Roll for Effect or Intent?

[Reynard]

?

In this example, you say the player would say "But I wouldn't do that..." (regarding the "You spend a few days roughing up suspects..."

My point is, I would ask them how they want to get the names of people involved. If they say, "we go around roughing people up', then obviously, I haven't taken away their agency.

If they say, "I go around carousing and buying people drinks" then that's obviously what they did. The complications for failure will be different from the two.


I don't see how this particular comment had anything to do with my original statement. so maybe there was a misunderstanding.

In any case,

Picking the lock is a single action. Roughing up locals takes all night and is an extended action towards a goal. The complications of failure (and success) are different.

Edited final comment

They aren't different in kind, is my point.

Like I said, I don't think I have ever seen "roll for intent" in practical use, except maybe in the most writers-room-like of narrative systems.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

They aren't different in kind, is my point.

Like I said, I don't think I have ever seen "roll for intent" in practical use, except maybe in the most writers-room-like of narrative systems.

I semi-agree. To me "goal or intent" rolls seem to fit extended tests.

I would never say, "Make a roll and if you succeed you blackmail the Baron" (as described in the OP)

If I'm not going to make it an entire adventure, I'd have several rolls towards specific goals over time.

Player: I want to find info on him, get it and blackmail him so that he lets us in to the party to meet the king.

The goal: to get into the party to meet the king
The method: blackmail
Sub-goals:
1. find incriminating info: investigation or Persuasion/Intimidation defined by player's preferred method
2. Acquire incriminating info: Sneak(to burgle it), Slight of hand(to pick it off someone or open a safe) Persuasion (maybe bribing someone close) or some other skill defined by the player's preferred method
3. Blackmail the Baron: Intimidate

Each step is several days or weeks of work.
Each step would have its own complications.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

My biggest issue is when to call for roll(s). Do you...
A) Call for the roll at the beginning of the scene, then have the result determine how to narrate the events of the scene?
B) Begin describing the scene, pause during a "tense" moment to roll, then finish the narration based on the result of the roll?
C) Narrate the events of the scene, then roll at the end to determine if the goal is ,in fact, accomplished?
D) Something else? (please explain)

Thanks for participating!

[Edit: changed example A roll for intent end goal]

A) Define the task, method and time required
B) Let time pass
C) Roll
D) Describe success or failure based on the task and method the players defined. Introduce complications.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I am not sure I have ever encountered a "roll for intent" game, at least not one that doesn't want a fairly detailed explanation of action.

I don't think you always need a detailed explanation of action, but you do likely need some kind of vague explanation of action to avoid the "I wouldn't do that" issues noted.

I can't think of a game that does it as the OP describes either.

But one-roll isn't uncommon and kind of similar, especially with games where the PC is doing something complex that the player does not necessarily actually know how to do. Like, maybe in Exalted you need to roll to successfully carry out some kind of religious ceremony - the player and hell the Storyteller probably don't know the exact components of the ceremony, which may take hours, so it makes sense to resolve it with what is essentially the "intent" - i.e. to perform the ceremony successfully and correctly.

I will say I find breaking down basically singular activities into a multitude of rolls pretty loathsome in any system, and when I've seen that done it's usually a sign of either a proscriptive and clunky system, a DM who just doesn't really know what he's doing, or worse a DM who doesn't want the PCs to succeed at something, but isn't willing to just come out and talk to the players about it. It's worst in systems which are binary pass/fail and where the PCs don't ever gain resources from rolls, only potentially lose them or have to pay out to prevent bad outcomes. There are times it makes sense, but not quite as often as it seems to happen, in my experience.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I would never say, "Make a roll and if you succeed you blackmail the Baron" (as described in the OP)

I could see having that be a roll, but it'd have to be a very, very "zoomed out" game in terms of time and what was going on. Like if the PCs were say, a cabal of (evil?) wizards manipulating a kingdom, and an action could be something that took months, "roll to blackmail the baron" might well make sense.

But that's a pretty specialized setup.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I could see having that be a roll, but it'd have to be a very, very "zoomed out" game in terms of time and what was going on. Like if the PCs were say, a cabal of (evil?) wizards manipulating a kingdom, and an action could be something that took months, "roll to blackmail the baron" might well make sense.

But that's a pretty specialized setup.

True. Like Rogue Trader where your actions affect whole planets.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I don't think you always need a detailed explanation of action, but you do likely need some kind of vague explanation of action to avoid the "I wouldn't do that" issues noted.

I can't think of a game that does it as the OP describes either.

But one-roll isn't uncommon and kind of similar, especially with games where the PC is doing something complex that the player does not necessarily actually know how to do. Like, maybe in Exalted you need to roll to successfully carry out some kind of religious ceremony - the player and hell the Storyteller probably don't know the exact components of the ceremony, which may take hours, so it makes sense to resolve it with what is essentially the "intent" - i.e. to perform the ceremony successfully and correctly.

I think a lot of people do the one roll for social encounters.

I see social encounters needing multiple rolls as people talk back and forth. But many DMs will rule, “make a persuasion check to get the bandits to let you pass”

Which might be appropriate but the other end of the spectrum is the age old,

“Make a persuasion check and the king gives you his kingdom”

 

[Ruin Explorer]

True. Like Rogue Trader where your actions affect whole planets.

Ooooh good example! Yes that.

I see social encounters needing multiple rolls as people talk back and forth.

The trouble with that is, unless the DM is unusually reasonable and realistic, this often turns into an exercise of "roll until you fail" (in binary pass/fail systems). Like, it's one thing to assign a roll to a whole attempt to do a certain, important, meaningful, consequential thing, like argue a local lord into giving the party a special permit to do something normally illegal, like visit the Shrine of a Thousand Dark Sages, but to separate out a check for also making him pay you double to take down the bandit lord who dwells nearby. That's fine. It's quite another when - and I've seen this many times IRL, especially back in 3E, so this is not at all theoretical - the DM is basically calling for a roll every single time anyone suggests anything at all or even says anything. Diplomacy check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check oh you failed well the conversation is over and you don't get what you want even though you succeeded on like 10 bloody rolls in a row which should be worth something! We nearly had a revolt in a 5E session where the DM was doing that (and even forgetting in 5E it's called Persuasion). Eventually we had to stop him when he called for a roll when a PC hadn't even arguably tried to ask the NPC for anything or convince him of anything, and be like "What are you having us roll for here, exactly?"! He didn't really know lol. But after that he got a lot better at only calling for rolls then there was actually something with consequences and where it made sense.

Which might be appropriate but the other end of the spectrum is the age old,

“Make a persuasion check and the king gives you his kingdom”

It's not the "other end" though. That's just a nonsense-thing people made up, that's never actually happened in a game not populated solely by 14 year olds goofing around, or perhaps by a player essentially being very mean to an insanely naive DM who never actually read the rules and who doesn't realize that you can't just mindlessly assign a DC to everything (which also probably means 14 year olds).

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

The trouble with that is, unless the DM is unusually reasonable and realistic, this often turns into an exercise of "roll until you fail" (in binary pass/fail systems). Like, it's one thing to assign a roll to a whole attempt to do a certain, important, meaningful, consequential thing, like argue a local lord into giving the party a special permit to do something normally illegal, like visit the Shrine of a Thousand Dark Sages, but to separate out a check for also making him pay you double to take down the bandit lord who dwells nearby. That's fine. It's quite another when - and I've seen this many times IRL, especially back in 3E, so this is not at all theoretical - the DM is basically calling for a roll every single time anyone suggests anything at all or even says anything. Diplomacy check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check, Diplomacy Check oh you failed well the conversation is over and you don't get what you want even though you succeeded on like 10 bloody rolls in a row which should be worth something! We nearly had a revolt in a 5E session where the DM was doing that (and even forgetting in 5E it's called Persuasion). Eventually we had to stop him when he called for a roll when a PC hadn't even arguably tried to ask the NPC for anything or convince him of anything, and be like "What are you having us roll for here, exactly?"! He didn't really know lol. But after that he got a lot better at only calling for rolls then there was actually something with consequences and where it made sense.

Yeah, but that's not really the way to do it. Usually the conversation should adjust the difficulty a bit. Or be limited to a couple of rolls - maybe each successful one changing the person's reaction score for the better. Obviously, people have goals and desires. If the PCs can meet any of those, a roll isn't even necessary. It's when compromise is needed that you might need a roll.

It's not the "other end" though. That's just a nonsense-thing people made up, that's never actually happened in a game not populated solely by 14 year olds goofing around, or perhaps by a player essentially being very mean to an insanely naive DM who never actually read the rules and who doesn't realize that you can't just mindlessly assign a DC to everything (which also probably means 14 year olds).

I was using it as a point, not being literal.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I was using it as a point, not being literal.

I'm not sure what point it makes though? I don't understand what you were trying to say with it, but it's usually brought up as this weird canard against resolving stuff with a single roll. Your previous example of a single social roll resolution seemed very reasonable (i.e. negotiation for passage with a bandit). I don't think this is the "other end" of that any more than the "other end" of rolling to haggle a merchant down by 10% is rolling to make that merchant give you his shop, his house, his family and all his worldly possessions for free lol.