Roll for Effect or Intent?

[overgeeked]

No, I'm saying the player's decision making being the most significant factor in whether or not they achieve their goals is definitional to agency.

Sorry. Maybe it's a communication problem. Some of these phrases clearly mean something to you but have no inherent meaning to me.

"I pick the lock."

"Roll for it."

Does the presence of the roll negate the agency here? How do you determine which step, the decision or the roll, is the "most significant factor" in this process?

I get the argument about the referee being a jerk and asking for a dozen rolls to pick one lock, yeah, that's absolutely negating agency. I'm trying to find the line on this. Does one roll negate the player's agency, two, three? At what point does the roll become more significant than the decision?

 

[Pedantic]

Sorry. Maybe it's a communication problem. Some of these phrases clearly mean something to you but have no inherent meaning to me.

"I pick the lock."

"Roll for it."

Does the presence of the roll negate the agency here? How do you determine which step, the decision or the roll, is the "most significant factor" in this process?

I get the argument about the referee being a jerk and asking for a dozen rolls to pick one lock, yeah, that's absolutely negating agency. I'm trying to find the line on this. Does one roll negate the player's agency, two, three? At what point does the roll become more significant than the decision?

I'm not sure this can matter at the level of an individual action declaration, it's probably easier to zoom out to "get into the locked vault" as an objective. There should be a meaningful difference between "I bribe the guard," "I impersonate the bank manager," "I smash any door in my way" and "I sneak and pick any locks I run across."

A player should be able to make a decision about which of those strategies will be most effective and articulate a theory of that case that is supported mechanically. For example, one failure case: if those routes have about the same number of rolls and each roll has about a 50% chance of failure, then the player didn't actually express any agency in choosing them, the dice had more impact on what happens than the player's decision making.

 

[Koloth]

I’ve had both as well. Weirdly from the same person. As a referee he requires multiple rolls to do most things but when he’s a player it’s “but one roll should be enough.”

The single roll solving social interactions is the common approach in 5E. Last I checked that’s how you’re told to do it in the DMG.

When I ran 5E the players were almost universally confused by the idea of rolling more than once for anything outside of combat.

Funny how players and GMs readily accept the many rolls for combat but only one for everything else. Almost like anything but combat is an obstacle to the next combat. I see nothing wrong with needing multiple rolls to fully succeed at a complex negotiation. But a bad roll shouldn't kill the negotiation. It just represents the NPC side getting a concession. A success roll is the PC side getting something. A normal combat will have several miss rolls by the PC side, even if the PCs win. A complex negotiation is the same. Maybe the treaty has 10 major points. So 10 rolls, one for each point. At the end, you might wind up with a 10 point treaty that has 7 points in the PCs favor and 3 in the NPCs favor. Could still be an overall success for the PCs.

Imagine if combat was resolved with one roll. "You throw open the door and there is the dragon! Make a combat roll." <a player rolls>. "Oh too bad, you lost. Better luck next time..."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Funny how players and GMs readily accept the many rolls for combat but only one for everything else. Almost like anything but combat is an obstacle to the next combat. I see nothing wrong with needing multiple rolls to fully succeed at a complex negotiation. But a bad roll shouldn't kill the negotiation. It just represents the NPC side getting a concession. A success roll is the PC side getting something. A normal combat will have several miss rolls by the PC side, even if the PCs win. A complex negotiation is the same. Maybe the treaty has 10 major points. So 10 rolls, one for each point. At the end, you might wind up with a 10 point treaty that has 7 points in the PCs favor and 3 in the NPCs favor. Could still be an overall success for the PCs.

Imagine if combat was resolved with one roll. "You throw open the door and there is the dragon! Make a combat roll." <a player rolls>. "Oh too bad, you lost. Better luck next time..."

There are some great social combat rules in the new A5e supplement Martial Artistry, by our very own @Steampunkette ! Dropped them right into my compilation document as soon as I saw them.

 

[overgeeked]

I'm not sure this can matter at the level of an individual action declaration, it's probably easier to zoom out to "get into the locked vault" as an objective. There should be a meaningful difference between "I bribe the guard," "I impersonate the bank manager," "I smash any door in my way" and "I sneak and pick any locks I run across."

Absolutely. Different skills used, different bonuses/penalties, different TNs, different number of checks, etc. The player should be able to choose different routes and they should be meaningfully different in both story and mechanics. Agreed.

A player should be able to make a decision about which of those strategies will be most effective and articulate a theory of that case that is supported mechanically.

This quoted bit seems to suggest the player’s choice will determine which route will be easiest. If that is part of what you’re saying, I disagree.

For example, one failure case: if those routes have about the same number of rolls and each roll has about a 50% chance of failure, then the player didn't actually express any agency in choosing them, the dice had more impact on what happens than the player's decision making.

Right. If every choice is effectively identical, there’s no meaningful choice.

Thank for the patience. I must be running on less sleep than I thought.

 

[overgeeked]

Funny how players and GMs readily accept the many rolls for combat but only one for everything else. Almost like anything but combat is an obstacle to the next combat. I see nothing wrong with needing multiple rolls to fully succeed at a complex negotiation. But a bad roll shouldn't kill the negotiation. It just represents the NPC side getting a concession. A success roll is the PC side getting something. A normal combat will have several miss rolls by the PC side, even if the PCs win. A complex negotiation is the same. Maybe the treaty has 10 major points. So 10 rolls, one for each point. At the end, you might wind up with a 10 point treaty that has 7 points in the PCs favor and 3 in the NPCs favor. Could still be an overall success for the PCs.

Yeah. I absolutely love clocks and timers and countdowns, etc. The montage and negotiation rules from Draw Steel look fantastic. I will be stealing those.

Imagine if combat was resolved with one roll. "You throw open the door and there is the dragon! Make a combat roll." <a player rolls>. "Oh too bad, you lost. Better luck next time..."

I’d prefer that, honestly. Or something like 2-3 rounds of everyone rolling for attacks and casting spells, then count up the successes vs failures and be done with it.

That’s one reason I love goals for enemies and morale. Once the goal is achieved or impossible they beat feet. If too many die before either, they surrender or run.

 

[Pedantic]

This quoted bit seems to suggest the player’s choice will determine which route will be easiest. If that is part of what you’re saying, I disagree.

Yeah, I'm not saying the player's should determine which strategy is best, I'm saying there needs to be multiple strategies a player can discriminate between.

And that can be undermined in a few different ways: if the approach does not influence resolution, if there's no advantage to any approach, or if the difference is muted by too many rolls or too low a variance of success chance on those rolls.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Imagine if combat was resolved with one roll. "You throw open the door and there is the dragon! Make a combat roll." <a player rolls>. "Oh too bad, you lost. Better luck next time..."

I have at least one system that has the "one roll combat" option, in a addition to two other more complex systems. One that needs a few rolls to adjudicate, and one that is highly structured and complicated and features alot of rolls.

 

[Steampunkette]

There are some great social combat rules in the new A5e supplement Martial Artistry, by our very own @Steampunkette ! Dropped them right into my compilation document as soon as I saw them.

Combine that with Journeys and my Delving Activities and you've got the makings of a 3-Pillar system!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Combine that with Journeys and my Delving Activities and you've got the makings of a 3-Pillar system!

The Delving rules went into my doc as well. You've really produced some great stuff!