I would like to talk a little bit, and hear your opinions, on something not too often mentioned when discussing action resolution mechanics and processes in tabletop roleplaying games. That is when during the process you do the roll. The endpoints on that spectrum can be called Go then Roll and Roll then Go. At their extremes
-
Go then Roll is declaring your action (I attack, I investigate etc) followed by a roll to see how well you did that action. Example: I attack the ogre - roll d20+mod vs AC - on hit do d6 damage.
-
Roll then Go often begins by declaring how you intend to tackle the obstacle (with finesse, by being offensive) followed by a roll and once you have the result of the roll you choose what is actually accomplished. Sometimes you even at this stage you say what your character actually does. Example: I directly engage the ogre with violence - roll [something] and count successes - spend successes on things in the scene such as dealing damage.
As with many other things my preference lies in the middle, a bit skewed towards Go then Roll. Most of my preferred systems lie there, Genesys and many (most?) PbtA to mention some. As I player I find myself more involved in my character’s actions and for longer. Less of a do stuff - roll - get result - hand over spotlight. It is a greater invitation to get engaged in the narrative. When GM-ing it is a bit the same, and more. Apart from dragging the players kicking and screaming into narrative responsibility (slight exaggeration) it is very insightful what the players/characters do after they have done their primary thing. After dealing damage do they got out of danger? Take the foe’s attention giving their mates space to recover? It just give me so much more.
Genesys does this by not only having success/fail in it’s roll resolution by also advantage/disadvantage. Adv/disadv can then be spent on activating abilities or changing (minor) things in the scene to mention a few options. Many PbtA have on some (many) moves “on hit choose one, on strong hit choose two” when when looking at what happens after the roll. Actually the PbtAs does this really well by presenting the result options in the same visual space as the roll mechanics, on the same move card. Visual design is game design.
Interested in hearing experiences, insights and opinions.
I feel like Go then Roll is more typical in (at least modern) d&d, which is my primary experience with role-playing. I’m actually really drawn to giving players more creative control over the scenario but I’ve found it’s not uncommon for players to be reluctant to assume that kind of control. The one exception is when there is a critical success with an attack or an otherwise crazy high roll on some skill check; in those cases, they universally seem to appreciate narrating their over-the-top accomplishment.
But when you start handing over the reins of the larger narrative? Or inviting them to have some creative control of the setting and world? That seems to be challenging to some players’ suspension of disbelief, like they’re seeing the man behind the curtain (indeed, being invited behind it themelves) when they wanted the wizard. Obviously d&d doesn’t really have a ton of support for these kinds of interactions at the table, so it’s perhaps not too surprising that players feel like they’re in uncharted territory when I spring it on them.
I agree that Go then Roll is more typical, its mostly like that at my table and vtable as well, but lately we are running into problems with it. Typically, one would describe their willed action, and then the DM would add some flavor to it depending on the roll. But, what with conversations? We mainly do dialouges first-person, and thats where it becomes troublesome. You actually say your part, its convincing, you have good argument, you reveal the sensitive ifnormation about the other person, so you can bully them into listening to you, then you roll and it all falls apart, and DM has to come up with bullshit reasons, why your meticulously designed argument did not work.
I also think that Roll then Go is great for narration. Even in D&D, and similar systems it could be cool. Player: Rolls for attack: 4, failure. DM: Ok, now describe how did you fail it. Everybody gets to narrate in a way that does not interfere with DMs scenario, players can add their little character details and flair even into failed actions, and DM has less work, and I think that DMs in general should think hard about how to lessen the burden of description.
I think I don’t run into the conversational issues as often but I might be more willing than most GMs to retcon that a given NPC has secret info that explains why they aren’t persuaded by a given interaction. When it’s a raw attempt to ingratiate with an NPC, I always find the line of “hmm, you said all right words but this seems a bit too convenient or neat and they suspect you have an ulterior motive” to work decently well.
Of course, it could always be that I’m just bad at detecting my own bullshit 😅 Either way, on the whole, I’m very drawn to more collaborative models of role-playing and letting the players have more reign of the narrative, but I do feel like they need to be coaxed into the mindset. So many players are used to playing RPGs as though they are piloting their characters like mechs in an imagined environment—very simulationist, in other words. I want to play more like a writing room of screenwriters workshoping a story. I just need to find systems and mechanics that let players dip their toes in the water before they’re asked to swim.
I think the best piece of advice I’ve seen about that particular situation, is to see what the player says (the exact words, tone, etc they use) as what their character wants to say, or what they are saying in their mind, but then the roll determines what is happening in reality.
Maybe your discourse that you were insecure about actually stroke a nerve and performs unexpectedly well at convincing the target. Or maybe what you think is the perfect speech is falling completely flat because the tone is way off, or you are sluttering, or you are too close or too far from the other person in an upsetting way. Just like in real life: who hasn’t had a joke we find hilarious in our mind be met with an uncomfortable silence and a quick change of topic? although that might be just me.
What I find it usually works best as a GM is to look at how the player describes their dialogue and if it’s something outstanding, or something absurd, adjust the difficulty (slightly, so the stats stay the most important factor) accordingly. It’s actually the same thing I would do when the players describe a battle tactic during combat, so it’s not exclusive to social encounters.
I prefer an even more extreme version of “Roll then go.” I prefer randomness of inputs rather than outputs. So before you choose how to respond at all, you first see what you roll, (or more commonly, what cards you draw). Then, you decide how to spend your results.
Maybe your result is better suited for taking a stealthy approach. Or perhaps it’s better suited to socialization rather than combat.
Many modern tabletop board games have embraced this design paradigm. I think structurally avoiding “roll and whiff” as an outcome is good design. Missing is fine, but when you go a whole session without succeeding meaningfully, that sucks, and it’s not fun.
This sounds like the concepts of “Fortune at the End” and “Fortune in the Middle” that were part of the Forge discussions. Fortune at the End is what you might expect from decades in the hobby: Describe what you do, tally the modifiers, and roll to see if you succeed or fail. This usually involves specific actions: I wanna hit him with my sword. Fortune in the Middle calls for modulation after the roll was made, in specified action and/or mechanically. FitM often involves broader conflicts: I wanna beat him in a sword fight. Here’s a link that goes into a bit more detail: http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=442.0
To give a more contemporary example, Powered by the Apocalypse uses Fortune in the Middle. You set your character in motion with fictional description. If that triggers a move, the establishment of fiction is guided and constrained by the rules and usually a dice roll and – often – choices made after those dice are rolled. Then chunk of fiction effected by the roll is established according to those constraints – we more find out what has happened rather than what does happen.
For instance, in Masks (a PbtA game) the move, “Directly Engage a Threat,” (triggered when your teen hero comes to blows with a villain) you roll and add your modifier, and if you do okay, you both trade blows. So, we describe how you’re both wearing each other down – wailing on each other with mighty punches, or martial arts moves, or laser blasts, or whatever. But, you get to pick one item from a list, which includes resisting or avoiding their blows; if you pick that, you get to describe how you’re blocking their punches, dodging their bullets, or slipping between their laser blasts, whatever. You might not choose that option. You might do really well and choose two options from the list, so you might slip their laser blasts and take something away from them – their gun, maybe? Now you get to describe a disarm. After that stuff has all been described, we go back to describing stuff normally.
I haven’t heard of a game that uses “Fortune at the Beginning” or full “Roll then go,” as you’ve put it.
I prefer Go then roll as I prefer to have the player understanding reasons and risks. Then the roll decide if the impact is met or avoided.
It also permit something that I try to do which would be Go, do your things, then roll. It’s easier explained with an example: in the case of creating a bomb. Is it a well build bomb or a one which will never be predictable? In fact, the character thinks it’s a good one. So I try to let the bomb being built without rolling. When the bomb is planted or ignited, then the player has to make the skill check to know if the bomb was correctly set. We experienced it as more fluid and more dynamic.
I’m having trouble seeing the distinction. In your “Roll then Go” example, the PC already chose the course of action before engaging the ogre. ‘I deal with the ogre offensively’ is just more vaguely worded than ‘I attack the ogre’, isn’t it?
It is more vague, and I may not have chosen the best descriptions in an effort to be concise. Roll then Go often, but not always, doesn’t resolve things task-by-task but takes a few steps back to a larger picture. A roll can cover a conflict or a whole scene. Back to the ogre for example, say it is rampaging through a village and you choose your character’s action as directly engaging with it (fight in melee). You make your roll and from that we let the struggle play out. Some successes may be spent to minimize collateral damage, some to avoid damage and some to deal damage. Or perhaps if the roll wasn’t that good successes could only be afforded to be spent on minimizing collateral damage. The choice of specific actions and outcomes are moved from before before the roll to afterwards when you know what specific actions you can afford.
Perhaps it’s my lack of experience with such systems, but I still see those as the same thing except whether you “zoom in” or “zoom out” of the scene. The closest analogy I can think of is Ironsworn, where you can use multiple Clash, Secure an Advantage etc. moves to simulate combat, or settle it in a single Battle roll. In the latter case, I’d still call it “Go then Roll” because deciding to fight at all is the choice being made.
Ironsworn is one of those games I really enjoy and fall into that middle ground. Let’s take a look at the Clash move where it says
On a strong hit, inflict your harm and choose one. You have the initiative.
• You bolster your position: Take +1 momentum.
• You find an opening: Inflict +1 harm.That choice after the roll, when we how how well the roll went leans into Roll then Go territory. Sojourn is another move in this style.
