Balancing role vs. roll.
A bipartisan approach.

Find your gaming style sweet spot somewhere between the two extremes of ‘role vs roll.’ Strive for a balance between the improv theatre approach and the kick-in-the-door, kill and loot board game. There’s no meaning to the numbers without characters to care about, and a setting, story and atmosphere to facilitate that. And there’s no meaning to the role-play without a structure built from balanced challenges and a measurement of abilities to determine success.

This can also be regarded as narrative vs tactical. Even the most sweeping, epic story arc requires the threat of death and failure. Otherwise, there’s no tension, or any weight at all to character actions. Some optional tools can be employed to help safeguard a storyline (including strong incentives to influence character choices, and resource-limited rerolls or resurrection for fallen heroes) but ultimately, nothing should be guaranteed.

Similarly, without the presence of any strong story or setting, you may as well be presiding over nameless avatars scouring a randomly generated dungeon for treasure and experience points. In which case, why even GM at all? You may as well relegate the whole experience to that of a casual board game, grab your own nameless avatar, and have whoever’s sitting to the left of the active player roll for the monsters that they encounter on their turn. Congratulations, you’ve just turned thrilling yarns into thrilling yawns.

A related issue is that of the GM rolling behind the screen vs in sight. The results are a matter of player perspective. I had a player who was convinced that I fudged dice to spare the lives of characters. I had another player who was convinced that I adhered strictly to the result of every die roll, whatever the consequences. Both players were in the same group.

I like to maintain the mystery, although there are a few occasions when I will decide to roll in the open. After enemies succeeded in every saving throw against a PC sorcerer’s spells for several weeks straight in a pay-to-play campaign, I decided it was time for me to show that it was the dice rather than me being an utter bastard.

I don’t believe in fudging die rolls, despite my curse of having critters like kobolds repeatedly crit while their bosses roll low in supposedly climactic encounters. But I like having options such as enabling the potential use of villain points for the occasional key NPC to balance PC hero points, when used. But if this method is utilized, it should always be mentioned to players beforehand. It is a potentially useful tool to prevent an epic narrative being derailed in an anticlimactic instant by a single failed saving throw, thanks to a level seven wizard casting ‘phantasmal killer,’ or even a lowly level three cleric casting ‘hold person.’

Another way to help maintain a balance of styles is to influence player character design when necessary. If it looks obvious that a character will be greatly overshadowed tactically in every regard by other characters in the group, it’s okay to point this out and make some helpful suggestions. Also, encourage (or even demand) role-playing reasons behind choices of feats, skills and abilities rather than pure number-crunching optimization. If a player wants to throw in a combo of obscure feats with wildly incongruous sources, make them explain how and why their character obtained them. Voila, backstory; the character is ready to roll and role-play.