The following is my guide to how to call for checks, saves, contests, and other types of die throws from your players. This is written from the perspective of check-based RPGs like D&D or Traveller. Non-traditional resolution mechanics are a different creature entirely.
Calling
for Throws
Ideally, the DM decides when to call for a roll from the players. Players who call for rolls for themselves are trying to usurp authority over the nature of the setting. I cannot stress this enough: the person who controls the physics of the setting decides what is possible, what is impossible, and what the odds of success are. The players control their characters, you decide the consequences. You are the master of the game.
To determine
whether a roll should be called for, consider the following question: Is the
outcome uncertain? If a player describes doing something that is guaranteed to
succeed or fail, there is no reason to call for a roll. Instead, the guaranteed
results of their actions should be either described immediately, or the
player's description of their actions simply left to stand as being true.
For
example, most player characters can speak effortlessly. Unless something is
interfering with their ability to speak, the DM can generally just allow the
player's declaration of character speech to stand without interference.
However, if a player says "I jump to the moon and karate chop it in half
with my bare hands" the DM should then interrupt and describe how their
character jumps only a few feet in the air and cannot reach the moon. When a
player describes an action, but the DM isn't sure what the outcome should be,
then a roll should be called. Once you have determined a roll is called for,
simply consider what is being done, and decide on an appropriate roll type, modifier source, and set a DC.
A second way to
guide your selection to call for a roll, is to consider how hard you think the
task should be on a DC, compared to the statistics of the character doing the
task. On a d20, if the character’s ability score matches the DC you would choose, that
means they have a ~64% chance of succeeding. If their score exceeds it by 5 or
more, then they have a 79+% chance of succeeding. It can speed play if you
simply dictate success for rolls with a very low chance of failure- especially
rolls where the player’s score exceeds the DC by 5 or more. In particular, characters with a total modifier exceeding a benchmark are guaranteed to pass any check at that benchmark- no check required. Likewise, if their maximum roll with modifiers is beneath a benchmark, they will automatically fail any check over that benchmark. An otherwise uncertain action is then certain for that character in particular.
Before a check is
called, also consider what the ramifications of success and failure are. Don’t
just call a check out of indecisiveness. If a failure would stall the game, or
leave everyone stuck, then don’t bother inviting the opportunity. Narrate them
out of it. If a check would produce ludicrous results on either a pass or a
fail, again, don’t bother calling, simply narrate the only result that makes
sense. The best checks lead to interesting choices, surprises, and adventure.
The worst checks lead to empty rooms, blank faces, and confusion. Do not gate the progression of the adventure with a check.
Another problem
frequently encountered in older editions was the issue of players attempting a
check over and over again, or each party member taking a crack at it until they
succeeded. This happened because people thought the check only described the
effort the character put in on a single attempt. A check actually describes all factors applying to
a situation, including the nature of the obstacle, the circumstances of coincidence, the time spent doing it, and character effectiveness. So, for instance, if a barbarian fails to kick down a door, that
doesn’t just mean he didn’t put in enough effort- it also means the door was
beyond his effort as well in the first place. Think of it as a sort of
Schrodinger’s door: it wasn’t either weak or strong until the fighter kicked
it; you used the dice to find out. In general, call checks once and let their results stand forever. If the
thief can’t pick a lock, nobody in the party can. Furthermore, a party taking
turns at a door could be considered as a group check or the help action, both
of which already have rules to cover how they work in most check-based games. Even if the game you're running doesn't have group checks, a modified check mechanic is stupidly easy to houserule within moments. Instead of running multiple
separate checks for the same task, run a single group check or add an advantage die to
the original check for the help action.
The
Point Of It
Because what
is/isn't possible varies between DMs and settings, it should not be assumed
that there will be any meaningful consistency from one game to another. One DM
may decide running on water is possible with a very high DC in a wuxia style
game, but then decide it is not possible in a medieval fantasy game. Two DMs
running the same published setting might disagree on whether it is possible to
swim across a particular river, or what the DCs for certain common tasks should
be. This is to be expected, and is perfectly fine.
However, within
this reasonable degree of variation, every DM should consider the experience of
the players at the table first and foremost. Maintaining an internally
consistent emulation of some form of "reality" is only valuable to the
extent that it sustains the willing suspension of disbelief in the players.
Slavishly emulating some dice-driven alternate reality for the benefit of the
characters is a waste of time, because the characters cannot care- they are
just numbers and paper. Player enjoyment should be considered overall in the
long term.
While an
individual success may be superficially enjoyable in the moment, it brings
little enduring joy. Rather, when success is found where previously there was
naught but failure, that is where meaningful enjoyment can be derived from the
game. Overcoming legitimate obstacles is what drives engagement with the
system. Furthermore, problems that can be overcome by the players' direct input
and influence, rather than the random result of the die, provide meaningful
depth and drive engagement with the scenario. If you fail to provide obstacles
of meaningful difficulty and depth, your game will be flat and boring.
One final note on
the subject of secrecy. Often, for the purposes of keeping players engaged with
the game through suspense, and to sustain some degree of tension, it is
necessary to keep certain information away from the players. For instance, a
detailed map of the dungeon they are exploring would suck the fun out of
exploring it, because everything has already been revealed, so such a thing
should not be shown to the players.
Likewise, because
the DM adjudicates the result of all rolls anyways, the DM should choose to keep
their die rolls and DCs secret. The purpose of keeping mechanical statistics
"behind the screen" is not to prevent metagaming, but rather, to keep
the focus on the scenario, rather than the systems the DM is using to
adjudicate it. Some DMs may employ a literal barrier of some sort, often a
standing screen, to protect their notes and hidden die rolls from prying eyes.
This can lead to
a certain degree of suspicion. If the DM has absolute authority over the
setting, then the DM also has theoretical authority over all things. There is
no reason why a DM couldn’t roll dice and decide the result without looking at
them. However, one might ask: why roll dice at all if you're just going to ignore them? If you are
going to call for a check, then actually run the check. Play it out, even if
the results are not quite what you anticipated. Calling for rolls invites
uncertainty into your game, and overcoming the gamble is as much a part of the
challenge for the DM as it is for the players. In other words: playing fair is
difficult but rewarding, and cheating is a waste of time.
No comments:
Post a Comment