----------------------------------------
re: smolderingwizard - roll vs roleplaying
March 06th, 2020
----------------------------------------
I just read a really interesting observational phlog post from
smolderingwizard [0] on his experiences in a 5th edition D&D game.
He describes everything in 5th edition coming down to a mechanic
role and that those rolls are happening constantly and distracting
from the game.
TEXT [0] smolderingwizard - roll vs role-playing
I've run into this in some games as well and feel it's ultimately
the fault of the DM/GM, though I can't judge them harshly for it.
Running a game is hard work and it's not a skill that's usually
taught. People learn in their own way, from playing with others
and emulating good GMs, or watching games online, or just doing
their best to guess their way through.
One big influence these days is computer gaming. It's had immense
impact on tabletop RPGs over the years, going so far as to
completely screw up D&D into the mess that was 4th edition AKA
World of Warcraft on paper. But even in the early days of say, 2nd
edition, there were books and books describing mechanics that you
could turn into rolls. I remember one guidebook describing the
fall-off rate of light from various sized campfires and the impact
for low-light vision at each distance in a grid. It got silly.
But those books didn't come from a vacuum. People wanted that in
their games. There's always been a subset of gamers who want the
mechanics to rule the action. Sometimes these are reflected in
power-gaming, or just optimized buildes. Sometimes it's just
a style of play that the group enjoys.
I cannot put myself in that camp, personally. My most formative
long-term RPG was played 1-on-1 with my DM in high school. It was
a solo game and we rolled almost never. The entire game was
role-play and that has had enormous impact on my own style.
In the Fate Core System book, the game designers have this to say:
When to Roll Dice
Roll the dice when succeeding or failing at the action could
each contribute something interesting to the game...
The worst, WORST thing you can do is have a failed roll that
means NOTHING HAPPENS--no new knowledge, no new course of action
to take, and no change in the situation. This is totally
boring...
If you can't imagine an interesting outcome from both results,
then don't call for that roll. If failure is the uninteresting
option, just give the PCs what thy want and call for a roll
later, when you CAN think of an interesting failure. If success
is the boring option, then see if you can turn your idea for
failure into [a motivation for the PC to role play their
character that way].
In combat things are simple. You failed a roll or you succeed at
it have immediate consequences. If you're rolling as you walk down
a hallway, what happens if you fail? You triggered a trap? But
what if you succeed? Did you just notice the trap? That's boring
because it doesn't change anything. What if the success meant you
spotted a trap that was about to affect the party behind you. Your
quick action let you spring up and grab a counterweight. Now you
have to hold it in place so the others can get across. The
challenge has changed the dynamic of the action and given the
party a reason to interact with one another. Is your character
strong enough to hold it for the whole party? What if you this
splits you up? What if you have to choose who to drop it on before
you're pulled inside the mechanism?
Anyway, I digress. Chat with your DM and talk about the rolls. Or
talk about it with the whole group. Are they into it? Maybe so.
Maybe they're just waiting for the topic to come up.