Hello fellow DMs!

I'm part-way through writing an epic campaign & I thought I might pick your brains on something... when to roll the dice & when not to roll the dice?

My group & I have been roleplaying for about 10 years & have played a variety of systems, Dark Heresy probably being our favourite so far. We started off as Munchkins (kick in the door to the impossibly small room, kill the massive Dragon, steal the loot, rinse & repeat), as you do, maturing into people who like to mix getting into character & playing a roll with a healthy amount of arse-kicking!

In the current campaign 'scene', the Acolytes are trying to infiltrate a Gentleman's Club (for want of better words). They start off by hacking into the public data system & visiting the Administratum to implant a cover story. In a later encounter, the Acolyte masquerading as the Gentleman meets the other Gents & is quizzed by them on his background. Although I am happy that my group can roleplay the encounter perfectly well, I wonder if I should add in bluff/scrutiny dice rolls or just let the roleplay take its course?

Although, in the setting, it is very important for the Acolytes to get this right & infiltrate the club successfully, I'm edging towards adding in tests almost as a cursory thing; to me the roleplay & getting people into character are more important than the dice rolls here, but equally I know my players like to roll dice. However, I'm also trying to drum the ideas into their belligerent heads that sometimes social interaction rolls are just as important as combat rolls & can be equally worthy of a fate point re-roll!

What should I do? What are your thoughts on roleplaying vs dice rolling?

inb4 "know your players".

Depending on the group's skillsets, social events can often be more challenging than fighting a horde of Genestealers. (Now that might be a gross overstatement, our Deathwatch crew just got cut to ribbons by a pack of these filthy xenos.) In our group, we try to have each player specialize in certain fields, which has caused a number of problems just recently. Our Arbitrator is our social guy, with lots of XP into Fellowship and related abilities, but since the player - and thus the character - was unavailable for our recent game (Damned Cities of the Haarlock trilogy), our party was running around chasing its own tail, since we couldn't tell who was lying and who wasn't (crew: Magos, Storm Trooper, Primaris Psyker) and so we were stuck with following the logical trails, which were misleading as hell.

I believe you need to find the right balance between rolling and roleplaying, but it can be achieved. Rolling can be used as a tool to increase the tension of a scene, but only if you time it right, since it can also disrupt the flow of the scene and ruin the mood. It's up to the GM to find the moment the die needs to be cast, but it should only be done when it matters. Making a Charm test for when you kindly ask the bartender for a glass of amasec is obviously overdoing it, but when the fate of mission hangs in the balance - such as trying to non-challantly chat up the main suspect of your investigation to gather extra info on him - should call for a roll of some kind.

ps00spf said:

There seem to be several stances you can take on this.

a) One social skills of the characters don't matter, it's the skills of the players that matter . - This a roleplaying game after all, how skilled you are as a player in playing the role of a diplomatic, charming noble, or intimidating criminal scum is important. The drawback with this idea is roleplaying is escapist, why can the feeble guy wanting to play the role of the super strong killer assassin fine to be simulated by the rules while the socially inept guy wanting to play the dashing hero that can charm his way out of any situation not be? The social skills are there in the game, if you don't use them aren't you penalising the player that has invested in them? Which leads to the second stance.

b) Skills of the player don't matter, it's the skills of the character that count . - The role they are playing is simulated in the game world by the skills on the sheet, the drawback of this method is that you can remove roleplaying altogether. The guard refuses you entry to see the prisoner, then "I check against charm, 05 I pass with three degrees of success, he should easily allow me to pass". Which leads most GM's I've come across to try and walk a middle ground.

c) Character skills matter but, roleplaying provides a modifier to the roll. - It allows the player that is heavily invested in the social skills to reap the rewards of that, but still encourages roleplay to some degree. If the player provides a convincing argument in character, then the task is one or two levels of difficulty easier. Of course this still rewards those players who in real life are charming, and so effectively penalises those that aren't. There is another way, although I've not seen it in play much.

d) Character skills decide the result, then you roleplay the result. - You let the dice alone decide the result, then roleplay out that result. So if you screw up your charm role, that player then roleplays out his failure. In return you probably need to offer some incentive, like an XP reward for roleplaying, unless they really do enjoy roleplaying for the hell of it, otherwise they might not bother since the result is already known.

Personally I've tended towards C, as I expect with D it could easily turn into B, with players skipping roleplaying altogether, if they knew the result was a forgone conclusion.

I would tend towards NTLBagpuss' method C. I think to only focus on role playing or improv ability discounts and discourages those that are just plain bad at it, but relying on dice alone removes incentive to actually play out the scene. I've personally found that players like rolling dice at some level of regularity, as the chance of the dice makes you feel more empowered than the whim of a GM.

When building campaigns, I also try to make sure that the goals I set forth for the players are able to be reached by the party in question. If a group of characters has no one with fellowship, find alternate means for them to accomplish their infiltration that doesn't rely soley on fellowship based tests. Maybe an NPC helps 'set them up' with the club owner, or they get information that the guy who guards the back door is a drug addict and easily bribed (or intimidated?).

In your scenario it sounds like they've already made it in, but they're now having to survive- I'd absolutely call for bluff/scrutiny rolls. Give them bonuses to the roll based on acting the scene out or the like, but make them roll to give them a chance to fail. You can soften possible failures by providing them prods for outs- maybe they buy a round of drinks to distract the questioning, maybe they notice something their opponent is wearing or carrying and they use that as a conversation point to distract them and make them stop asking uncomfortable questions. Maybe they fail outright and then the enemy just starts going along with it, as the PCs are now the ones being investigated, twisting the story a bit. Be ready to improv, and be ready for things to go horribly wrong- players will regularly walk down the path you tell them not to, and fail key throws of the dice.

It can feel a bit strange to put lots of points into social skills (because you want a social character) and then never get to roll them. So I would go with C as well. If the players are trying to get information from someone, we usually play out the discussion and roll at appropriate times. If the players say something really smart, they might get a bonus, and if they say something really stupid they get a penalty.

I tend to cheat with my players. The point is to have fun, and if the dice are being cruel I don't want that to suck the fun out of the game. I typically don't hide roles from players. This makes players feel like I'm being fair, and that everything is legit and that I'm not hand-of-goding their mission. Say, for story purposes, I need someone to get hurt very badly. I could roll this, get a 98 and roleplay my failure just as I would expect them to. For most situations, this is fine and rewarding in it's own right. But I really need someone to get hurt, so in the midst of my failure I throw in an enviromental effect to achieve the same goal.

It takes some quick thinking to make the effect natural, logical and entertaining (but as a GM you're always on your toes anyways) but on the whole it give me what I need (a hurt player) and stays true to the dice.

An example of this, I wanted a random monster to cause a little havoc amongst the party. Just an annoyance, nothing major. Well, the monster got a full damage crit on the tank, forcing them unconcious before he could even react. Naturally, the party was terrified at this point, so to make things easier I said the tank's body was attached to the enemies weapon, forcing it to take numerous penatlies trying to shake off the tank's body while combat the other players. This offered a comedic relief to a horrible situation and actually let the tank feel involved in the fight a little.

Just my two cents.

I'm definitely of the middle ground as well.

Roleplaying social encounters is important, but when the crunch comes, a dice roll should be involved. Heavy bonuses should be awarded for particularly good roleplaying. Crunch moments could include the following:

-The critical lie to convince someone of your authenticity etc.

-The moment where you attempt to slide into your target social circle to overhear important info or gather vital clues.

-Fast talking or convincing someone to take a course of action.

In combat, the modifiers you can stack up are all clearly written up and explained. Range, laser sights, talents and semi or full auto are all ways for players to achieve combat results.

In social situations, the modifiers should be heavily influenced by the roleplaying and ground work that the group puts into things. So, if your players hacked the Club, that would give some pretty serious modifiers in convincing the club's security systems of their authenticity. But once they are inside, their ability to to think and improvise would be vital (though a little careful planning ahead of time would be wise).

So basically, I view social interactions as scenarios where the bonuses or penalties to dice roll are fare more fluid and player/GM defined rather then rule defined. But the character stats should still play a part and the dice roll should be every bit as important and suspenseful as combat. Rather then have tactical challenges to overcome, I'd loosely plan out crunch moments where the player's character gets put on the spot and he can either step into character and try to obtain some bonuses (or penalties if he screws up) or he can just roll his way through it if that's more his cup of tea. Obviously I encourage the former, but I accept that not all of my players are equally experienced.

So far its worked out all right.

Tooth said:

I can see why you don't want to hide your rolls, we only rarely do this ourselves, but sometimes, it helps getting your players on edge. They don't know if that roll meant good or ill for them, so they'll be on their toes and will pay even more attention to the game. (This also tends to liven up moments when attention is lacking.)

On a separate note, I thought of another reason why sometimes it's necessary to make players roll. As I have mentioned before, there are certain players who may excell in the social situations (IRL and in game) compared to the other players. However, this is not always reflected by the stats. For example, one of our players is a lawyer IRL and tends to get rather eloquent, even though his character is an Imperial Guard from a feral world, yet he speaks like some nobleborn! (The guy is a roleplaying anti-talentum, but we try and help him.)

So rolling in social situations might not only be necessary because the task at hand is a dealbreaker story-wise, but maybe because the player handles his or her character incorrectly, acting or talking in a way that is out of character.

I also tend towards c). So, good role-playing gives a huge bonus on the interaction-test. Furthermore even a failed test only makes things a little more difficult when the initial idea (like in the OPs example) is well though out. Letting something fail completely just because a single dice roll showed a 89 is unsatisfying for everyone involved.

For example in RfYaT (Purge the Unclean) our groups Assassin and Psyker played the nobles and both were at Lady Borellas soiree, but the Psyker failed miserably with his deceive roll, while the Assassin was very successful with his charm roll. The result was that Lady Borella always linked arms with the Assassin whenever seeing him and chatting up, while the Psyker always only got disapproving and envious glances. But it did not blew their cover or something. It simply made it more difficult for the Psyker to interact with her and get information, but it made it sort of easier for him to remain unobserved while Lady Borella yearned for the well-built young baron (i.e. the Assassin) from Fenksworld...

Option a), is not viable in my opinion, as no one would take these interaction-skills then. Option b) can be rather dull in my view and option d) might be the truest sense of role-playing but in reality hard to work out.

@Tooth: Waht you describe is even more hand-of-goding than rolling dices hidden in my opinion. This way the players do not learn to fear...

Social situations should be like any other situation. Some situations can be rendered so simple by appropriate preparation and roleplaying that you do not need a roll to determine success. In the same way, inappropriate preparation and roleplaying can guarantee failure.

If a character is attempting to introduce himself to a group of socialites and he is properly dressed, well presented, has a becoming accent, a good reason for being there and plausible credentials then a satisfactory roleplaying performance from the player should guarantee success. Roleplay the conversation and if it goes well then it goes well. If your player starts telling dirty jokes then oblige him to make a roll, because he is in danger of blowing it. If he insults the host, offends the ladies and starts showing his gun off, I would judge that an automatic fail.

I would say that for an automatic success everything has to go right, or at least pretty well. If even one factor is wrong then call a roll, at a modifier appropriate to how wrong it is. Your character has a cheap suit but does everything else well? Make a roll at +30%. He has a cheap suit and the accent of a drudge? Make a roll at -20%. He has a cheap suit, the accent of a drudge and no credentials? He shouldn't even be there. Automatic failure.

As for hidden dice rolls, I am not a fan. As a Gm or a player.

An umpire who rolls dice in secret breeds distrust and rightly so. Either show the dice roll to your players or tell them you aren't making a roll and are just making a decision. Nobody trusts a secret dice roll because the only reason for it to be secret is to cheat on the result. You may know you are doing this for your players benefit, but they will probably suspect the opposite.

If it is imperative you make a dice roll and want to keep it secret, make the roll but don't tell people what it is for. At least then you can refer back to it when it becomes apparent.

DavidJones said:

I have to disagree here. The single most common use of a secret dice roll, in my experience, is to prevent metagaming - the players should not be able to act on information their characters don't have. An Awareness Test rolled in secret prevents the players being able to distinguish between not spotting something because it's not there, and not spotting it because they failed a test, and this distinction can often be very significant.

In my experience, the players that don't trust rolls made in secret don't tend to trust the GM anyway, and I have never found that feeling of distrust to be conducive to a good group. Players that trust the GM to do what the GM needs to do, regardless of secrecy, how the dice fall, or what the rulebook says, tend in my experience to get more from the game.

There is an rule of thumb I like "Say yes or roll dice."

As long as every one at the table feels that just going along without rolling feels great, do that. Say yes to to the action. And every time someone hesitates, no matter if its a player or the storyteller give them a fair chance and roll the dice. This works for any kind of action, not just social.

You can even ask you players "Yes, or roll the dice?" and gets a hint of what the group think is fair.

-

Focusing in the specific problem. The most fun way to roll social dices is to put up a few high stake key rolls. Think of a movie, there is a specific scenes and moments when the social stakes are set, lies are about to be relived, people make it or brake it.

Don't make them roll for every little lie, compliment or something like that. Build up to key scenes:

"Will the lordling buy the bluff?", "Will the character convince the person they be seducing to come up into the hotel room?" or "Will they convince the army that they really are from the Holy Inqvisition?" Any actions before the key scenes isn't rolled, they just contribute with bonuses or penalties to the roll. (Unless its really spectacular. A Tech Priest doing a pole dance in a ball room demands a reaction, but that probably don't take a roll to gauge an reaction to anyway)

N0-1_H3r3 said:

The thing is, it is not a secret. People can hear and see you are rolling dice, so the fact you are rolling dice is not a secret. Nor is the effect, if they succeed. So the only thing you are keeping secret are the numbers and that is the least important thing really, because without context they are meaningless anyway.

If I want to check awareness or something I have people roll dice and check their sheets for the relevant stats, without telling them what it is about. If nobody passes all you have to say is "doesn't matter" and move on.

DavidJones said:

At which point, unless you plan to call for spurious rolls on a regular basis, they still know that there's something to spot that they've missed.

Nothing derails an ambush faster than the players acting especially cautiously because their characters failed a spot test and they know about it, and however many unspoken or fake modifiers you apply to the test, extreme fails (someone rolls a 99, for example) will stand out as a failure from first glance in the overwhelming majority of situations. It's easier for everyone, and keeps the players from being jarred from the situation by the intervention of the rules, if the GM rolls those dice out of sight and applies the results before informing them, player trust issues notwithstanding.

Secret dice rolls don't damage player trust; lack of player trust makes an issue out of secret dice rolls.

I do the same as N0-1, except I will occasionally make rolls for no reason, just to keep the players on their toes. They know that I roll for no reason, so they can never rely on my rolling to suggest anything it out of the ordinary or there is anything to spot.

That way, things are secret, because they never know if my rolling is just that, rolling, or if it's me making a test for them.

Another good idea is to have all your players make several rolls before the game starts, jot them down, and then you have your Awareness rolls all sorted out for you without having to ask them to do anything when they are actually needed.

MILLANDSON said:

I do the same, it works very well in my experience.

Well ps00spf, I think you've had it right even in your original post. Use the rolls where necessary, don't use them where they're not.

The 'roll first and play the result' is also a nice touch but few players go for this in my experience.