The example the blog gives is: “I flash the barkeep my best smile, order a cup of ale and pay with a handsome tip and try to get him talking about the local rumours in a chatty friendly manner.” The mistake in the reasoning is assuming the GM must call for a roll.
From my point of view, players don’t call for rolls, the GM does. Players just say what they are trying to do. While the GM can call for a roll in a situation, they don’t have to. Something might just succeed or not. What if the barkeep likes gossiping with anyone who walks in the door, no matter how persuasive the other person is?
It’s also odd that they state in the d20 version of the example “the roleplaying doesn’t actually affect the outcome” right after suggesting the GM give a +2 modifier to the roll for the roleplaying.
My guess they’re either a bad DM or have played with bad DMs who roll with it too much. Quoting 5e DMG:
A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success
You are not meant to resolve “everything” with the die. It’s about striking a balance. If a player roleplays amazingly for the situation, why roll for it? If they’ve tied 1000 knots before, why roll for one more?
Dice are neutral arbiters. They can determine the outcome of an action without assigning any motivation to the DM and without playing favorites. The extent to which you use them is entirely up to you. … Remember that dice don’t run your game-you do.
The biggest mistake I see a lot of DMs make when asking for a roll is not fully understanding what success or failure of the roll really looks like.
For instance, picking a lock. Success is unlocking the door, but what is failure? It not unlocking? So we’re just going to sit here and roll and roll and roll until it’s unlocked. What’s the point?
What does failure look like? Breaking the lock so it cannot be picked again? It taking a longer time to pick than if they’d succeeded, and there is a time pressure like a cults summoning ritual is near completion? A guard noticing from the other side of the door? The lock is a decoy or a trap?
You shouldn’t be calling for a roll unless there is a clear reason for it and the universe is at a bifurcation where success and failure lead to totally different outcomes that have meaning and ramifications.
If your rogue, who is crazy good at lockpicking, comes up against a very normal locked door, just let them unlock it unless there’s a meaningful failure for their action.
Funny enough we even had system for that back in 3.5 called take 10/20 two pages from that very table he used. That was suppose to prevent the knot or your lock pick in none pressure situation.
You should then only roll for things that was a degree of success or in pressured situation.
I don’t agree with the overall view there.
The example the blog gives is: “I flash the barkeep my best smile, order a cup of ale and pay with a handsome tip and try to get him talking about the local rumours in a chatty friendly manner.” The mistake in the reasoning is assuming the GM must call for a roll.
From my point of view, players don’t call for rolls, the GM does. Players just say what they are trying to do. While the GM can call for a roll in a situation, they don’t have to. Something might just succeed or not. What if the barkeep likes gossiping with anyone who walks in the door, no matter how persuasive the other person is?
It’s also odd that they state in the d20 version of the example “the roleplaying doesn’t actually affect the outcome” right after suggesting the GM give a +2 modifier to the roll for the roleplaying.
My guess they’re either a bad DM or have played with bad DMs who roll with it too much. Quoting 5e DMG:
A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success
You are not meant to resolve “everything” with the die. It’s about striking a balance. If a player roleplays amazingly for the situation, why roll for it? If they’ve tied 1000 knots before, why roll for one more?
Dice are neutral arbiters. They can determine the outcome of an action without assigning any motivation to the DM and without playing favorites. The extent to which you use them is entirely up to you. … Remember that dice don’t run your game-you do.
The biggest mistake I see a lot of DMs make when asking for a roll is not fully understanding what success or failure of the roll really looks like.
For instance, picking a lock. Success is unlocking the door, but what is failure? It not unlocking? So we’re just going to sit here and roll and roll and roll until it’s unlocked. What’s the point? What does failure look like? Breaking the lock so it cannot be picked again? It taking a longer time to pick than if they’d succeeded, and there is a time pressure like a cults summoning ritual is near completion? A guard noticing from the other side of the door? The lock is a decoy or a trap?
You shouldn’t be calling for a roll unless there is a clear reason for it and the universe is at a bifurcation where success and failure lead to totally different outcomes that have meaning and ramifications.
If your rogue, who is crazy good at lockpicking, comes up against a very normal locked door, just let them unlock it unless there’s a meaningful failure for their action.
Funny enough we even had system for that back in 3.5 called take 10/20 two pages from that very table he used. That was suppose to prevent the knot or your lock pick in none pressure situation.
You should then only roll for things that was a degree of success or in pressured situation.