At my table, a few weeks ago, the characters were outside the lair of a nefarious being, preparing to breach and assault. Before they did, one of the players announced that they wanted their character to do a quick recon, a very prudent idea. I was just about to request a Sneak check when I paused and decided against a roll, and instead just told him what he found by scouting. The sneak check would have been interesting to see if they did or did not get seen by the guards, but the better action for the evening was inside the lair – not having some skirmish outside. So I handwaved the roll to move the action along. I did it because I have recently begun to think that not everything in a game needs a roll. Let’s talk about it.

The Nature Of Rolling

We should start by talking about what a roll does in a game. It applies to a skill check and holds for a combat roll, save, etc. When the game mechanics require us to roll a die, an element of uncertainty is introduced into the scene. The die emulates the somewhat randomness of life and is often buffered by bonuses representing our skill, acumen, etc, to make what would be totally random somewhat more predictable. 

Randomness creates uncertainty and in turn, creates excitement. We don’t know what will happen when we let go of that die. Will it be a success or a failure? That excitement creates emotional investment, in a very similar way that the roll of dice in a Craps game or the release of the Roulette ball does in gambling. 

If an RPG had no rolls, it would lack that excitement of uncertainty. Conversely, if you have to roll for everything it can be tedious. This is why many games tell you that you don’t need to make an Agility check to walk across the street. 

Only Roll When Its Interesting

Over time, we evolved a GMing convention which has made its way into the mechanics of more modern games. It states something along the lines of, “Only roll when both success and failure are interesting.” Solid convention. Let’s consider it the 101 level.

The idea behind this convention is that if only one outcome of a roll is exciting, then you have a 50% chance of the roll being exciting vs it being boring. I have personally experienced this in a Pathfinder game (not its fault) where I tried three times to force a door of a storeroom open, and upon finally doing it, found out it only contained some grain. Honestly, neither outcome was exciting, and it came off like a giant waste of time. 

Not All Interesting Rolls Are Equally Interesting

Let’s jump up to the 201 level and say that even if both outcomes are interesting, a given roll may not be as interesting as another roll soon. 

Go back to my intro. Scouting around the lair is an interesting roll, if successful you are not seen and gain some useful information. If failed, you are seen by guards and a fight ensues. It’s interesting and a valid check to call for at the table. 

But… Once the party enters the lair, there is a whole bunch of cool encounters awaiting them, with cool opponents, etc. Those checks to move through the lair and to fight those creatures are far more exciting. 

That said, we could amend our interesting roll rule to say something like:

Only roll when both success and failure are the most interesting things to happen in the next few minutes. 

The main point of this evolution of thought is to maintain focus on the main plot of the story and to help the main plot progress. This tool streamlines extraneous encounters, potential red herrings (from failed rolls), and roadblocks to the story. It is best used when you want to drive the game forward. 

It works well when you are time-constrained, like in a convention game, or you want to get into the “meat” of the story.

Some Other Reasons Not To Roll

Let’s go to the 301 level and talk about some other reasons why you may just want to pass on an interesting roll. These reasons all have the same effect as above, to move us closer to the “good stuff”, but also support some other parts of the game.

Don’t call for that interesting roll (roll for brevity) when…

• It distracts from the plot
• If one of the outcomes of the roll will send the players down a tangent that pulls them away from the main storyline, which could result in significant time spent doing something other than moving the main plot forward 
• “If you fail this roll, you will attract the attention of the city guard, and you will have to fight or evade them before you can get into the temple”
• It breaks the genre of the game
• Game settings sometimes have genre conventions, things that we expect to happen because of the genre we are in. If the roll is going to potentially break with the genre, then pass 
• “You are a group of ninjas sneaking onto a roof at night. Roll to see if you are heard”
• If it is something reasonable the character can do

This is an evolution of the idea of not requiring a character to make an Agility test to cross the street. The idea is that if a character is reasonably competent in something, just give them the successful outcome. I find this especially useful in knowledge/skill checks. 

“Your character has a 75% in art history. Yea…this painting is a forgery”. 

There Are Other Ways To Solve This Problem

Not calling for rolls is a tool, like a screwdriver. It does not solve every case that comes up in a game, rather it solves some cases. There are other techniques for making rolls more interesting or relevant, like re-framing the check or changing the stakes. Sometimes it is better to use those in your session. When they are, use them.

Or Don’t Use the Screwdriver

Your personal preference as a GM or player may be to make all the interesting checks and see where the game unfolds. This is a more organic approach, leaning into the natural randomness of the game. There is nothing wrong with that approach. That style of play can be less focused but equally fun. 

Make a…nah nevermind

The die roll is a key part of most RPGs. The roll is a moment of uncertainty, that can bring about excitement and drive emotional investment in the game. There is nothing quite like a nat 20. Game systems often give good guidelines for when to call for rolls, but most only give the 101 instructions. With time and an understanding of the flow of games, you can use the 201 and 301 versions of this rule to move the story towards more interesting action.

Do you call for every interesting roll, or do you let some pass? What kinds of rolls are you more likely to let pass?