Description: Roll First, Talk Later?

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

I'm just curious to know how people describe their action while gaming?

For example - if you're going to attempt a bluff... do you roll first and tailor your bluff to
your roll? or do you explain your bluff first and then roll?

I generally prefer to roll first, explain later. I think it makes more sense to tell a stupid bluff when you roll a 5 then to simply have the DM say "It doesn't appear that Mr. Jones believes you." The same goes for describing combat. I generally roll the dice first and base the "flavor" on the result of the roll. (I run up to him, daggers out! *roll the dice - result 2* ... and stumble on the way and am unable to attack him!)

 

[tetsujin28]

Yep. I'm a roll-first guy, myself, as DM and player.

 

[DonTadow]

I'm just curious to know how people describe their action while gaming?

For example - if you're going to attempt a bluff... do you roll first and tailor your bluff to
your roll? or do you explain your bluff first and then roll?

I generally prefer to roll first, explain later. I think it makes more sense to tell a stupid bluff when you roll a 5 then to simply have the DM say "It doesn't appear that Mr. Jones believes you." The same goes for describing combat. I generally roll the dice first and base the "flavor" on the result of the roll. (I run up to him, daggers out! *roll the dice - result 2* ... and stumble on the way and am unable to attack him!)

Complte opposite, talk role play first, then roll.

My theory is, to add the rpg'n to the modifer. If the pc does a great on the run bluff, even a low check can get by. I use rpg'n as modifiers here and there.

 

[JimAde]

As GM I roll first, then roleplay the result. I have my players do the opposite, however. I like them to describe what they intend to do, then after they roll I tell them what they actually did. Sometimes highly amusing.

Similarly, as a player, I always describe the action I'm attempting, then roll and let the GM describe the actual results.

 

[LordBOB]

My DM likes us to tell him what were are going to do than roll....that way we HAVE to stick with what we say. So that if we mess up the roll we dont make up an excuse as to why we wernt actually bluffing anyway( as in trying to get out of it ) This has worked good for us

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

Complte opposite, talk role play first, then roll.

My theory is, to add the rpg'n to the modifer. If the pc does a great on the run bluff, even a low check can get by. I use rpg'n as modifiers here and there.

*nods* There are circumstances when the DM has allowed us a bonus for a really good story - regardless of how bad the roll was. The RP-aspect definately has it's place.

So - as a secondary question (which may eventually need to become it's own thread) - how do you balance the dice and the story when it comes to describing your characters actions?

 

[Voadam]

As a player I generally just roleplay out my speeches and only roll if the DM asks for one. I prefer when they don't and they just base reactions off my speech and my character (history, the way I've played him, raw abilities and skills, etc.). Rolling really breaks up the flow of roleplaying interactions.

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

As a player I generally just roleplay out my speeches and only roll if the DM asks for one. I prefer when they don't and they just base reactions off my speech and my character (history, the way I've played him, raw abilities and skills, etc.). Rolling really breaks up the flow of roleplaying interactions.

Then why have dice at all? Why invest in skills like Bluff or Diplomacy?

 

[AIM-54]

My preference would be for the action/speech or whatever to be described/role-played before any dice are rolled. Otherwise, players get lazy and use the dice as a crutch that relieves them of any responsibility of actually coming up with inspiring things to say.

Sure, we're not all great orators; that's why there's a mechanic to represent those interactions where the players skills fall short of the characters. Rolling first just seems to lend itself to: "I bluff him, I get a 26. Okay, Sense Motive was 27, he doesn't believe you" rather than actually role-playing the interaction, having an interesting contest of words, where the dice, plus any relevant modifiers (DM's discretion, of course) merely represent the success or failure of each side.

It's really one of those areas where the mechanics aren't very satisfactory. Hitting the right balance between roleplay and die-rolling will ultimately be up to the group in question. Some may prefer long social interactions with few rolls, others will prefer to roll through and get the social bits out of the way, so they can get on to the next fight.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

It depends on the player. For me as GM, I'll roll then RP accordingly...but some players work better the other way. At the same time, some players are much better at doing it if they have a guideline of sorts to work with.

So I don't really set down any rules on HOW to do it for the group, just let people go by however works best for their style.