2y ago

Go then Roll vs Roll then Go

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.

35 comments

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) 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 your both wearing each other down -- wailing on each other with might 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've come across the Forge every now and then and always found something good there. It was an interesting read that twenty-two year old thread. That talk about Fortune-in-the-middle being the way for (more) narrative systems did happen. I need to read much more of the Forge's archives.
  As for Fortune-at-the-Beginning (Roll then Go) heavy systems I know two at the top of my head, 2e 7th Sea and Panic! at the Dojo. 2e 7th Sea works by the GM framing the scene, setting up dangers (this will happen unless prevented, ex damage) and revealing opportunities (something good that can be achieved). Then each player declare their general approach to the scene, make the roll and count "successes". Successes than then be spent on avoiding danger or capitalizing on opportunities. And other things? Never really played it. Panic! at the Dojo is a martial arts combat system. Each round each combatant chooses their stance which gives them their dice pool and some special actions they can do. They roll and depending on the value on each dice abilities can be activated. A flurry of blows may require a 3+ on a dice and so on. But apart from those systems I'm drawing blanks.
  
  Whereas in Hero Wars, in either Simple or Extended Combat resolution, the player is urged to announce ONLY general intent prior to rolling, and that's not intent about the ACTION, but about the entire conflict[...] That's Fortune-in-the-middle: the Fortune mechanic provides a template or foundation for subsequent decisions and mechanics to modify, for the purposes of defining not only the outcomes, but the specific actions themselves, of the event.
  That sounds a lot like,
  Then each player declare their general approach to the scene, make the roll and count “successes”. Successes than then be spent on avoiding danger or capitalizing on opportunities. And other things? Never really played it. Panic! at the Dojo is a martial arts combat system. Each round each combatant chooses their stance which gives them their dice pool and some special actions they can do. They roll and depending on the value on each dice abilities can be activated.
  Doesn't it? It seems like true FitB/RtG would require no input from the player at the beginning, and then die rolls determining what actions/approaches/descriptions they can make. Kind of an interesting thought exercise...

It depends on your medium of play, the members of the table, on how much trust there is, and on how crunchy the entire experience is allowed to feel. These days most of my D&D is in play-by-post discord servers, and I tend to stick to ones that are roll-then-go. It lets the player run the mechanics of their actions through avrae and find out successes and failures, and then describe how they do what they do. There is a strong onus on everyone understanding the game mechanics, and only engaging the DM in "can I?" Questions when pushing the envelope with improvised actions. The result is a faster (IMO) game with better writing (which starts to read like collaborative storytelling, especially if everyone uses a literary style).
In a go-then-roll world, the burden falls on the DM to "ratify" each character's intended actions. "
<Char>
would try to do an acrobatic flip" would need a "The floor is slippery, and
<char>
falls flat on their face" followup, and this is just really slow in an async format. Inevitably, this is the most common way of sharing out the results of Perception and Investigation, though I appreciate pbp DMs who rely on passive stats and give things out in preemptively spoiler tags (that's whete the trust comes in).
"
<char>
would try" is also a grating construction that feels terrible to read in general--it's just not a common tense signature. That said, in a low-latency live game, where the DM can roll immediately after learning of the player's intentions, go-then-roll(-then-go) is much more viable, and is probably preferable for new players who are new to the system.
- That's interesting. I play TTRPGs via play-by-post too, and the norm for me involves declaring your actions before the roll. I can see why you might encounter friction with failed rolls from your example, but usually the action is framed more as "
  <Char>
  launches themself off the floor". That leaves space for the GM to narrate the result, succeed or fail.
  
  Right, which maintains a disproportionate onus on the DM to intervene on every turn (both the monsters' and the PC's turns). Deferring success or failure to a bot (avrae) given a shared understanding of the rules allows the players to own their own narration (e.g. I decide how badly I faceplant after failing to jump the obstacle, rather than the DM doing it), and reduces the time commitment that DMing otherwise takes. The DM is already necessary during social and exploration pillars, where the go-then-roll is often required just b/c the check to make is not obvious (unless the DM makes prodigious use of spoiler text and passive skills). Roll-then-go in combat however is, IMO, superior for speed and player engagement.
  Reactions need special care in roll-then-go, with strategies being necessary like declaring them ahead of time, retconning, or, my favorite, narrating what actually happened (e.g. to show how the pre-reaction narration was a fork in reality that didn't happen the way it looked).

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.

IMO Go then Roll is the only way to handle it with any sort of fairness. The player decides what their character is trying to do, then the GM tells them what to roll and we all see what happens. The player should commit to what they're attempting, otherwise there's a lot less excitement when they can just back it down to "could I have tried something easier?"
We have dice in the game to add risk. If you remove too much of that risk it's not as exciting. Maybe that's appealing to players who can't stand to not have things go their way, but to me the thrill is in the unknown.

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'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.

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.

I'll have to give that a try! I had heard of Masks but it's a testament to how popular pbta is that it has several superhero systems 😅

I think what works best depends a lot on the system and the style of dialogue that it wants for itself.
With “Go then Roll” you are declaring what your character intends to do, which may or may not correspond with what it ends up happening, and the game master is the one responsible to detail the outcome looking at the result. The reason why it’s the most common option is probably because it allows setting the difficulty according to the details of the action described by the player, or in other words, it allows the player to influence their chance of success by doing things well (offering a good argument when persuading a target, attacking an enemy’s weak spot, etc), or badly (saying something ridiculously unconvincing, attacking an enemy in an obviously ineffective way, etc).
With “Roll then Go”, you just indicate the approach without adding details, roll, and then have the game master give you a result. Only after knowing the result you describe what actually happens. This prevents certain situations that, while they aren’t problematic for my understanding of “Go then Roll”, can be frustrating for some (like the character describing an epic attack, or giving a great speech, knowing that their chances are high, only to then fumble the dice roll and having their action fail). Here the difficulty depends exclusively on the character’s stats and the “what” of the situation, and not the details of the “how”, which can be good or bad depending on how you like to play RPGs. On the other hand, it allows the player to describe their successes and failures as they actually happen, and not only as their characters intend them to.
Personally, I tend more towards “Go then Roll”, and it’s how I have always played, but I can see how some games can take advantage of “Roll then Go”, and wouldn’t mind trying it sometime.

35 comments