[DM Question] Roll-Play or Role-Play

[Fenes]

I hate puzzles, riddles, etc. A game I can't skip that stuff by making Int rolls is a game I don't play.

A game where people are expected to play themselves, and social skills are not used is a game I am not playing.

I call a game where I use my own mind to solve puzzles and talk my way past guards "roll playing", since I am not playing a role, I am playing myself, and apparently only rolling in combat.

Maybe one could skip rolling in combat as well, and just beat up the DM to see if one wins?

 

[Ginnel]

Jumping through a 1st story window, shouldn't be a problem, but wait a minute is it a chase are you trying to sneak out? in those situations I'd probably want a stealth roll or an athletics roll to get out, otherwise rolling the mundane is just well, dull.

On the other topic of discourse, what I would do for a character playing a high int/wis character trying to figure out a puzzle would be to give clues as a bonus for him playing that type of character, same with diplomacy

player: I want to diplomacize this merchant into giving us cheaper stuff!

DM: Woah slow down sparky, how are you going to do this and do you have the diplomacy skill?

player: umm yeah I have the skill trained and a charisma bonus but I was just going to talk him into selling stuff for less.

DM: Ok from looking the guy up and down as well as his merchandise it looks like the merchant is mainly into the grain trade, isn't it handy you took down those orcs burning down farms the other week.

Option 1 player:Umm can I just talk at him still I'll roll my skill
(DM silently sighs and asks the player to roll the skill with a modifier of at least -5 at least)

Option 2 player: Well fine merchant do you happen to know we're the heroes who took down that recent orc incurrsion.....yadda....yadda yadda
(player auto succeeds for 5% discount, if player rolls higher he gets more discount)

So yeah non talky people or non problem solving people can play characters who are talky and who are capable problem solvers, I'll give them a few hints for it, if they still don't get it well they can still succeed but it will take a big role. In applying this to a puzzle I would give out the hint, and then the player could let out his insight to the rest of the party if he wanted to so a joint effort could solve it, thus confirming his role as a good problem solver.

Another method is using everyone in the group as a problem solver and that all the players consulting out of character represents the collective intelligence of the party, but this breaks the old immersion factor

 

[AtomicPope]

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.

Agree.

There are a number of things that do NOT require rolling, basically anything that will detract from the session. This whole "you didn't say you tied the horses up" asshattery casts a poor light on RPG's. Even if the PC's didn't tie up the horses, unless their horses could turn invisible and silently move away they'd see them trotting off. Funny that those types of DM's demand players tell them everything but can't give the players any necessary details.

 

[Mort]

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.

In a game with stats and skills that model the alternate reality this answer is not acceptable to me: the player is not the character.

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.

You do realize the "low cha" character is essentially cheating by shorting cha in favor of other things - or at the very least unfairly min-maxing.

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.

So his characters are, essentially idiot savants.

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.

Why does all input have to be "in game?" nothing wrong with helping new players adjust in and out of game.


Let me ask a question (not meant to be snarky though it will come off this way). If the player and the character are interchangeable mentally why not physically? Can you imagine the following:

DM: Ok Bob, Tungar is stuck behind the cell, what do you do?

Bob: Well, I have a 20 str and this here belt of titan strength, I'm going to bend these bars like noodles.

DM: Ok bob, here's an iron bar - depending on how well you bend it is how well korgoth will bend the cell bars.

Bob: ?#@?!!!

Sounds silly - but isn't it the same thing? Before the cries of "but this is a roleplaying game!" begin - why not let people "roleplay" characters smarter, more charismatic and just plain better mentally as well as physically.

[edit: to take out quickly typed name that may have been taken as an insult.]

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Wow, it almost sounds like different people seem to have different things they want and expect out of roleplaying games.

 

[Roger_the_jolly]

The object of the game is fun for all - the DM and the players.
All other objectives are secondary and every grouping of DM and Players has it's own dynamics, so there is no straight cut answer.

Like many have stated above I believe that you should only roll when the outcome means something and the situation is difficult for some reason (time limit, area conditions, hostile creatures etc.)
On the other hand, If there are several possible outcomes and only one is fun and the rest are boring / game killers or just plain lead to an endless rule debate, then I just prefer to rule as DM with regard to what happen (eg. change the DC or give bonuses) and carry on with the fun.

It is not a matter of who is right (though some players and DM will always think that) or what is right (same here) - only a question of what is fun and will keep you (the DM) and the players in good cheer and coming for more.

The answer to that is unique to each group of players and DM - some love high details and many rolls, some love high details and no rolls etc. etc.

To be a good DM in my opinion is first to be lucky enough to find a group of players who share a taste for a kind of game you like as well - from there on everything gets alot easier as you will feel at home with the group, the atmosphere will be good and input and advice will come from both sides of the DM screen.

 

[buzz]

Probably 99% of the games I have played in were RPGA games.

This is probably the root of your issue.

Is this characteristic of how you play your home games?

We pretty much play by the rules, as we would any other game. With D&D, that pretty much means you roll when trying to leap a gap of 5' or more or jumping from heights of 10' or more when the PCs are in a time-pressure situation, like combat. If there is no time pressure, we use Take 10.

Ditto influencing NPCs, though the time-pressure issue is not applicable, as per the rules. Of course, you don't use these rules every time the PC opens their mouth, just as you wouldn't bust out full combat rules for a PC who was, say, doing target practice during downtime.*

If you are not interested in this sort of play, e.g., you only want to deal with dice when there's conflict (in a story sense) or you don't want to deal with dice at all, I'd suggest playing something other than D&D. There are a lot of RPGs out there that either a) provide rules designed to be ignored in favor of what most people call "roleplay", or b) provide rules that resolve conflicts in a non-tactical sense.

Aside: I'm with jdrakeh in finding the "roll"/"role" distinction utterly bogus. The terminology alone makes me twitch. Playing a roleplaying game means that you are, by definition, roleplaying.


* One of the nice side-effects of 4e is the idea of encounters vs non-encounters. "Encounter" basically becomes synonymous with "important scene where dice will get used." Thus, you can clearly indicate what scenes "matter." Shopping for common supplies is likely not an encounter, ergo, there's no reason to make players roll for anything. Convincing a dragon to join you in a battle against a barbarian horde is likely an encounter, so you should expect some dice-rolling.

 

[Agamon]

I make a Debate roll to refute your arguments!

LOL, wow, I gotta remember that one...

Anyway, easy, everyday stuff does not require a roll when I DM. No need to bog down play with unnecessary die rolling.

 

[WayneLigon]

They just suddenly vanished because they weren't tied up.

A similar situation led to the only time I've point-blank told a GM 'No, it didn't happen that way. Our PC's are not morons and if you keep insisting that we are, all of us are leaving this very second'. We were able to sit him down and describe why such situations do not in fact create storylines or drama and how they were exactly not like plot twists in a movie, but were in fact just a big PITA.