Quote from: Onix;916048I've thought about doing it, but never really liked the idea. Besides, my players have always really liked rolling dice. Some groups in the past have had an almost superstitious belief that if they don't roll the dice, they aren't in control of the character. Logically, it doesn't matter who initiates the random number generator, but to them it was vitally important.

Yes, I am sadly familiar. Favorite dice also come into play at times. Please...

I tried this a few times with my group, but I found player engagement dropped a little when they weren't rolling. I think players just enjoy taking part in the nuts and bolts of the game. Online gaming (like pbp), I generally prefer GM rolls everything - it's just simpler that way.

You need a certain group, but it can work great with the right GM. There was a CoC GM at the LA Cons who would run games where you got a half page description of your PC and a picture of them, then everything else was narrated. He was a good GM and it worked for CoC because so much of the game is investigation and combat is pretty FUBAR. Because the GM had a reputation for running very immersive games, it worked since he drew in players who were all about the Mythos adventure and not the game system.

The same GM ran Traveller and D&D a couple times in that manner, and I felt that technique worked best with CoC.

I like players to roll for themselves when appropriate. I also like to roll for them when appropriate: certain skill checks like hiding, listening, checking for traps; the usual suspects. I've had some player want to roll even those, depending upon their own "luck" and not the GM's, as it were. If they can maintain metadata outside of the game, I am okay with that approach as well. As for taking the dice away, my players aren't children. They can give them up if they wish, but I'd never take them away. I'm  not some controlling jerk with daddy issues, after all.

Quote from: DavetheLost;915997I have played this way. It absolutely requires a trustworthy GM.

It can add greatly to immersion, but I find players like rolling dice.

I agree with both parts of your second sentence: I can see it adding something to the experience for certain games, but the people at my table like to roll those bones.

The first sentence is kinda a given: I don't play with people I don't trust not to cheat at a dang game. We are talking elf-games, after all.

I'd have a hard time convincing my current group to allow the GM to roll everything as they are all former players from nigh textbook examples of bad and even killer GMs. And they like the game part and are "not interested in just sitting there hearing a story that they vaugly pilot" as one put it since it takes away from them the option to embellish and puts it mostly in the GMs hands. Some really dont like that.

As usual. Varries massively from table to table group to group player to player.

I prefer to have the players roll as much as possible because I think it makes them feel more involved.  I only roll for players if there is a concrete reason to do so.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;916081I agree with both parts of your second sentence: I can see it adding something to the experience for certain games, but the people at my table like to roll those bones.

The first sentence is kinda a given: I don't play with people I don't trust not to cheat at a dang game. We are talking elf-games, after all.

When you mention cheating it reminded me of a player I had back in the early 80s. He was a coworker and had heard of D&D but knew nothing about it other than it of Satan. (You guys remember Pat Robertson's crusade Im sure) I was without a group at the time so we enjoyed a little one on one gaming and he really took to it. We ended up completing a very satisfying campaign which ended with the character usurping the throne. It was awesome. It was then, as we welcomed in a couple newly available players, that he dropped the bomb on me. He had been cheating.

I used a home made DM screen at the time, a nice tall wall of foam board between us that screened my notes and maps and also gave me a purchase for reference pages and the like. We each did our own rolling on or own sides and I never even considered checking he reported die rolls. He admitted to me that over all those months he had consistently used made up die results when it was convenient. He would sometimes allow himself to fail when it wasn't all that harmful and tried not to be to obvious with the successes but probably fudged his own dice 75% of the time.

I was shocked, I mean blown away but I have to be honest. It really didn't hurt the game at all, we had a blast. I suppose it should have made some big difference but it didn't. Of course with other players coming in he would have to stop and did, but only lasted a couple of sessions before moving off.

Quote from: rgrove0172;916094I was shocked, I mean blown away but I have to be honest. It really didn't hurt the game at all, we had a blast. I suppose it should have made some big difference but it didn't. Of course with other players coming in he would have to stop and did, but only lasted a couple of sessions before moving off.

To you and maybee me it mitght not have hurt the game if the story was enguaging. But its still taking from us those elements of chance and choice and swapping in an illusion to tell a story or to add "drama" etc. The DM is no longer a neutral arbiter. "Hah-ha! Fooled you!" doesnt sit well then you sit down to a table expecting fair play.

Players like to roll dice. In fact, I get them to do many of "my" rolls - check for wandering monsters, damage for traps sprung against them, and so on. And when someone's character goes down they take great pleasure in rolling for the monsters against the rest of the party.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;916098Players like to roll dice. In fact, I get them to do many of "my" rolls - check for wandering monsters, damage for traps sprung against them, and so on. And when someone's character goes down they take great pleasure in rolling for the monsters against the rest of the party.

I've taken to letting my players roll for wandering monsters as well. It's funny even to them now to hear the groans when someone rolls a one!

Quote from: Omega;916097To you and maybee me it mitght not have hurt the game if the story was enguaging. But its still taking from us those elements of chance and choice and swapping in an illusion to tell a story or to add "drama" etc. The DM is no longer a neutral arbiter. "Hah-ha! Fooled you!" doesnt sit well then you sit down to a table expecting fair play.

Im not sure what direction you are coming from there. I felt like the only person that really got cheated was him. All those amazing successes, the critical hits, the last second 'pull it out of your ass' good luck felt genuine and amazing to me as I didn't know they were contrived. For him, with the result known before hand and never in doubt, it had to have lost a little drama, or so I tell myself.

Quote from: Harlock;916079I like players to roll for themselves when appropriate. I also like to roll for them when appropriate: certain skill checks like hiding, listening, checking for traps; the usual suspects.

Yep. I also find that in systems that have persuasion skills rolling the dice for the players allows a more natural feel to the conversation since I can work the result into the NPC reaction so the NPC accepting or rejecting based in part on the die roll seems less artificial and obvious. Which most of the players seem to like or prefer.

Quote from: Skarg;916010In real life, we have a sense for how good we are and how likely things are to succeed, and we experience doing them, but not with numerical precision.

That's one of the big things I like about GM-only rolling, and also the reason I'm always baffled by people who insist that a die-rolling mechanic is inferior because it doesn't provide transparent probabilities.  If I want to jump a stream in real life, I know "I'm almost certain to make it", not "I have a 97% chance to make it".

Other reasons I like it include making it easier for new players to just join the game (they don't need to read the rules if they're not interacting with them) and a general distaste for system-mastery-based playstyles.

But, yeah, I was opposed to running a game that way at first, because of the extra work it would make for me, but my players pushed me to try it (well, most of them... there was one who didn't like the idea because of dice superstitions, but he agreed to try it and seemed ok with it once he did) because they didn't want numbers or mechanics getting in the way of the roleplaying experience.

Quote from: rgrove0172;916094It really didn't hurt the game at all, we had a blast. I suppose it should have made some big difference but it didn't.

I'm glad you can reconcile what a crappy thing your friend was doing, cheating the whole time.

You may have decided that you enjoyed the experience irrespective of his cheating, but it certainly hurt the game. Indeed, you two weren't really playing the same game, but only one of you knew it.

Some folks like to roleplay without rules or dice, they just collectively decide how things unfold. That's fine, but without rules and a means of arbitration, there isn't a game. Still can be a fun activity, of course.

Cheating is a whole other thing, however.