Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9675830" data-attributes="member: 42582">Classic dungeon-crawling D&amp;D allows for rolls that don't &quot;move the narrative forward&quot;. For instance, the players are allowed to declare that their PCs look for secret doors, or look for traps; those declared actions are often resolved by rolling dice; and the answer is very commonly &quot;You don't find anything&quot; or &quot;Nothing happens&quot;.It can produce a degree of tedium or drag in play, but that's something that people who have signed on for that game have signed up for.Classic D&amp;D tries to solve this issue by either flat-out prohibiting re-rolls, or by putting a time-cost on rolls (mostly via wandering monster checks).These limits break down, as play approaches change, for at least two reasons: the prohibition of re-tries seems &quot;unrealistic&quot;, and so gets dropped; the fictional context moves out of the dungeon, and so wandering monster checks as the &quot;clock&quot; also seem unrealistic. In published versions of D&amp;D, 4e was the first version to set out to systematically solve this problem.I think the point of rolls in post-DL AD&amp;D, and in 3E D&amp;D, is often quite unclear. Rolls to hit, combined with rolls to damage, tend to resolve a (fairly narrow) intent - to defeat the opponent by fighting them. Some 3E rolls effectively reframe scenes - &quot;You see an empty room.&quot; &quot;I roll Perception.&quot; &lt;gets a high result&gt; &quot;OK, you see a room containing &lt;xyz&gt;&quot;; or, &quot;You meet some angry people.&quot; &quot;I roll Diplomacy.&quot; &lt;gets a high result&gt; &quot;OK, the people you've met are friendly now.&quot;And some rolls just seem to change the colour but little else: &quot;You're in a room.&quot; &quot;I climb the walls and hang from the ceiling.&quot; &lt;rolls high&gt; &quot;OK, you're in a room hanging from the ceiling.&quot;4e D&amp;D was pretty clear about the point of rolls, but that generated a lot of controversy!This was discussed way up thread. As I posted then, it is a rule for GM-centred play: the GM decides whether or not a declared action is apt to have consequences, and on that basis calls for a roll, or doesn't.An alternative approach is to use a different heuristic for determining whether or not to call for a roll (eg the AW heuristic of &quot;if you do it, you do it&quot; applied to well-defined player-side &quot;moves&quot;; or the DitV/Burning Wheel heuristic of looking to stakes/intent to determine whether to roll the dice or say &quot;yes&quot;). Then, when a roll is called for, that determines that there will be consequences.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9675830, member: 42582"] Classic dungeon-crawling D&D allows for rolls that don't "move the narrative forward". For instance, the players are allowed to declare that their PCs look for secret doors, or look for traps; those declared actions are often resolved by rolling dice; and the answer is very commonly "You don't find anything" or "Nothing happens". It can produce a degree of tedium or drag in play, but that's something that people who have signed on for that game have signed up for. Classic D&D tries to solve this issue by either flat-out prohibiting re-rolls, or by putting a time-cost on rolls (mostly via wandering monster checks). These limits break down, as play approaches change, for at least two reasons: the prohibition of re-tries seems "unrealistic", and so gets dropped; the fictional context moves out of the dungeon, and so wandering monster checks as the "clock" also seem unrealistic. In published versions of D&D, 4e was the first version to set out to systematically solve this problem. I think the point of rolls in post-DL AD&D, and in 3E D&D, is often quite unclear. Rolls to hit, combined with rolls to damage, tend to resolve a (fairly narrow) intent - to defeat the opponent by fighting them. Some 3E rolls effectively reframe scenes - "You see an empty room." "I roll Perception." <gets a high result> "OK, you see a room containing <xyz>"; or, "You meet some angry people." "I roll Diplomacy." <gets a high result> "OK, the people you've met are friendly now." And some rolls just seem to change the colour but little else: "You're in a room." "I climb the walls and hang from the ceiling." <rolls high> "OK, you're in a room hanging from the ceiling." 4e D&D was pretty clear about the point of rolls, but that generated a lot of controversy! This was discussed way up thread. As I posted then, it is a rule for GM-centred play: the GM decides whether or not a declared action is apt to have consequences, and on that basis calls for a roll, or doesn't. An alternative approach is to use a different heuristic for determining whether or not to call for a roll (eg the AW heuristic of "if you do it, you do it" applied to well-defined player-side "moves"; or the DitV/Burning Wheel heuristic of looking to stakes/intent to determine whether to roll the dice or say "yes"). Then, when a roll is called for, that determines that there will be consequences. [/QUOTE]

Verification