Stop rolling dice and play the game.

[Quertus]

Details, names, whatever? Sure. I get that. That's pretty damn normal.

But *why you're there*??? That strikes me as strange.

It might be normal, I guess, if it's a more railroady campaign with "roleplay" scenes between fights. But I typically play games where the players are enacting *their* plans, not being told to go from Quest NPC to Quest NPC. So in that view, I really can't see how the players wouldn't know what they're there for. Because what they're there for is *their plan*, not "the thing Quest NPC 128 told them three weeks ago."

Because, yeah, I can totally see players not caring about that.



See above. When I play, the "plot" isn't "the cutscenes that happen between fights." It's *the game*. SO not even knowing why you're there is kind of strange.

I mean, if the reason they're there is "Sergeant Bob told them to go and tell the king that the flooflewaffles have deployed the snigglefurg, and the wobblewats may fall, so that the king will consult with the wiggywats and get them to yargleklum the zizzlemats", then... yeah. They won't care. It's not their plan, they're not invested in it. So, if that's the case, then yeah, expecting them to remember that trivia is pointless. I wouldn't expect them to care about anything but the die roll, because that's the only real agency they have.

I'm more assuming that the players that Bad Thing is about to happen, and their response to that is "um, let's tell the king so maybe he'll send reinforcements!" In that case, I'd expect them to know, because it's *their plan*. Not mine.

So I literally *can't* let them just roll the dice in that case, because I have *no idea* of what it is they're actually trying to do.

In the example I was quoting, the plan (get reinforcements) obviously came from the npc (John Canyon). Also, if the player missed the session where said npc gave the quest, or that session occurred 6 months ago, or their gf just broke up with them, they legitimately might not remember why they were there.

But meh. I didn't come up with this ridiculous example, I'm merely using it to facilitate discussion of... um... what were we talking about again?

[Takewo]

I feel like part of the problem is that my players are used to video games with dialogue trees and whatnot so their response to the great question (what do you do) is "what are my options?" To which I respond "anything you can think of" which scares them so they hide behind a mechanic which they know means they either did well or poorly and then want me to fill in the blanks.

One idea here is to actually give them some options without making it a closed list. If they really don't know what to do, some help in evaluating the situation might help. Something like, "What can we do?" "Well, you know that there is a city four miles towards the north, you could always go there and find Rodrick, or you can find a safe place to sleep, or you can explore this, whatever you want." Something like that, at least, would give them a place to start.

[goto124]

I feel like part of the problem is that my players are used to video games with dialogue trees and whatnot so their response to the great question (what do you do) is "what are my options?" To which I respond "anything you can think of" which scares them so they hide behind a mechanic which they know means they either did well or poorly and then want me to fill in the blanks.

Doesn't help when stuff like Search checks and Diplomancy checks are designed such that they essentially say "doesn't matter what you say, the dice decides your fate".

If you're not going to have them roll for diplomacy, give all characters a number of social "HP" equal to, say, 1 + an additional 1 per 5 ranks in diplomacy. Whenever they make a serious faux pas, they take social damage. If they have any social HP left, it turns out OK. So, for example, if they insult the duke, they take a point of social damage. If they have any social HP left, he laughs it off; if not, he is insulted and refuses to deal with them.

Validate their choices.

Social mechanics in DnD aren't the best, because DnD isn't designed for anything more than duct tape over social situations. There are other game systems that do social skills better.

[Esprit15]

Doesn't help when stuff like Search checks and Diplomancy checks are designed such that they essentially say "doesn't matter what you say, the dice decides your fate".



Social mechanics in DnD aren't the best, because DnD isn't designed for anything more than duct tape over social situations. There are other game systems that do social skills better.

Something I learned from my DM: Don't use the social mechanics for roleplay unless the player is kinda bad at social situations. If the awkward, stuttery guy who can't string two sentences together to save himself wants to play the charismatic bard, let him try to talk the NPC into something. If the situation is kinda getting awkward and he's not able to say what he needs to say, ask him to roll diplomacy instead, to represent his character knowing more than he would. Heck, it's the same with any of the more mental checks and skills - nobody here has a 30 INT. We forget things, we overlook certain details, while such a character would likely not. When the DM sees that happen, it might be helpful to ask for the appropriate skill or ability check.

[Slipperychicken]

So I realize that this might be a personal hang up but I keep running into this problem where players want to roll some kind of perception check (often without saying what they are looking for) instead of interacting with the environment. This same problem comes up in social situations, rather than role playing people just throw a d20 and give me a number.

My DM usually does not accept rolls until it's clear what the PC is doing. If a player rolls before describing an action (i.e. "I roll perception"), he usually tells the player to describe the PC's action. We as players then usually give him something like "I carefully scan the room from where I'm standing", and then he narrates the outcome. If we roll before saying anything about what we're doing (i.e. roll repeatedly -> roll an 18 -> "I diplomacy the guard!"), then it doesn't count and we have to roll it again.

What's even worse is when a player gives some eloquent speech or says something like "I pull all of the books off of the shelf looking for the fake one that opens the secret door" and then before I can say anything they roll a natural 1. At that point their actions should have succeeded but they insisted on rolling and did so poorly, so I feel stuck. Of course I can just ignore the roll but how do I quash this mindset in the first place?

My DM would have said something like "you didn't need to roll for that, it would have worked anyway". And then we'd have had a brief (1-3 sentence) explanation that you don't need to roll for pulling books off a shelf. Like the dice are only supposed to be used when the outcome is uncertain, and in this case it's pretty clear that the action was certain to work anyway. Maybe he might have teased the player by saying the PC accidentally pulled too hard and dropped a book on his own head for no damage, but that's about it.

[hifidelity2]

Role v Roll playing


The group I mainly play with has been playing together for some time so we know each other’s foibles / strengths & weaknesses
While each of us has our own style as GM broadly speaking
- Rolls don’t count until the DM asks for them
- For Practical skills (Spot etc) the better the description the better the bonus (or the less the penalty) the person will have
- For Technical skills (pick locks, fix fusion generator) then its a simple roll – I don’t expect them to know how to do these things
- For Social skills (esp as a couple of the players are of the more socially awkward / shy persuasion) then a description of what they are trying to achieve is enough with a roll. For those who like actually roleplaying the encounter they can chose (up front) if they want to Role play or Role paly with Dice rolls

[DJ Yung Crunk]

I think there needs to be some understanding before the game begins exactly what game you're going to be running. Other than that, I just feel an open dialogue and honest conversation is helpful. Everyone needs to adapt, at least in some small way. Politely communicate that some adapting is required on their part.

[Mystral]

So I realize that this might be a personal hang up but I keep running into this problem where players want to roll some kind of perception check (often without saying what they are looking for) instead of interacting with the environment. This same problem comes up in social situations, rather than role playing people just throw a d20 and give me a number.

What's even worse is when a player gives some eloquent speech or says something like "I pull all of the books off of the shelf looking for the fake one that opens the secret door" and then before I can say anything they roll a natural 1. At that point their actions should have succeeded but they insisted on rolling and did so poorly, so I feel stuck. Of course I can just ignore the roll but how do I quash this mindset in the first place?

Only perception checks yourself, in secret, assigning modifiers according to your PCs actions. Tell your players that this is so that they don't know if they rolled high or low, because their characters can't know that. Also tell them that any perception checks they make without you asking for them are invalid.

Also, pulling out all books to search for the fake one is the description of taking 20.

[goto124]

"So who's going to clear up the mess of books?"

[Jay R]

It's worth remembering that the player has not gone through the experience that the character has. The character actually saw the person he's talking about, stayed with him for a couple of days, walked over the walls of the dilapidated fort, inspected the troops. The player heard you describe it, once, quickly, in the middle of four-six hours of hearing your voice.

The player's memory of it can't be as good as the character's would be. That's why, in my example, I gave a circumstance bonus for remembering the crucial details. It's a straightforward bribe to encourage paying attention.

Secondly, the debate going on here is forty years old. I argued about it in 1975 with original D&D. How do you make role-playing happen with the stats of the character instead of the player?

Many puzzles in early D&D modules required the players to come up with the solution, and you can't keep the intelligent player from solving it faster that the player with the high-INT character. It's the same issue as what to do when the player of a low-INT fighter comes up with a clever battle plan, and there is no solution. Clever players who study the rules are always at an advantage, in any game. But if you take away my ideas, I'm no longer part of the game at all.

So there is a continuum from the dice deciding everything, to players planning out every move without ever rolling. And the truth is that games are played all over the spectrum, and each game varies by situation.

You cannot prevent the clever player from being clever. You cannot prevent the slick talker from being slick. You cannot prevent the person who studies the rules from knowing more than the casual player.

So relax, and accept that the simulation isn't perfect, because you're playing a game.

[The Insanity]

It's quite simple. Don't play games with dice.

[Quertus]

It's worth remembering that the player has not gone through the experience that the character has. The character actually saw the person he's talking about, stayed with him for a couple of days, walked over the walls of the dilapidated fort, inspected the troops. The player heard you describe it, once, quickly, in the middle of four-six hours of hearing your voice.

You can say that again!

The player's memory of it can't be as good as the character's would be. That's why, in my example, I gave a circumstance bonus for remembering the crucial details. It's a straightforward bribe to encourage paying attention.

If the bonus for remembering is a blatant bribe, then I'm as fine with that as I am with other blatant bribes, like getting a bonus fate point for bringing snacks, or bonus xp for role-playing. Heck, my signature character wouldn't be what he is today if several DMs hadn't adjudicated wishes kindly based on the fact that I made my wishes in character, using IC knowledge, unlike the other players, who wished for more hit points, experience points, bonuses to saving throws, etc.

Secondly, the debate going on here is forty years old. I argued about it in 1975 with original D&D. How do you make role-playing happen with the stats of the character instead of the player?

Many puzzles in early D&D modules required the players to come up with the solution, and you can't keep the intelligent player from solving it faster that the player with the high-INT character. It's the same issue as what to do when the player of a low-INT fighter comes up with a clever battle plan, and there is no solution. Clever players who study the rules are always at an advantage, in any game. But if you take away my ideas, I'm no longer part of the game at all.

So there is a continuum from the dice deciding everything, to players planning out every move without ever rolling. And the truth is that games are played all over the spectrum, and each game varies by situation.

This is a problem.

Things that you want to be solved exclusively by the player probably shouldn't be represented on the character sheet. Happily, I don't think I ever had to try to solve puzzles while playing a character with the intelligence of a brain-damaged turnip.

However, I remember this one time, where the first half (~4 hours) of the last season in a campaign was spent strategizing with the army generals, preparing for a final assault on an enemy stronghold. I love this kind of thing! But I was running a character with a well-established lack of tactical sense. So I basically sat out for half of the final season. IMO, that's part of what good role-playing is all about.

You cannot prevent the clever player from being clever. You cannot prevent the slick talker from being slick. You cannot prevent the person who studies the rules from knowing more than the casual player.

Just as you can call someone out for acting on OOC knowledge, you can also have NPCs respond to the slick talker's character's social stats, rather than the player's stats. Happily, there is no stat that strictly governs coming up with clever ideas (in most systems), although it is probably bad role-playing to consistently be ingenious with all sub-par mental stats.

"So who's going to clear up the mess of books?"

I dunno, let me search for someone - oops, I rolled a 1.

[Knaight]

Something I learned from my DM: Don't use the social mechanics for roleplay unless the player is kinda bad at social situations. If the awkward, stuttery guy who can't string two sentences together to save himself wants to play the charismatic bard, let him try to talk the NPC into something. If the situation is kinda getting awkward and he's not able to say what he needs to say, ask him to roll diplomacy instead, to represent his character knowing more than he would. Heck, it's the same with any of the more mental checks and skills - nobody here has a 30 INT. We forget things, we overlook certain details, while such a character would likely not. When the DM sees that happen, it might be helpful to ask for the appropriate skill or ability check.

There's also the matter of time. There are plenty of situations where a character might end up giving a three hour speech or similar, and nobody wants to actually hear the entirely of said speech. Having a skill to gloss that tedium over is a godsend.

[Ghost49X]

I ran into 2 different situations lately
The first, I was playing with a group of fairly well established players. We have been playing various games together for the last 7 or so and last weekend we were playing a relatively new system to us. During the session one of my players (which I'll name Abbey) wanted to accept the big bad's offer to let them live if they let him leave. Her intention was to try and ambush him as he was leaving, since Abbey's player had a good sized dice pool for charm she said "I want to roll charm to get him to believe me" and before she rolled I stopped her and had her roleplay the parley. What she said was much more like a negotiation than a charm or deceit check so I told her to roll a negotiation check in which she had a noticeably smaller dice pool (not that it was horrible, it was only average compared to her high dice pool for charm). While she failed the check, it still led to an epic fight with the big bad and I'm quite satisfied of my decision.

The second, I was talking with a friend about the nWoD system, we were supposed to make a character for an upcoming LARP event and he was adamant that all the social stats, were dump stats with the only exception if you needed it for the dice pool of a supernatural power you wanted. He adamantly called me out for making a social character when I as the player don't have the social skills to back this up. Further more he as one of the people running the event I was supposed to be attending gave my character full riot gear and when I mentioned concerned at it not only being out of character for me and also not willing to go to great lengths to add this to my costume he said that EVERYONE at the event had this and he designed combat encounters (and event non-combat encounters that have a chance at turning sour) assuming all character had this full riot gear ALL THE TIME, including scantly clothed courtesan Daeva vampires.

There's also the matter of time. There are plenty of situations where a character might end up giving a three hour speech or similar, and nobody wants to actually hear the entirely of said speech. Having a skill to gloss that tedium over is a godsend.

Yes, thank the game designers for that one.

[Ruslan]

So I realize that this might be a personal hang up but I keep running into this problem where players want to roll some kind of perception check (often without saying what they are looking for) instead of interacting with the environment. This same problem comes up in social situations, rather than role playing people just throw a d20 and give me a number.

What's even worse is when a player gives some eloquent speech or says something like "I pull all of the books off of the shelf looking for the fake one that opens the secret door" and then before I can say anything they roll a natural 1. At that point their actions should have succeeded but they insisted on rolling and did so poorly, so I feel stuck. Of course I can just ignore the roll but how do I quash this mindset in the first place?

You need to set ground rules and protocol for such cases. Luckily, the rules-as-written pretty much cover it. The algorithm is simple.

Step 1: DM describes the scene
Step 2: Players describe their characters' actions.
Step 2a, optional: DM requests a die roll. (some actions, such as walking a tightrope, require rolls; some, like walking across level floor, do not)
Step 3: Based on the action, and if applicable, the die roll, the DM narrates the result.

(Players Handbook, "How to Play" section)

If this is the kind of game you want to run, clarify to the players that they're not expected to roll dice unless specifically prompted by you. The rules are kind of on your side here.

[kyoryu]

You need to set ground rules and protocol for such cases. Luckily, the rules-as-written pretty much cover it. The algorithm is simple.

Step 1: DM describes the scene
Step 2: Players describe their characters' actions.
Step 2a, optional: DM requests a die roll. (some actions, such as walking a tightrope, require rolls; some, like walking across level floor, do not)
Step 3: Based on the action, and if applicable, the die roll, the DM narrates the result.

(Players Handbook, "How to Play" section)

If this is the kind of game you want to run, clarify to the players that they're not expected to roll dice unless specifically prompted by you. The rules are kind of on your side here.

Yes, exactly.

[90sMusic]

So I realize that this might be a personal hang up but I keep running into this problem where players want to roll some kind of perception check (often without saying what they are looking for) instead of interacting with the environment. This same problem comes up in social situations, rather than role playing people just throw a d20 and give me a number.

What's even worse is when a player gives some eloquent speech or says something like "I pull all of the books off of the shelf looking for the fake one that opens the secret door" and then before I can say anything they roll a natural 1. At that point their actions should have succeeded but they insisted on rolling and did so poorly, so I feel stuck. Of course I can just ignore the roll but how do I quash this mindset in the first place?

I mean, I guess I can understand where you're coming from, but I don't really agree. Sometimes you just want to look around. You aren't particularly looking for anything specific, you just want to see what is there. Maybe there is something that looks like a trap, or perhaps there is some fancy artwork on the wall with a clue or otherwise useful information, maybe there is a tiny crack in the wall, could be some scratched marks on the floor where a secret door has been opening and closing. You don't always know WHAT you are looking for, sometimes you just want to look around in general.

The DM also helps this situation a bit. If they are very descriptive about their environments, you get less of this kind of thing and more specific searches, but if it is vague (whether deliberately or not) you will get more vague searches.

I mean imagine you just walked into an old castle ruin in ireland on vacation. Are you looking for one or two specific things when you're sight seeing or are you soaking up everything you can? You also might notice things you weren't looking for. That is why stores like Wal-mart like to move their products around from time to time so you will see something you didn't even know you wanted/needed.

In other words, I don't really have a problem with it. It makes sense to me.

I've never had much problem with players in my games relying a little more on rolls than what they say or do. You have to remember this is a game, you are playing characters that are not you and they are doing things that you might not can. Just like your fighter might be able to hack the head off a dragon with his axe, maybe you are a bard that can sing beautifully. Are you really going to force your player to sing a song every time they want to do a bardic performance? Some players who can actually sing well (or at least like to sing badly) will do this anyway because it adds to their enjoyment, but sometimes you'll get someone who cant sing and doesnt want to because they know they cant do it well, and you'd just be putting them on the spot and humiliating them to satisfy your own need for things to be exactly as you want them to be. Sometimes players can't come up with grand speeches to inspire their allies. Etc.

As long as the game doesnt become entirely about the dice with no roleplay, I think it's fine to allow some things to slide and use the dice as long as players are still roleplaying and more importantly, having fun.

Otherwise you run into a situation where some players can just literally NEVER play a certain kind of class or character simply because they lack the ability IRL to more accurately portray that, and I think limiting players like that is quite frankly wrong and also mean.

[icefractal]

The problem with this is that the Diplomacy skill is for persuading people not talking to them. You don't walk up to the guard and roll a diplomacy check to say hi, which is what my players are doing. You walk up to the guard and say hi, hows it going? Say, would you mind letting me and my chaps pop into the ball for a quick second the we need to talk to the mayor it's really important and then roll a diplomacy check.

Everyone seems to think this for some reason, perhaps because it's how many other skills work. But in fact, you don't roll Diplomacy to convince the target of a given thing. You roll it to change the target's attitude. At which point you can ask them for things in accordance with the new attitude, bargain, or whatever.

Incidentally, this solves your issue somewhat - just rolling a die alone does nothing by itself; you've made the target Friendly, great - now what did you want to ask them?

[goto124]

I stopped her and had her roleplay the parley. What she said was much more like a negotiation than a charm or deceit check so I told her to roll a negotiation check

Did she agree to making it a negotiation check? Personally, I would state the main points of the speech, and say my character presents them in a charming way.

That's what those social skills are for - to let the character use their skills, instead of me having to use my own social skills.

[Socratov]

I'm seeing a lot of absolutes thrown around here...

My 2cp is to give a bit and take a bit:

I'll make the distinction between active rolls and reactive rolls.

if the DM asks for a roll, chances are that s/he is asking for a reactive roll. things like saves, spotchecks to check ambushes, etc.

If the player asks to roll something, chances are that he wants to take an active role to things and cruch it up as it were. Examples include spot (again to gian more details), attack rolls, skill checks etc.

Give the player too much agency by allowing them to choose the passive rolls and the DM will have a hard task.

Give the DM the power to go full "Heisenberg" by claiming that he will decide when the players get to make active rolls makes for a railroady campaign.

a bit in the middle should be ideal: both DM and PC have agency over what happens to them (as it should)

But Socratov you charismatic stallion, that won't solve the 'I roll to resolve the situation' situation.

Well, here comes the trick: as we have just started to approach things like adults (going for a situation where everyone gets to have fun), let's take it a step further and go for a root cause analysis. You see, the fact that the players aren't motivated enough to roleplay them talking ot the king is not a problem in of itself, but a symptom of another effect. Maybe person is influenced by real world events that have impacted the way they think and are kept busy in their heads. Maybe the playe rin question has been shoehorned into playing something s/he doesn't want (this happens a lot to people who show up late and thus are designated as the healbot). Real life does have a way of sneaking up on people. Maybe the player in question isn't enjoying this particular bit of dnd and wants to get back to the hacking ans slashing. Maybe he just forgot or missed a bit and is too embarrassed to talk about it for fear of ridicule or retribution. While we are at it, why don't you find the reason why this behaviour bothers you so much.

When you have your answer figured out, talk to your players. Tell them what you expect of them and what makes this game fun for you. then tell them what they may expect form you in return and wether they think is fair (regardless of it actually being fair). Create some common ground here. Ask them in return if they understand your point and what makes the game fun for them. Ask them why they'd like to roll before trying or what kinds of things they expect in the campaign. Find out what drives them, what challenges them and what leaves them cold.

for instance, you might think the players talkin got the king makes for a great and dramatic scene while the players think it's unneccessary exposition and would like to get back to the battlefield already. Until you talk to each other, however, the game is just not going to work.

TTRPG's have the potential to from so fun that your players will talk about it for years to come, all the way down to horrible and awful, almost turning people away form the hobby dreadful. To stay on the good game side people engaged in the game should all have fun. If someone is not having fun then right there is your problem.

Anyway, these are just my 2cp...

*tosses 2 copper pieces into the thread*

[Gtdead]

If you allow your players to make statements like "I persuade the guard to let me pass", then it's only natural that they will roll everything. And it doesn't stop there.

This is one of the most obvious ways to game the system and why we have concepts like "the diplomancer".
It makes everyone pick diplomacy over bluff and intimidation for example, because diplomacy is more widely applicable and carries less risk.

In my experience, if you make your players roleplay the persuasion attempt, they will most likely try to bluff their way in instead or offer a trade. It's easier. Anything else than deception requires more thought and intimidation has a big chance of backfiring. This is especially true for players that aren't very well versed in roleplaying. It's more likely that the only thing they can come up with is "I'm an important/helpful/nice person let me pass".

It's not easy to start a conversation, show interest for a completely random DM creation that you know pretty much nothing about, talk about random stuff and create sympathy, making the guard think that you aren't a threat, so there isn't any harm to let you pass, which is probably how a silver tongued person would act.

And the funniest part is that sometimes, the persuasion attempt can be so good that the DM doesn't even need a roll. He just assumes that your attempt was succesful based on the guard's personality.
You said the right things so you win.

If you want your players to stop gaming the system and roleplay instead, it's entirely up to you to enforce it. Don't accept statements like "I'm going to look for traps" for actions.

Ask them to be specific and talk in the present tense, making it "I'm now checking the passage for triggers".
Describe to him what he sees, like "It's dark, you can see about 20 feet in front of you", "what do you do?"
He responds "I look for any uneven floor parts or trip wires"

If there are any camouflaged loose floor parts, or some tripwire, ask him to roll search.
He rolls 13 against a DC of 15.

"You think you see some uneven floor at about 15 feet in front of you", what do you do?
"I'm moving there, trying to disarm it"
"Roll reflex, you missed the trap that was 10 feet in front of you"

Next time he will be prepared, he will consider that perhaps there is a pattern here. Perhaps there is always a more visible trap next to a better camouflaged one as bait. And this will give you the chance to create more elaborate traps. Now of course this can become tedious, and you can instead use something more interesting than pressure plates.

[Trebloc]

Example 2 (right):
Me: You are allowed into the throne room, and walk up to the throne.
PC: I take off my hat, bow low, and say, "Your Majesty, I bring you a message from the John Canyon, commander of the North Fort. A large army of orcs is approaching, expected to lay siege in four days. He needs reinforcements."
Me: Make a Diplomacy skill check, with a +2 bonus for having the details correct and for showing him proper respect.
PC: I remind him that his daughter Princess Leda is in Swan Village to the north, and in danger if the fort is overrun.
Me: Excellent. No roll is needed - that fact will convince him in any case.

I'm curious, in Example 2, which is "right", what happens if the PC totally flubs their diplomacy roll (assuming you didn't hand out an auto-pass)? You lathered the PC up with praise for getting the details right and showing respect, the PC has already said what they had to say and gave the king a tip of his hat.

I agree social skill rolling is a bit awkward. How we handle it is we'll give the DM a general idea what we want to do, then roll the die, then attempt to RP the results. That way, the PC has a general idea if they nailed their social roll and can act all proper and respectful, or if they tanked it will say a few unwise things.

As for using skill generally, we use this more as a way to speed up the game. Do you really want to go into every room, having the PCs describe to you time and time again how they prod every chair, tap every brick, search for every false bottom, flip through every book...etc. A search check speeds that up immensely. Also, saying something like a PC specifically looking for something and automatically finding it, all I have to do is ask how many of you men have had to find something in a woman's purse? Sure it's in there, but half the time I can't find it (darn my search check being too low).

[Jay R]

I'm curious, in Example 2, which is "right", what happens if the PC totally flubs their diplomacy roll (assuming you didn't hand out an auto-pass)? You lathered the PC up with praise for getting the details right and showing respect, the PC has already said what they had to say and gave the king a tip of his hat.

The same thing that happens when I praise a player for a clever attack plan and he flubs the roll. The clever plan fails.

Kings aren't vending machines that always give you candy if you insert money and pull the right lever. They are proud, haughty men with great power and many more concerns than you know about.

Never let a player roll a die unless it is acceptable for the roll to succeed, and acceptable for the roll to fail.

I agree social skill rolling is a bit awkward. How we handle it is we'll give the DM a general idea what we want to do, then roll the die, then attempt to RP the results. That way, the PC has a general idea if they nailed their social roll and can act all proper and respectful, or if they tanked it will say a few unwise things.

I won't tell you there's anything wrong with what you do. For one thing, whatever you do is probably far more complicated and detailed than a couple of sentences can handle.

But I will tell you why I won't follow your example. It's based on the notion that a success in a social situation is always tied to acting "all proper and respectful", and a failure is always tied to saying "a few unwise things." That's just not how human behavior works.

As for using skill generally, we use this more as a way to speed up the game. Do you really want to go into every room, having the PCs describe to you time and time again how they prod every chair, tap every brick, search for every false bottom, flip through every book...etc.

In one game, we got to saying, "We follow our usual search procedure." That doesn't take that more time. And having established a standard procedure shows engagement with the process. Our night watch is also established in advance, and I know that my Ranger will always be on first watch. Also, he's always in the front in marching order, unless we are expecting undead, in which case the cleric and paladin are in front.

A search check speeds that up immensely. Also, saying something like a PC specifically looking for something and automatically finding it, all I have to do is ask how many of you men have had to find something in a woman's purse? Sure it's in there, but half the time I can't find it (darn my search check being too low).

If I take 20, I can find always something in my wife's purse. (Of course, she will have to re-pack it herself.)

As I said, the actual procedure is more complicated than any line or two can describe. Most DMs' full procedure works for that group.

But the core principle remains - Never let a player roll a die unless it is acceptable for the roll to succeed, and acceptable for the roll to fail.

[Trebloc]

I won't tell you there's anything wrong with what you do. For one thing, whatever you do is probably far more complicated and detailed than a couple of sentences can handle.

But I will tell you why I won't follow your example. It's based on the notion that a success in a social situation is always tied to acting "all proper and respectful", and a failure is always tied to saying "a few unwise things." That's just not how human behavior works.

Success should be based on being "proper", though proper varies greatly with who you're interacting with. And failure should also be acting "unwise", also varying depending on the situation.

In one game, we got to saying, "We follow our usual search procedure." That doesn't take that more time. And having established a standard procedure shows engagement with the process.

You see, I see this as no different than saying "I make a search roll". Actually, you're method is more "fool proof" since there is apparently no dice being rolled, and instead you have a list of things to look for. And I'm guessing that if you encounter something new, that too would be added to the list. Basically, how is there more engagement between you saying to the DM "Yep, standard search procedure for this room too." and "I searched the room and got a 28 on my search check." Your standard procedure is just as mechanical, since you're not doing any roleplaying, but fast forwarding through what you've defined as a standard search of a room.

[Quertus]

As for using skill generally, we use this more as a way to speed up the game. Do you really want to go into every room, having the PCs describe to you time and time again how they prod every chair, tap every brick, search for every false bottom, flip through every book...etc. A search check speeds that up immensely.

Um... yes? Kids these days, and their instant gratification. Back in my day, tapping on every brick, flipping through every book, investigating every set piece was the game.

Also, saying something like a PC specifically looking for something and automatically finding it, all I have to do is ask how many of you men have had to find something in a woman's purse? Sure it's in there, but half the time I can't find it (darn my search check being too low).

Hmmm, good point. I may need to implement more rolls.

Never let a player roll a die unless it is acceptable for the roll to succeed, and acceptable for the roll to fail.

In one game, we got to saying, "We follow our usual search procedure." That doesn't take that more time. And having established a standard procedure shows engagement with the process. Our night watch is also established in advance, and I know that my Ranger will always be on first watch. Also, he's always in the front in marching order, unless we are expecting undead, in which case the cleric and paladin are in front.

But the core principle remains - Never let a player roll a die unless it is acceptable for the roll to succeed, and acceptable for the roll to fail.

Definitely don't have players roll for something if only one result is acceptable.

Oh, man, talking about standard procedures and never leaving parts of the story you want predetermined up to the dice reminds me...

This one time, we were running... kind of a level 0 pre adventure (WoD Mage, pre awakening).

Anyway, my character got into a life or death situation (OK, more of a death or death situation - he was having a drug-fueled agama, and it went south). The storyteller had me roll... what basically amounted to a save vs death... and I got a triple botch.

So, the game hasn't even started yet, and I'm already dead. While we were just sitting there, starting at each other, trying to figure out what to do now, I remembered that my character had the Strong Willed merit. And that I had stated a standard procedure: whenever the DC of a roll is 6 or higher, unless I say otherwise, I'm spending willpower.

So I remind the storyteller of this fact. Happily, we were playing a version of WoD where it's only a botch if you have no successes, and that willpower point counted as a success.

So we both learned an important lesson that day.

[Jay R]

Success should be based on being "proper", though proper varies greatly with who you're interacting with. And failure should also be acting "unwise", also varying depending on the situation.

Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if every time you treated somebody properly they did exactly what you wanted?

This is simply not the case. Quite often, no matter how well you behave, your request gets turned down. It is NOT TRUE that kings always do the bidding of their polite petitioners.

Basically, how is there more engagement between you saying to the DM "Yep, standard search procedure for this room too." and "I searched the room and got a 28 on my search check."

There is more engagement in that we established a search procedure, of course. And as you said, we modify it according to new situations. The first time we searched a room with shelves on it, we announced that we were searching the bottoms of the shelves, the area under the bottom shelf, and moving the shelf away from the wall to search that wall.

Similarly, the fact that I know that my character Gustave will always be on first watch means that we don't have to spend time setting watches - not because don't care and aren't engaged, but because we do and are.

[TheIronGolem]

Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if every time you treated somebody properly they did exactly what you wanted?

This is simply not the case. Quite often, no matter how well you behave, your request gets turned down. It is NOT TRUE that kings always do the bidding of their polite petitioners.

This is why I don't always frame a failed roll as a screwup on the character's part. If you blow a Diplomacy roll with the king but are the kind of character who would know how not to insult royalty, I'll probably decide that some perfectly innocent thing you said rubbed him the wrong way for reasons you couldn't have known (you used a turn of phrase that one of his enemies says a lot), or that there are external factors as to why he can't fulfill your request (the funding you asked for has been earmarked for some other project, and he can't just break that commitment on a whim). Note how these explanations also provide possible new story hooks (Who's that enemy and what grief is he causing the king? What's that other project and can/should we stop it?).

That can apply in more than just social situations, too. Rogue failed to open the locked door? It doesn't mean he's suddenly bad at lockpicking, it means the mechanism has been jammed. How? Looks like there are bits of metal lodged in it: broken pieces of tools from some previous attempt to open this lock. And the scratches here look fresh. Heads up guys, there may be other adventurers in this dungeon!

[NichG]

Its not only that you should only roll when both outcomes are acceptable, but also when the difference between the outcomes matters. If you're rolling to search a room for something you know is there, and you're just going to roll again if you fail the first roll, then you shouldn't be rolling dice in the first place to be doing that because even if either outcome is acceptable to the DM, the player is just going to keep rolling until they succeed or determine that success is impossible.

With the books-off-the-shelf example, it might be acceptable to the DM for the player to fail to find the secret door or for them to succeed in finding the secret door, but no matter what they roll their actions should have opened the secret door, so since the roll doesn't matter they shouldn't roll.

[goto124]

For the books off the shelf example:

Maybe there's a race against the clock? Maybe if the PC succeeds the first Search check, 3 minutes were spent searching the room. But if this first Search check was failed, 5 minutes were spent searching without any result. The more you roll, the more time spent.

[NichG]

For the books off the shelf example:

Maybe there's a race against the clock? Maybe if the PC succeeds the first Search check, 3 minutes were spent searching the room. But if this first Search check was failed, 5 minutes were spent searching without any result. The more you roll, the more time spent.

But if there isn't, its silly to create a race against the clock just because the player decided to roll. You could of course have situations where a roll is called for, but the issue here is when the player spontaneously decides to roll when it isn't called for.