Mearls' L&L on non-combat pillars

[ExploderWizard]

There are a number of options for non-combat resolution systems that prioritise player input and still involve dice rolling. The most generic way of describing those structures is probably this: the GM describes the situation/context, the player then describes what his/her PC is doing or saying (this may be first or third person, depending on individual preferences and table expectations), dice are then rolled, and the GM then narrates the consequences of the PC's action using the result of the roll(s) to establish the parameters of that narration (eg if the check is a failure, the GM's narration has to give some account, in the fiction, of the PC not getting what the player wanted him/her to get).

How much of what the player does or says influences the die roll?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

How much of what the player does or says influences the die roll?

That depends, but here's one extreme - it only influences whether he gets a roll at all.

If you say "blablablalbayoumusthelpusnow", the DM doesn't ask for a diplomacy check since he clearly isn't saying anything that would cause the person on the other hand to change his opinion.

If he says something like "If you give us the information on the Thieve's Guild, we will make sure you no one knows and we will help you to get your case to the Duke." he gets a roll. The challenge advances as does the narrative - the player has made an offer (a promise even). If the check fails, he may have to add more to the deal to warrant a new check (or come up with better arguments). If it succeeds, he may want to agree (but if the challenge isn't "done" yet, there may be another complication that needs to be resolved first.)

 

[ExploderWizard]

That depends, but here's one extreme - it only influences whether he gets a roll at all.

If you say "blablablalbayoumusthelpusnow", the DM doesn't ask for a diplomacy check since he clearly isn't saying anything that would cause the person on the other hand to change his opinion.

If he says something like "If you give us the information on the Thieve's Guild, we will make sure you no one knows and we will help you to get your case to the Duke." he gets a roll. The challenge advances as does the narrative - the player has made an offer (a promise even). If the check fails, he may have to add more to the deal to warrant a new check (or come up with better arguments). If it succeeds, he may want to agree (but if the challenge isn't "done" yet, there may be another complication that needs to be resolved first.)

Ok, so if the player goes that extra mile and actually finds out what the other party truly desires and uses that knowledge to leverage a better deal he gets.........wait for it..........a roll.

Man no wonder player engagement is a rare beast these days.

 

[B.T.]

The introduction of social skills was the worst thing about 3e. Well, aside from the changes to spellcasters.

 

[Zireael]

Why don't we just have a "Fighting" skill for combat, and whoever rolls the best Fighting check wins the battle?

The idea is that the divide between combat and the other pillars (mechanically) is largely arbitrary. There's no reason for combat to have detailed tactical resolution mechanics, but for nothing else to.

Good point.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Ok, so if the player goes that extra mile and actually finds out what the other party truly desires and uses that knowledge to leverage a better deal he gets.........wait for it..........a roll.

Man no wonder player engagement is a rare beast these days.

If the players decide to attack the Kobolds, and describe a cool and awesome way they do so, do they get to automatically win then either?

The interesting part here is that the challenge consists of many rolls, and that will shape what is actually arrived at the table. "Okay, so I couldn't convince him with this argument. What can I offer him to help me anyway?" "Okay, so I didn't kill this Kobold with my attack, what do I do next round to keep it from killing me?"

If there weren't dice rolls, we always get exactly what we want in RPGs. Butt the interesting part is how to react when things don't go as planned - what do you do when you fail? If everyone makes it over the pit trap except the Wizard (poor guy still hasn't learned Fly), what do you do?

 

[ExploderWizard]

If the players decide to attack the Kobolds, and describe a cool and awesome way they do so, do they get to automatically win then either?

Maybe. Depends on planning and circumstances. If, in addition to being "cool" and "awesome", there was something substantial that might actually work then yes.

The interesting part here is that the challenge consists of many rolls, and that will shape what is actually arrived at the table. "Okay, so I couldn't convince him with this argument. What can I offer him to help me anyway?" "Okay, so I didn't kill this Kobold with my attack, what do I do next round to keep it from killing me?"

But whatever is made up is just fluff to justify rolling again. The actual content of the player contribution doesn't play a significant role in the resolution of the situation. It simply takes non-combat problems, gives them hit points, and expects players to constantly come up with flowery ways to say "I attack" until the situation 'dies'.

If there weren't dice rolls, we always get exactly what we want in RPGs.

Nope. If someone presents you with a riddle and promises to reveal the location of a rich treasure if you are correct, and your answer is wrong, did you get exactly what you want (assuming you wanted the treasure)?

Butt the interesting part is how to react when things don't go as planned - what do you do when you fail? If everyone makes it over the pit trap except the Wizard (poor guy still hasn't learned Fly), what do you do?

YES! By George I think you've got it!

 

[TwoSix]

Ok, so if the player goes that extra mile and actually finds out what the other party truly desires and uses that knowledge to leverage a better deal he gets.........wait for it..........a roll.

Man no wonder player engagement is a rare beast these days.

That's because you're thinking of the roll as a pass/fail thing. "Failing forward", "yes, but..." are all concepts addressing how to use the system to incorporate player input while avoiding the DM making the final decision as to the success or failure of an attempt.

You may not play the game that way, but it's wrongheaded to suggest that these concepts cannot work in a role-playing game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

That's because you're thinking of the roll as a pass/fail thing. "Failing forward", "yes, but..." are all concepts addressing how to use the system to incorporate player input while avoiding the DM making the final decision as to the success or failure of an attempt.

You may not play the game that way, but it's wrongheaded to suggest that these concepts cannot work in a role-playing game.

Of course they can work. Such resolution mechanics can be perfectly serviceable.

A great many things that work perfectly well can still bore one to sleep.

 

[TwoSix]

But whatever is made up is just fluff to justify rolling again. The actual content of the player contribution doesn't play a significant role in the resolution of the situation. It simply takes non-combat problems, gives them hit points, and expects players to constantly come up with flowery ways to say "I attack" until the situation 'dies'.

And that's where you're strictly, objectively wrong. The content of the player input necessarily affects what happens next. Otherwise, there's no narrative to hang the story on. The roll simply determines whether a brilliant plan succeeds brilliantly without a hitch or brilliantly, but with an unexpected consequence.