When should you roll the dice?

SteveC

Doing the best imitation of myself
Hi everyone! I have been working on a little project in my spare time addressing some of the very basic issues involved with D&D/D20. I've found that a lot of D20/OGL products just use the very basic information in the SRD to talk about when and how to roll dice and make checks. One of the first topics I'm tackling is how and when to roll the dice. I'd appreciate any comments you might have. Specifically, what do you think of the "three tests" I've outlined, and would you propose any changes or alternatives to them?

Here you go:
SteveC said:
There is no result on a check that is a guaranteed success, and also none that is an automatic failure, but the GM may still judge some actions as a “sure thing” or an “impossible task.” These actions will automatically succeed or fail without any die rolls.

When to Roll the Dice
This leads to a very important question: when should you roll a check, and why? There is no perfect answer to this question, since it depends on the kind of game that you’re playing. For our purposes, we will use three general guidelines. It is the job of the GM to use these guidelines, as well as his own judgment, to determine whether an action requires a roll of the dice. As a suggestion, if you can answer “yes” to two or more of the following three questions, you should roll the dice:

Is the check interesting?
Roll the dice when the check will make the game session more interesting. Checks can result in a wide variety of results, from tremendous success to crushing failure. Does the possibility of these results and the tension it creates make the game more interesting? If so, make the check. If no one at the table cares about the result of the check, don’t bother making it. As a GM, you may need to narrate either a spectacular success or a horrible failure with any roll of the dice. Can you do that? If not, it’s probably best not to roll for it.

Is the check important?
Do the results of the check significantly affect the action? Is there something at stake that really matters to the game? If so, make a check. If not, don’t waste the time. As a specific example: if a player specifically requests a die roll to be made, it is something that is important to them, and so should be considered an important check. Further, players tell the GM what kind of checks they want to make by the skills they learn. A player who spends many points developing skill in Profession: cooking is saying they want the opportunity to use and test that ability—that it’s important to them, in effect.

Can you abide by the results?
Finally, once you roll the dice, you’re opening up the possibility for any kind of result. The GM needs to ask himself if he’s ready for that possibility. Sometimes the outcome of an entire evening’s play, or even an entire campaign hinges on one action. Are you prepared to roll the dice and accept the results? If so, make the roll. If not, resolve the action some other way.

If You’re Not Rolling the Dice
Any time the GM decides not to roll the dice for an action, it still has to be adjudicated in some fashion. As a general rule, if the GM is not rolling for a check, and this is not simply because the action is impossible, the character should succeed. Any time the GM feels otherwise, it is likely a situation where at least one of the questions: “is the check important,” can be answered with a “yes,” and so the GM should strongly consider rolling for it. Deciding how to handle this kind of a situation requires discussion between the GM and the players, so that everyone is on the same page concerning how the game will be played. Once again, there isn’t a right or wrong answer for how to handle this situation, just an answer that will satisfy you and your group.
Comments are welcome!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I was just about to start a new topic, but this one is pretty close.

Sometimes, the GM has to roll multiple dice. For instance, the players are trying to being followed by several hidden NPCs, or an NPC is trying to bluff multiple party members. In these cases, the GM is supposed to roll dice secretly - Spot checks for players in the first case, and Sense Motive in the second case.

Even if the GM has the players' skill values listed in front of him, rolling all those dice causes tension, and even using cards or other silent methods takes time.
 

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
I was just about to start a new topic, but this one is pretty close.

Sometimes, the GM has to roll multiple dice. For instance, the players are trying to being followed by several hidden NPCs, or an NPC is trying to bluff multiple party members. In these cases, the GM is supposed to roll dice secretly - Spot checks for players in the first case, and Sense Motive in the second case.

Even if the GM has the players' skill values listed in front of him, rolling all those dice causes tension, and even using cards or other silent methods takes time.
These are some good questions. Rolling checks secretly does create tension, but I also think it can be perceived as removing player "control" over events. I've also seen this as an opportunity for GMs to fudge results a lot, and that tends to annoy players to no end. Still, if you roll everything out in the open, you also have a problem of alerting everyone to the fact that something's going on when they shouldn't have a clue. I have used the technique of rolling for spot/sense motive checks when there is no threat or attempt to deceive going on before, but the longer I game, the more I think it's best to just get these things out in the open by discussing them openly.

If the players are comfortable with it, I would have them make spot rolls in the first case, against a standard DC...having the bad guys all take 10. Depending on how the rolls ended up, I'd just let them set themselves up as either knowing or not knowing there was an attack coming.

In the second case, I usually assume the player is taking 10 with their sense motive all the time, and give them a roll when they ask for it. If I'm trying to be deceptive, I'll have the bad guy roll his bluff against either TN. If the players start to ask for a roll all the time, I just switch to a take 10 for the bad guy all the time instead. It works out the same.

For me, it's all about what the players want and expect out of a game, and how "mature" they're willing to be about the roleplaying. I put mature in quotes, since I don't think that's necessarily the right word, but it's the best I've got for it. What I mean is how willing they are to roleplay failing at something.
 

Ah, I love creating tension, also when they go off on rants about something not about the game a few clattering dice helps drag their attention back. :cool:

Usually I'll make all the rolls that they don't know the immediate result of. I know they can role-play the failure but it tips them off and there are usually some "O, NO! I failed a spot check!"

Of course sometimes I just resolve things in a way that betters the campain and insures allaround fun
 

SteveC said:
Still, if you roll everything out in the open, you also have a problem of alerting everyone to the fact that something's going on when they shouldn't have a clue.

Everyone, wait! I think I just failed a spot check...
 

Remove ads

Top