Quote from: Coffee Zombie;968736I think it can serve to reinforce the GM's position in the game entirely. The GM can sit back, surrounded by notes and references, and no longer bother with rolling a die for each goblin attack. It also means the GM could instead focus on tracking scores in combat - a HP tracker for all monsters, the group, and effects going on. I've often found as a GM it's useful to stand and walk the table when important conflicts are going on, and update maps or a whiteboard. Freeing me from rolling dice makes that easier.

There is also a mild psychological component here. If I'm the GM and rolling dice, my dice are affecting players, and their losses are partially attributed to me in terms of luck. But if a player is doing all the rolling, s/he is always relying on his or her own luck - it could change the focus of a bad run of luck.

This would also be a useful mechanic for teaching newer players how to play. By handing off a lot of the moving parts to the player, it teaches the more passive player how to get involved with and see the mechanics in the system.

Now, flip the entire system around, with the GM rolling everything, and announcing the results to the players, who are only tracking their HP and spell slots, and you have transformed the game again. This is effectively how all computer RPGs work, with players having control over resources (healing potions, spells). I think the advantage of having all rolls player facing is the enhanced interaction the players have with the mechanics - it can lead to greater attention, as tanaka mentioned.

I think the current, proper divide of "Player rolls his character's stuff, GM rolls for everything else" is the best and ideal method, which is why it has stuck for so long.

However, if I was forced to decide between "player-facing" (another bullshit Storygamer term) and a scenario where the GM rolled everything, I would pick the latter every time.

Why? Because at least the latter is not going to be as anti-emulative.   Aside from the historical motivations behind the "let's take the GM's dice away" movement and it's origin from known pieces of shit that despised the GM's role for all kinds of stupid Swine motives, there's also the problem that a system like the Black Hack creates a condition where it feels like the PCs are the only real thing, the only thing that matters, in the world.  The monsters have no influence except in terms of how they affect the PCs. Giving the players charge of all the rolling and basing all these rolls on their characters' stats makes everything else in the world feel like a facade.

I just posted my review of Kaigaku, which seemed like a very interesting setting but that runs on the Black Hack rules, and in that review I elaborate more on my issues with just how much the BH rules break emulation over and over again, in ways that I've only seen otherwise happen in storygames or quasi-storygames like Dungeon World.

Quote from: cranebump;968905I think the main benefit is more player engagement. Makes it less about, "now watch me do stuff, everybody--I am dah GM!"

So once again, the argument boils down to "GMs are evil tyrants that must be overthrown for the good of the collective"...

Quote from: RPGPundit;969494So once again, the argument boils down to "GMs are evil tyrants that must be overthrown for the good of the collective"...

No, it isn't. It's just task resolution. Doesn't matter who makes the rolls. GM still maintains their traditional role. Of course, if you define "traditional role" as "it's all about MEEEEEEEE!" then I suppose you might find this frightening.

Speaking of being a fucking swine, look in the goddamned mirror. You're bitching about GM hate while spewing player hate, to the point where you want "your" monsters to be as important as the player characters. I got news for you--we ARE ultimately in service to the players, because the alternative is mentally masturbating over yourself and your grand creations. In short, the job description doesn't contain the words "self-aggrandizing dickhead required," but you're sure acting like it does, all because you caught another made-up wiff of an antithetical gaming mode. "Holy shit! Something that favors players? No, sez I, the gatekeeper of all that if good and holy!":-/

You're jumping at shadows, man. Nobody's coming for your dice. You wanna make an argument, then confine it to the system, rather than indignant responses to phantom swipes at every stupid ass thing you stand for. It's a game. It requires players. Maybe they don't want to sit around and watch YOU do everything. Maybe there ARE better ways to get players into the action than your decades old "one true way." If you think not, make your point and move on. But let's not red herring this into a philosophical attack that isn't occurring, Batman. The game is not sending any signals other than speed and investment. You're making the rest of it up.

Swine...pft...maybe you hate them so much because you're so much like them. You jest at scars that never felt a wound.

I'm not a fan of this because as a GM, I like playing with dice.  I know it's an illusion, but I love to play with the polyhedral pieces of plastic.  That's all.

I don't see how it is any more 'immersion-breaking' than saving throws, rolling to hit, tracking their HP and XP, etc.

I do see some point to the idea that the GM 'plays' the monsters, NPCs and environment and by rolling that helps the player think of themselves as the PC responding to the world.

But that seems like an abstract idea rather than something arrived at the table. I suspect players new to RPGs would find it completely natural and no impediment to 'immersion''

Math can be the same, so that's a wash.
Focusing on players, focusing on GM's, any cry of power-madness can be flipped around, so that's a wash.
Free the GM...to do what?  Black Hack is such a simple system there's nothing to do.  Maybe if you ran two different games with two tables at once you'd need that much time.
Player attention - if your players can't be bothered to be interested in what is happening with other players during their turn...you need new players.
Round length - if your character's turn takes that long that people can't stay focused, you need a new system.

While Pundit is right in that the current "player rolls" mechanics have roots in gaming ideology seeking to reduce GM power and some games do use it specifically to "focus on the PCs" in a more protagonist fashion, the idea has been bouncing around for many years now, so I don't automatically attribute the idea in a game to that ideology.  I just don't see a reason for it.  It also brings up the PvP problem, some systems are easier than others to deal with this.

Most of the games I run these days have no static attack or defense, so it requires two rolls anyway, me and the player rolling at the same time is faster than either one of us rolling twice.  Any game that does have static attack or defense, like D&D, is already so simple and hardwired into us, there's no need to save any processing time.

Everyone's mileage is going to vary on this one, but I don't really see any benefit that outweighs the drawback of simple role separation - everything the player does, the player rolls for, everything else, the GM rolls for and the drawback of fundamentally different rules for PCs and NPCs.  Simple things like that reinforce the notion that this is a game.

In the end, all of the Black Hack is to save time and book-keeping.  Time, encumbrance, resource usage, all simplified, combat streamlined (and shifted heavily in favor of players as far as damage goes).  You can do a dungeon in 10 minutes...yay?

I don't really get the "darling" status of it or why people think it's so revolutionary.  Eventually though, everyone will get their perfect form of D&D, so it's all good.

I think it is a good system but doesn't blow me away. I mostly like the hacks, especially the one for Tekumel (which is free on Drivethru btw). I think it has 'blown up' in our tiny OSR/RPG world because:

1. It is based on D&D.

2. Like AW it has a simple chasis that makes it easy to hack.

3. It is cheap.

4. David Black is well respected and liked.

Personally I think The White Hack is the most inspired OSR system. It is so different from D&D though I think it qualifies as a different system, a very well designed and elegant system I think.

Unfortunately the designer has decided to only sell it as a hardcopy on Lulu which restricts its reach and appeal.

Quote from: cranebump;968905I think the main benefit is more player engagement. Makes it less about, "now watch me do stuff, everybody--I am dah GM!"

When switching to player rolling, I didn't notice any increase in engagement. Granted this is just an anecdote, but it was the same GM, same players, and same character with only the die mechanic changing, so I think the experiment was fair. Any changes to engagement or immersion were insignificant, unlike other experiments, such as removing initiative, which produced very noticeable improvements.

Quote from: CRKrueger;969533Free the GM...to do what?  Black Hack is such a simple system there's nothing to do.  Maybe if you ran two different games with two tables at once you'd need that much time.

Already answered.

Quote from: Opaopajr;968422Then I can take these quick breathers in combat to jot notes, imagine improv, roll ad hoc content, etc.

... and I do enjoy that occasional bright idea which comes across my mind in a moment of inspiration! The muse demands her space -- I obey!

Quote from: cranebump;969504No, it isn't. It's just task resolution. Doesn't matter who makes the rolls. GM still maintains their traditional role.

Can the GM say "no, don't roll defense. The monster hits you"? Can he say "I'm going to roll, not you"?

If not, he cannot maintain his traditional role.

QuoteOf course, if you define "traditional role" as "it's all about MEEEEEEEE!" then I suppose you might find this frightening.

No, I maintain his traditional role as "The GM is the final authority of the RPG game; NOT the loudest most annoying player, NOT the "rules-as-written-and-interpreted-by-the-best-rules-lawyer, NOT the Asshole Game Designer who thinks his own personal genius makes him a better judge of what should happen at a gaming table 3000 miles away from him than the guy actually running the table; NOT a movement that thinks GMs are a Product of Rape-Culture Imperialist White Patriarchy".

QuoteSpeaking of being a fucking swine, look in the goddamned mirror. You're bitching about GM hate while spewing player hate, to the point where you want "your" monsters to be as important as the player characters.

The monsters ARE as important as the characters. If you understood how RPGs worked, you'd know that. Shit, the weather is as important as the player characters.  Whether or not there's gunpowder available in the market is as important as the player characters.
The player characters are just the Players' vehicles to interact in a VIRTUAL WORLD. Since the entire fun of the game depends on the realistic emulation of that Virtual World in order to achieve IMMERSION, all of those things are equally important for Fun to be achieved.

If a player feels like world is flat because he only ever interacts with the world through rolling his own stats, as if nothing in the world but his own PCs' stats were real or mattered, then the World does not become True, he can't achieve Immersion, and THE GAME FAILS.

QuoteI got news for you--we ARE ultimately in service to the players,

No. The GM and the Players are ALL there to have fun. The GM isn't a fucking slave there, to be punished for some imagined ancestral sin by having to be a toadie to whatever a group of fetishists want as fantasy wish-fulfillment. There's a reason why Forge games are all for one-shots.

The GM has a DUTY to make sure his players will have the most fun possible for the longest time possible. Why does he have that Duty? Because HE IS THE ULTIMATE POWER, and with great power comes great duty. If he didn't have that power, he would not have any such duty and could be whatever kind of piece of shit he wanted. And for that matter, if he did not have that power he wouldn't even have the capacity to make sure players have the most fun for the longest time possible, because to make sure that happens he must be able to have the power to say NO to their capricious little spoiled whims of the moment.   If he can't say No to them getting whatever the fuck they feel like just now, the game ends quickly as one or two people at the table (again, the loudest, most annoying players) get a session that went exactly how THEY wanted it to, and everyone else feels cheated.

QuoteMaybe there ARE better ways to get players into the action than your decades old "one true way."

There aren't. That's why none of the bullshit garbage ideas the bullshit garbage Swine have come up with over the years to try to hijack games has produced anything other than misery, and why Old School, my "one true way", and myself personally are all more popular now than ever.
Must suck to be you some mornings...

Quote from: hedgehobbit;969589When switching to player rolling, I didn't notice any increase in engagement. Granted this is just an anecdote, but it was the same GM, same players, and same character with only the die mechanic changing, so I think the experiment was fair. Any changes to engagement or immersion were insignificant, unlike other experiments, such as removing initiative, which produced very noticeable improvements.

Sidebar:
You removed initiative?
How'd that work?

Quote from: Voros;9695454. David Black is well respected and liked.

Is he? I mean Black Hack aside I have nothing previous for or against the guy. But what did he do? From what I could see, only the Black Hack itself, and Narcosa, which was a fucking lame wasted-opportunity product which only proved that (in spite of his 'bad boy' persona) he clearly knows fuck-all about actual drugs.


Was he a well known OSR guy before that? In what circles? Why? Was he some protege out of some micro-circle within the movement, like Raggi's, or Jmal's?
Or was he known in gaming outside the OSR? If so where? Storygaming?

Quote from: RPGPundit;970409Can the GM say "no, don't roll defense. The monster hits you"? Can he say "I'm going to roll, not you"?

If not, he cannot maintain his traditional role.

Yes, very simply: GM just rolls damage. All you end up doing is skipping the defense roll. This is exactly like being struck and having "no save" (identical to D&D).

What exactly are you railing against? :confused: At this point I am confused. Have you read Black Hack or its variants yet? :cool:

Quote from: Christopher Brady;969510I'm not a fan of this because as a GM, I like playing with dice.  I know it's an illusion, but I love to play with the polyhedral pieces of plastic.  That's all.

And that makes absolute sense to me. I like rolling, as well, though I somehow went a year without making a single in-game roll. Had the players do them all.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;969589When switching to player rolling, I didn't notice any increase in engagement. Granted this is just an anecdote, but it was the same GM, same players, and same character with only the die mechanic changing, so I think the experiment was fair. Any changes to engagement or immersion were insignificant, unlike other experiments, such as removing initiative, which produced very noticeable improvements.

My observations are pretty much the same, concerning player facing systems. However the only system I ran consistently so far is DW. I do like the idea of the players are rolling to defend. If only because it makes it to where there really aren't any long, GM off turns in combat.

Have  to say here that I agree with CK in that there really isn't a big time-saving aspect for the GM in Black Hack, although there is a decrease in bookkeeping due to the usage mechanic (which I actually do not like-- I think DW does this better).