Description: Roll First, Talk Later?

[Klaus]

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!)

I agree with Queen_D!

Role-Playing doesn't mean having things go the way you describe, but making up stuff on the fly to suit the situation. If you want to reward Role=Playing, don't assign a mechanical bonus for well-played bluffs or diplomacies. In the roll first, describe second, the DM should reward bonus XP to players who act out the dice result.

In a Shadowrun game I played a human mage raised by the Yakuza, but then excoriated for being gaijin. In a mission in Germany, I used a illusion to appear as an employee of the german factory. I role-played out the navigation of the complex, and just as it looked like the team would make out of the factory without any incidents (where's the fun in that?), I (the player) had the character slip on his german, inserting a 'Hai!' (japanese for yes) instead of a "Ya!" (german for yes). That way a guard got suspicious and we had to retreat, guns ablazing. Now THAT was fun!

 

[Voadam]

I don't understand how DMs who enjoy good role-playing justify fighters combat prowess being irrespective of the player's martial skill in life, and a wizards spell repetoire and spell DC being disconnected from that person's actual knowledge of incantations here on Earth, but when you want to have a social character (or riddler, or tactician), suddenly that IS dependent on personal capacity to act in that manner. It's a fundamental lack of equity. I like plot development. I like background. I just am not always skilled at developing dialogue in first person.

Combat is 3rd person in an rpg. It can not be 1st person. It must be done with game mechanics. The players can not cast spells or physically interact with the npcs or monsters or magic of the world.

Social interactions, riddles, and tactics are things the players can do. Alternatively they can all be handled solely by mechanics as well.

Mechanics (poor ones IMO) have been added to social interactions in the core rules but not explicit ones for riddles or tactics (although int checks and some 3rd party new skills throw them in for some products). Under core rules riddles and tactics are purely based on the Players unless the DM houserules in a mechanic for them.

So whether using mechanics is a good thing or not depends upon whether you want social and mental things to be a result of 3rd person action statements resolved by mechanics or a first person experience resolved by how the player handles the situation.

I prefer the latter and this is clearly stated to my players when I DM.

 

[DamionW]

Voadam, as long as you clearly state that from the start to your players, that's fine, as I said it's a preference and you're the DM. I simply would be swayed from playing in that game and contributing to your plot. If you expect me to role-play any attempt to lie, I'd want every person trying to fight an orc have to describe precisely how he's going to swing his enemies falchion out of the way with his shield and move in to slice their femeral artery. No, you can't actually kill an orc first-person to resolve the conflict, but the player should be required to demonstrate equal technical expertise that his fighter character has. Otherwise there should be no expectation for a deceitful character's player to be as technically skilled at lying as his character is. Equal effort for equal character results. My personal preference is for freedom to explore any character concept I want equally and know that they will all fairly have a shot to shine in the story that the DM and players are working together. If I want to make a cleric of Fharlagin (sorry for spelling error) instead of a traditional Pelor healer, and try focusing on travel as opposed to healing, I should have the right to do that even if I don't know much about packing a knapsack for a journey. If I want to play an athletic barbarian that would rather scurry up a castle wall then raging and cleaving the guards out front, I should be able to move the plot even though I have no idea how to pick a foothold on a cliff face. Saying if I pick a cassenova charmer that I suddenly have to be romantic in first person limits my play options and character possibilities, and thus my enjoyment.

 

[Voadam]

Voadam, as long as you clearly state that from the start to your players, that's fine, as I said it's a preference and you're the DM. I simply would be swayed from playing in that game and contributing to your plot.

That's fine, I'm not trying to recruit you. I think our play style preferences and expectations might not be entirely compatible

If you expect me to role-play any attempt to lie, I'd want every person trying to fight an orc have to describe precisely how he's going to swing his enemies falchion out of the way with his shield and move in to slice their femeral artery. No, you can't actually kill an orc first-person to resolve the conflict, but the player should be required to demonstrate equal technical expertise that his fighter character has. Otherwise there should be no expectation for a deceitful character's player to be as technically skilled at lying as his character is. Equal effort for equal character results.

I think your wanting(demanding?) more combat description in a campaign like mine to counterbalance 1st person social interactions would be silly and appear merely petulant. Even describing combat in more detail, it is still 3rd person description and qualitatively different from 1st person social and mental situations where the character can be played in the 1st person.

My personal preference is for freedom to explore any character concept I want equally and know that they will all fairly have a shot to shine in the story that the DM and players are working together. If I want to make a cleric of Fharlagin (sorry for spelling error) instead of a traditional Pelor healer, and try focusing on travel as opposed to healing, I should have the right to do that even if I don't know much about packing a knapsack for a journey. If I want to play an athletic barbarian that would rather scurry up a castle wall then raging and cleaving the guards out front, I should be able to move the plot even though I have no idea how to pick a foothold on a cliff face. Saying if I pick a cassenova charmer that I suddenly have to be romantic in first person limits my play options and character possibilities, and thus my enjoyment.

I have no problem with any of your character concepts. Its only the expectation of social skill mechanics for the last concept that I'd have a problem with. Heck, any mechanical character can be any roleplay concept (such as your casanova, or a quiet loner, or an arrogant elitist, or a friendly laid back fellow, a restless wanderer, etc.). I just want my players to play out those concepts instead of in game merely tell me that is how their characters are.

 

[Woas]

I'm surprised to read that you all let the players roll and see the Bluff checks. Bluff... heck all the Charisma based skills, have always been hidden rolls made by the DM. Players never get to see the results.

So, to get back to the OP, I guess I use a "whoever gets around to doing one or the other first" method.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And Hypersmurf, if I wanted my character to be able to say what I can say, to have to "throw myself" at the actions my characters try and undertake, I'd be in a costume somewhere playing LARP, taking swordfighting lessons. Keep in mind there are Role- (not roll-) players out there that just happen not to be good actors, and we want equity in DMing with the munchkin combat fiends.

I think you misinterpreted my point.

If you roll a 22, and then give a performance that we'd all call an 11, I'm not going to adjudicate the result as an 11. I'll compare the guard's Sense Motive roll to the 22. But I'd hope that your 11 was an honest effort at portraying an excellent Bluff.

Likewise, if you roll a 7, and then give a performance that has me believing you're telling the truth, even though I know better... it's too bad, because the 7 isn't sufficient. And I'd be a little disappointed that you didn't take that 7 into account with your delivery.

I don't see it as any different to someone rolling a 4 for their Perform check, and describing it as 'a haunting melody more beautiful than anyone has ever heard'. The description doesn't match the mechanics. But you can't accurately describe the performance until you know the number on the die.

Likewise with Bluff or Diplomacy - you have nothing on which to base your delivery until you know how well it's expected to turn out.

The theatrics are isolated from the mechanics - the mechanics drive the result regardless of the theatrics - but the theatrics should attempt to portray the mechanics to the best of the players' abilities.

-Hyp.

 

[DamionW]

I think you misinterpreted my point.

If you roll a 22, and then give a performance that we'd all call an 11, I'm not going to adjudicate the result as an 11. I'll compare the guard's Sense Motive roll to the 22. But I'd hope that your 11 was an honest effort at portraying an excellent Bluff.

Likewise, if you roll a 7, and then give a performance that has me believing you're telling the truth, even though I know better... it's too bad, because the 7 isn't sufficient. And I'd be a little disappointed that you didn't take that 7 into account with your delivery.

I don't see it as any different to someone rolling a 4 for their Perform check, and describing it as 'a haunting melody more beautiful than anyone has ever heard'. The description doesn't match the mechanics. But you can't accurately describe the performance until you know the number on the die.

Likewise with Bluff or Diplomacy - you have nothing on which to base your delivery until you know how well it's expected to turn out.

The theatrics are isolated from the mechanics - the mechanics drive the result regardless of the theatrics - but the theatrics should attempt to portray the mechanics to the best of the players' abilities.

-Hyp.

Sorry for the misinterpretation. Your approach is valid, and I'd at least try and match my skill check, even if I'm not the best actor, as long as I knew the outcome was objectively, not subjectively decided. Objectivity is important to me from a DM.

 

[Silveras]

Why?

The modifier is to the Sense Motive roll, not to the Bluff roll. The player doesn't know the opponent's Sense Motive result anyway, so it shouldn't change their delivery at all. Their delivery should reflect the Bluff roll, not the Sense Motive roll.

A Bluff roll of 15 should result in the same performance from the PC whether the opponent's Sense Motive roll is 5, 15, or 25.

-Hyp.

Sorry, I was ambiguous; I meant that you have to define the Bluff before you can complete the adjudication. The order in which the Bluffer rolls and speaks does not matter, except that both must occur before the action can be resolved.

 

[Silveras]

If you have to FORCE your players to role play, why are you playing with them? A role player will role play without being forced. He or she will step up to the plate regardless of whether or not you are holding the proverbial gun to their head. That you feel that a DM has to force his players to role play says a lot more about your DMing style than anything.

On a side note, do you also penalize players for role playing beyond the ability of their character? Do I get minuses to my checks if I give a fantastic performance that my 9 int 8 cha barbarian couldn't possibly do?

Generally, I have found that people who want to role-play directly will do so if you give them the chance, and those who do not will only do so grudgingly if "forced" to. So I work with my players' preferences, and let the ones who want to "act" act, and the ones who want to "script" script. Either way, the dice determine their success or failure, but each group has the fun they enjoy.