Roll for Effect or Intent?

[Micah Sweet]

Note: Poll for entertainment and research purposes only.

Roll for Effect [Task Oriented Rolls]: The roll is made to determine if the task the character is trying to accomplish is successful.
Roll for Intent [Goal Oriented Rolls]: The roll is made to determine if the goal the character is tying to accomplish is successful.

Example Scenario A: The PC wants to sneak into a walled compound, break into a locked office, and steal documents containing compromising information they can use to blackmail a rival NPC.
Roll for Effect: The player rolls to determine if the PC can scale the wall to enter the compound. The player then rolls to determine if the PC can pick the lock on the office door so they can get inside. The player then rolls to see if the PC can find documents containing compromising information.
Roll for Intent: The player rolls to determine if the PC successfully blackmails the NPC.

Example Scenario B: The PC wants to decipher an ancient scroll to gain access to a ritual that will banish a Demon.
Roll for Effect: The player rolls to determine if the PC can decipher the text on the scroll. The player then rolls to determine if the PC has the knowledge/skill to perform the ritual. The player then rolls to determine if the PC performs the ritual correctly.
Roll for Intent: The player rolls to determine if the PC banishes the Demon.

Example Scenario C: The PC wants to gain an audience with the king so they ask the king to send troops to the border to help defend against an invading army.
Roll for Effect: The player rolls to determine if the PC can gain an audience with the king. The player then rolls to determine if the PC can convince the king to send troops to the border. The player then rolls to determine if the PC can effectively command the troops in battle.
Roll for Intent: The player rolls to determine if PC successfully defends the kingdom from the invading army.

So, while I understand the "Roll for Intent" in principle, I have trouble translating that to what is supposed to happen at the table. I am not sure how to implement "goal oriented rolls" in play. So for anyone who voted for "Roll for Intent" (or who didn't but understands and has utilized it) how do you do it?

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]

IMO, roll for intent is far too abstract to ever pass my setting logic test in your examples.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

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.

I just wanted to point out that people use single persuasion rolls to do improbably things that should take time and discussion.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I just wanted to point out that people use single persuasion rolls to do improbably things that should take time and discussion.

Do they though? Have you ever actually seen it happen in the wild? Because I haven't ever seen that, despite having seen "asked to roll 6+ times for a single activity" many times. I've seen players ask to roll to do improbable things, usually jokingly, but the whole job of a DM is to determine what's possible, and not everything can be just rolled for.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Do they though? Have you ever actually seen it happen in the wild? Because I haven't ever seen that, despite having seen "asked to roll 6+ times for a single activity" many times. I've seen players ask to roll to do improbable things, usually jokingly, but the whole job of a DM is to determine what's possible, and not everything can be just rolled for.

I literally have as a player witnessed this. Someone with super high Diplomacy walking all over social encounters because the DM allowed it. As a DM, I have also had players (actually the same player) try to convince me they should be able to do it also. (I don’t play with that group anymore)


On your note, I have experienced the “make 6 successful rolls or suffer failure/complications”. Mostly from one DM I play with.

 

[FrogReaver]

This alone is why I am confused how to use the "roll for intent" thing. On a different forum I was alerted to the fact that my OP terms are wrong, that the rolling dichotomy is usually framed as Task Resolution vs Conflict Resolution. With Task the moments in the narrative where interruption should occur for a roll seem intuitive. With Conflict I am at a loss as to where the interruption should occur.

IMO it’s a stupid dichotomy that elides what’s actually happening.

The way it works is that resolution type One has fiction hidden from the players, a priority for generating very plausible outcomes, and a set of skills (usually fairly granular) such that when the players roll a skill there can be a granular success that due to the fiction hidden from the players and the space of very plausible outcomes may not result in the player achieving their intent. With perfect information they wouldn’t ever use a skill that couldn’t do what they intended! Note players here typically learn what skills can do and then limit their intents to that learned reality.

For Resolution type 2 a success will guarantee the intent (there’s often partial success or success with complication as alternate results). Usually this occurs because there’s less granular skills, a less strict standard of anything plausible can occur and very little if any information hidden from the players. As such fiction aligning with the intent can easily be achieved while meeting all other play principles.

Both techniques suffer from when to call for a check. Usually type ones fail state is calling for too many granular rolls and type 2’s is allowing single rolls for major world changing intents.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I literally have as a player witnessed this. Someone with super high Diplomacy walking all over social encounters because the DM allowed it.

I know this is annoying, but sorry that's not the same thing as what you said!

"Walking over social encounters" is not the same thing as "asking the king for the kingdom, being assigned a DC, and beating that DC, and then the kingdom is just handed over".

Also, if their Diplomacy was "super-high" it's quite unlikely multiple rolls would have fixed the problem. The problem was that the DM was just relying on a bunch of Diplomacy rolls, to resolve what was presumably huge, risky stuff? What would have happened if he failed lol? Sounds like the DM was maybe counting on him succeeding so he could skip dealing with stuff lol.

As a DM, I have also had players (actually the same player) try to convince me they should be able to do it also.

I've never had anyone try and convince me re: ridiculous one-rolls, so that is different. I just gave them The Look when they suggested it lol. That sounds annoying though!

This look:

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I know this is annoying, but sorry that's not the same thing as what you said!

"Walking over social encounters" is not the same thing as "asking the king for the kingdom, being assigned a DC, and beating that DC, and then the kingdom is just handed over".

Also, if their Diplomacy was "super-high" it's quite unlikely multiple rolls would have fixed the problem. The problem was that the DM was just relying on a bunch of Diplomacy rolls, to resolve what was presumably huge, risky stuff? What would have happened if he failed lol? Sounds like the DM was maybe counting on him succeeding so he could skip …

I mean, I tried to explain to you what I was intending to say. Like, I literally said I was using the example as an over exaggeration and, obviously, to you, it did not have the intended point I was trying to convey. I’m not really interested in turning it into a side conversation.