences of social encounter resolution. In my own game, the descriptions for searching for hidden things tend to be pretty sparse, because as a GM I don't especially care for complex consequences of searching for hidden things. (And none of my players cares enough to push for more of it.)

But it still seems to me that the notion that depth is facilitated by abandoing dice rolls is not true. In a more simulationist game, the dice rolls tell us what is happening in the gameworld (for example, Rolemaster's famous crit charts). They don't get in the way of fictional depth - they give rise to it. In a more narrativist game, the dice rolls distribute permissions to describe what is happening in the gameworld. They don't prevent those descriptions being rich, and shaping the context for further dice rolls.

And action resolution by way of free-form description is not necessarily rich or deep. Descriptions can still be given that are sparse or uninteresting, both by GM and players. And neither a long litany of descriptions of tripwires, and ways to cut them (in the context of disabling a trap), nor of forms of greeting, and precise descriptions of gestures and formalities (in the context of persuading a noble to loan a contingent of men-at-arms) strikes me as contributing very much to richness or depth.

 

[Mark CMG]

But it still seems to me that the notion that depth is facilitated by abandoing dice rolls is not true.

Can you quote who made this claim? I missed it somehow in this thread.