TheRPGSite

There seem to be like  a gazillion supplements coming out for this. Has anyone here actually taken it for a spin? General thoughts on the experience?

I've played with it and its solid. A few things seemed odd but that just may be because they're different, like the monsters never rolling to hit, if I'm remembering right. I do like the encumbrence system and I'm considering porting it to 5e. There's a Tekumel Black Hack that does a great job of boiling down the setting to under 40ish pages, highly recommended.

Picked up the core and some supplements. Will consider this as an option for next gaming experience, as it looks pretty nifty.

Quote from: cranebump;964402Picked up the core and some supplements. Will consider this as an option for next gaming experience, as it looks pretty nifty.

The Cthulhu Hack is also awesome for running a Lovecraftian investigation game. Same Black Hack simplified mechanics ported to 1920's investigative horror scenarios. Great stuff.

Quote from: Voros;964353I've played with it and its solid. A few things seemed odd but that just may be because they're different, like the monsters never rolling to hit, if I'm remembering right. I do like the encumbrence system and I'm considering porting it to 5e. There's a Tekumel Black Hack that does a great job of boiling down the setting to under 40ish pages, highly recommended.

I agree it is very well done. Lots of useful stuff in there.

Does it differ in significant ways from just playing OD&D (or the various other early edition clones) in the settings folks are discussing?

Quote from: Larsdangly;964667Does it differ in significant ways from just playing OD&D (or the various other early edition clones) in the settings folks are discussing?

There's no AC, no THAC0 or anything like that, completely player facing rolls (apart from monster damage), one line monster descriptions, barely any stats apart from SDCIWC+HP, and I'm sure there's other stuff I'm forgetting.

What does 'completely player facing rolls' mean?

How do you resolve attacks without AC? Does armor reduce damage or something?

Different sorts of armor give armor points that can be spent to reduce damage. When a player has spent all their APs they need to rest up to get back into fighting shape (or push on taking damage directly to their HP). Player-facing just means that all rolls are made by the players, their attacks and defences and saves and the likes, rolling under the relevant stat on a d20. The DM doesn't touch a d20 and just rolls damage dice, or gets the players to roll for the damage they take.

So who rolls when a monster attacks a PC?

The PC rolls to defend...

It's too simple for my tastes, but I like the item use roll very much

Quote from: LouGoncey;964716The PC rolls to defend...

Crazy; so the idea is that if a player attacks a monster, the player rolls to hit, but if the monster attacks the player, the player rolls to defend? It's obvious that so long as the numbers are thought through correctly it is all much of a sameness. But it grates against my sensibilities. I dislike any kind of rules that treat PC's as different sorts of beings from NPC's

Quote from: Larsdangly;964771Crazy; so the idea is that if a player attacks a monster, the player rolls to hit, but if the monster attacks the player, the player rolls to defend?

Having played Dungeon World for a year, I'm now used to not rolling dice at the table. It's just inverting the task is all. Also keeps players active during monster turns. I mean, I get the idea there. What bothers me more is the "roll under" mechanic. And according to the play example it IS under, not ON or under. So if my target number is 15, I need a 14 or less. I'd rather just say the number or lower, and then add 1 to all rolls to achieve the same odds. Better yet, I'd rather have a roll over system than a roll under.

The roll under not on and under seems a pointless complication I just skipped.

Quote from: Voros;964809The roll under not on and under seems a pointless complication I just skipped.

Can you get the same odds for roll under (not on) by d20+stat vs 20+(lvl +1)? Makes lvl 9 monster a target 30, lvl 1 a 22, and so on?

Good question. I suck at math and so can't answer. It didn't seem to throw the balance of battle off balance but we only played a few sessions as a one shot to try the system out. I want to return to it using the Tekumel hack.

I think you can flip it pretty easily using the above. I think I'd tweak the fighter ability to say "add your lvl to the damage roll," and probably work in extra attacks at higher levels. I had an idea of working in a "Maneuvers" chart for nat 20s and totals of 30 or more, but, after running through the idea, it seemed needlessly complicated. I might just want to run the game on its own merits first.

Yeah you're right, pretty much as easy as switching from descending to ascending AC. I agree about trying out the system without too many additions at first. It does have a speedy B/X feel to the combat.

Quote from: cranebump;964811Can you get the same odds for roll under (not on) by d20+stat vs 20+(lvl +1)? Makes lvl 9 monster a target 30, lvl 1 a 22, and so on?

D20+stat vs 22 (+monster lvl) also keep in mind that two handed attacks add a +2 to the attack (a penalty) so you need to change that to a -2

http://anydice.com/program/bd66


The rolling under (not on) is so that you can always have 5% chsnce of failure, even if you have 20 on a stat

Quote from: tanaka84;965287D20+stat vs 22 (+monster lvl) also keep in mind that two handed attacks add a +2 to the attack (a penalty) so you need to change that to a -2

http://anydice.com/program/bd66


The rolling under (not on) is so that you can always have 5% chsnce of failure, even if you have 20 on a stat

If a '1' always fails, you have the same thing the other way.

Thanks for reminder about two hand sword.

Quote from: LouGoncey;964716The PC rolls to defend...

So wait, it's like a save? I might actually be OK with it.

I have been eying Black Hack for Mirrorshades, so I can play a cyberpunk game with speed and oodles of random tables to keep the game moving.

Quote from: cranebump;965410If a '1' always fails, you have the same thing the other way.

Of course, that's why the base target number is 22, so you fail on a 1 :).

Cheers!

Quote from: tanaka84;965418Of course, that's why the base target number is 22, so you fail on a 1 :).

Cheers!

Derrrrr....that's right. (me learn math someday).:-)

This thread got me curious, so I picked it up. Looks simple, clean, and I like how compact and tight the presentation is.

Looks like you can easily run those OS dungeons, too. For monsters, simply add the AC to the hit roll (if I ran the flipped version), and keeping most everything else (dmg dice, etc.) as is. Looks like its worth a try.

What a stupid fucking concept: an OSR game that bans the GM from making rolls.

Quote from: RPGPundit;966088What a stupid fucking concept: an OSR game that bans the GM from making rolls.

There are advantages to not rolling, among them, more player activity (rolling on offense and defense). Having just run a system where players make all the rolls I can testify it's not that bad an idea. Of course, at least I ran something like that before delivering an opinion on it...:-/

Quote from: RPGPundit;966088What a stupid fucking concept: an OSR game that bans the GM from making rolls.

I don't see it as a ban, rather a design choice; there are literally hundreds of OSR products out there, this is just one aimed at GMs who like player-facing mechanics.

I like it a lot, and I make dice rolls as a GM when I play it, for random encounters, reaction rolls, npcs doing stuff that might go wrong (using a simple 1 in X mechanic), but yeah, if it involves the PCs, let those player roll :).

Cheers.

One thing I did get wrong, evidently, is that hitting something is nothing but an attribute test, no mods, save for the +1/lvl differential. So armor is a big, big deal.

I've been toying with this stat mechanic for my own messy hack, (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pwRHtdc-ie5AC-x1Hk8RA-Tg3hZEDNywm3sASN15HAg/edit?usp=sharing) which includes elements of FAGE.

I did. I modified Black Hack to create a samurai rule set. It's fast. And by fast I mean that my wife and her friend, both of whom had never played an RPG before, got PCs made up in about 10 minutes. They had a blast. I turned it into Kaigaku and am having fun writing it up.

Quote from: tanaka84;966276I don't see it as a ban, rather a design choice; there are literally hundreds of OSR products out there, this is just one aimed at GMs who like player-facing mechanics.

But it's not just a one-off option; it's a trend that was started by a group of assholes who despise GMs and want them as powerless as possible.  It also strikes me as the opposite of OSR sensibilities.

Quote from: DiscoSoup;966340I did. I modified Black Hack to create a samurai rule set. It's fast. And by fast I mean that my wife and her friend, both of whom had never played an RPG before, got PCs made up in about 10 minutes. They had a blast. I turned it into Kaigaku and am having fun writing it up.

Kaigaku is the next book in my pile of reviews.  I haven't even cracked it open yet, but I'll be interested to see if it can win me over.

Quote from: RPGPundit;966617But it's not just a one-off option; it's a trend that was started by a group of assholes who despise GMs and want them as powerless as possible.  It also strikes me as the opposite of OSR sensibilities.

What was the first game to have players roll all the dice?

Quote from: RPGPundit;966617But it's not just a one-off option; it's a trend that was started by a group of assholes who despise GMs and want them as powerless as possible.  It also strikes me as the opposite of OSR sensibilities.

That might be true, in a fashion, but there is nothing in the rules to suggest that the rest of that crowds argument is being accepted. Rather it feels like the interesting mechanical choice has been mined and used in an OSR game. I'm not certain how it would work in actual play, but it could leave the DM free to focus on outcomes and description.

Ultimately it's a gaming fad, and having an OSR version of it hurts no one. Having now read it, I'm unlikely to use it (I think too many rules got simplified to make the player facing rules work). But it doesn't plant a flag in that so called camp just by existing.

Quote from: RPGPundit;966617But it's not just a one-off option; it's a trend that was started by a group of assholes who despise GMs and want them as powerless as possible.  It also strikes me as the opposite of OSR sensibilities.

How is it disempowering you if you can't roll dice. It's not like you can control the result. Unless you're balking at the fact you can't roll and fudge behind a screen? Really, rolling a die is the least powerful thing a GM does.

Quote from: RPGPundit;966618Kaigaku is the next book in my pile of reviews.  I haven't even cracked it open yet, but I'll be interested to see if it can win me over.

Gulp. I will say that Kaigaku has lots for the GM to roll. There's an encounter generator for various environments (court, streets, battlefield and open wilderness) and you generally roll every 15 minutes of real time.

Quote from: cranebump;966745How is it disempowering you if you can't roll dice. It's not like you can control the result. Unless you're balking at the fact you can't roll and fudge behind a screen? Really, rolling a die is the least powerful thing a GM does.

That's a good point I hadnt considered. By requiring the player to roll, there can be no fudging - everything is out in the open. That's definitely a point in favour, in my view (as an aside I roll all combat dice in the open anyway, always have, but I like how this approach removes dice based fudging).

Quote from: Psikerlord;966835That's a good point I hadnt considered. By requiring the player to roll, there can be no fudging - everything is out in the open. That's definitely a point in favour, in my view (as an aside I roll all combat dice in the open anyway, always have, but I like how this approach removes dice based fudging).

I roll in the open, as well. Just seems the most fair way to do it.

I've always liked the idea of stats meaning something beyond mod generators, and have been toying with a similar idea for my own rules set. This game has pushed me to give it a try. We'll see how it works in reality.

Quote from: Voros;966620What was the first game to have players roll all the dice?

Forge crap.

Quote from: cranebump;966745How is it disempowering you if you can't roll dice. It's not like you can control the result. Unless you're balking at the fact you can't roll and fudge behind a screen? Really, rolling a die is the least powerful thing a GM does.

The GM should have the power to roll or not roll the dice. He should have the absolute power over the game, and over everything to do with the game world.  So he should have the right to decide when to roll the dice, what to roll, how much he needs to get, or not to roll at all and just say "rocks fall, everyone dies".

This is the issue: by taking away mechanical control from the GM it's ALSO saying "the GM has to follow the rules created by the Genius Game Designers using our Sophisticated Theory and our Brilliant Social Theory, because he's just a Monopoly banker".

It's predicated on the idea that the GM is a monster that has to be controlled, and that you're better off trusting Vince Fucking Baker who's never met you or anyone connected to you than Bill your Game Master.

But we're talking mostly here about rolling to determine if the monster hits the PC. Would you ever say that should be decided by DM fiat? And is it that different from Runequest's parry mechanic?

Quote from: RPGPundit;967076The GM should have the power to roll or not roll the dice. He should have the absolute power over the game, and over everything to do with the game world.  So he should have the right to decide when to roll the dice, what to roll, how much he needs to get, or not to roll at all and just say "rocks fall, everyone dies".

This is the issue: by taking away mechanical control from the GM it's ALSO saying "the GM has to follow the rules created by the Genius Game Designers using our Sophisticated Theory and our Brilliant Social Theory, because he's just a Monopoly banker".

It's predicated on the idea that the GM is a monster that has to be controlled, and that you're better off trusting Vince Fucking Baker who's never met you or anyone connected to you than Bill your Game Master.

None of this changes. The only thing at issue is who gets to roll the dice. The GM is still controlling when that happens. Black Hack doesn't have a narrative control system. No Fate Point. No Luck. It's just a different mechanic.

Quote from: Voros;967096And is it that different from Runequest's parry mechanic?

In Runequest, each attack was followed by a parry. So a player would roll his attack and the monster his parry or the monster rolls his attack and the player rolls the parry. The parry roll didn't replace the monster's attack roll. In Black Hack, the PC rolls a Dex check (IIRC) to avoid the attack. As monsters don't have Dex, they can't actually make the same attack avoidance roll. So the mechanics are unbalanced as they apply differently to the monsters than to the players.

The first time I saw this was the Dragonlance SAGA game. It was a bit different as it was a card game but it had the same system were PCs and monsters were fundamentally different in the game (a monster's "attack" is just setting the difficulty of the PC's dodge roll).

I setup my own OD&D attack chart such that it's possible for either the player or the monster to make the roll and the odds are exactly the same. So you could run it as Players Rolls All The Dice or as GM Rolls All The Dice.

I'm aware of how parry works in Runequest. It is still the player rolling to avoid a hit so there are some grounds for comparison. Pundit's issue with it doesn't seem to be balance but removing DM control, but I don't see how it is that different from a saving throw.

And I have to say I don't see the issue of balance unless I'm misunderstanding you. Treating monsters differently than PCs at the table raises no issues of balance per se. Seems to be obsessing on a mechanic for tradition not any practical game reason.

Quote from: Voros;967183Pundit's issue with it doesn't seem to be balance but removing DM control, but I don't see how it is that different from a saving throw.

Yes, it is exactly like a Saving Throw. Monsters always hit but you get a save to avoid the damage.

QuoteAnd I have to say I don't see the issue of balance unless I'm misunderstanding you. Treating monsters differently than PCs at the table raises no issues of balance per se. Seems to be obsessing on a mechanic for tradition not any practical game reason.

"Balance" is not the best term but I couldn't think of another. I do agree that treating monsters and PCs differently by the game rule is not the same as some games which actually forbid the GM from rolling dice. Even though the outward effect (players rolling to hit and to avoid hits) is the same.

I do think that games that treat the GM as just another player, albeit one that controls more characters, are worse than games where GMs can't roll. Edge of the Empire drives me crazy with this sort of thing.

Quote from: Voros;966620What was the first game to have players roll all the dice?

The Whispering Vault 1992, NPCs were TNs IIRC

The micro-aggressions that GMs have to put up with these days are unacceptable.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;967198"Balance" is not the best term but I couldn't think of another. I do agree that treating monsters and PCs differently by the game rule is not the same as some games which actually forbid the GM from rolling dice. Even though the outward effect (players rolling to hit and to avoid hits) is the same.

I do think that games that treat the GM as just another player, albeit one that controls more characters, are worse than games where GMs can't roll. Edge of the Empire drives me crazy with this sort of thing.[/QUOTE]

I think the adequate term is asymmetrical, implying that different players work under different rules; the term has been a part of the game design lingo for ages but it came to prominence with FFG's card games, like netrunner and Star Wars.

As for player-facing games disempowering the GM... I can't say that my experience matches the Pundit's. I like PBtA derived games, Cypher, Black Hack, shit I even hacked Fate to be player-facing because it's faster and the underlying probabilites are more interesting. None of those games made feel as disempowered as D&D 3e/4e... If I wanted to pull a monster out of my ass that could freeze time or do some awesome shit, by default I had to design it using the system in the DMG, it had to use a "spell-like ability" which had specific limitations and such.

Now, in comparison on an Apocalypse World game I can just say "the creature freezes you in a time bubble and bites you, take 2 harm", it's bad form to do so, but I can do it, by the rules.

In the end, a dice roll is just data input, and data is not ideological per se, it's what we do with it that makes it ideological.

Cheers

Quote from: tanaka84;967225The Whispering Vault 1992, NPCs were TNs IIRC

Cool thanks, I googled it but couldn't find the answer.

Quote from: Voros;966620What was the first game to have players roll all the dice?

Quote from: RPGPundit;967075Forge crap.

Quote from: tanaka84;967225The Whispering Vault 1992, NPCs were TNs IIRC

Legendary Lives (http://www.hauntedattic.org/legendarylives.html), 1990, was the first game where I saw this.

The authors describe it as an "early GM diceless game" (not "the first") so I guess that player facing rolls were used even before that.

They used the mechanism in two other RPGs as well, Khaotic, 1992, and Lost Souls, 1994.

Quote from: tanaka84;967231I think the adequate term is asymmetrical, implying that different players work under different rules; the term has been a part of the game design lingo for ages but it came to prominence with FFG's card games, like netrunner and Star Wars.

As for player-facing games disempowering the GM... I can't say that my experience matches the Pundit's. I like PBtA derived games, Cypher, Black Hack, shit I even hacked Fate to be player-facing because it's faster and the underlying probabilites are more interesting. None of those games made feel as disempowered as D&D 3e/4e... If I wanted to pull a monster out of my ass that could freeze time or do some awesome shit, by default I had to design it using the system in the DMG, it had to use a "spell-like ability" which had specific limitations and such.

Now, in comparison on an Apocalypse World game I can just say "the creature freezes you in a time bubble and bites you, take 2 harm", it's bad form to do so, but I can do it, by the rules.

In the end, a dice roll is just data input, and data is not ideological per se, it's what we do with it that makes it ideological.

Cheers

Nicely put. This is my position on the matter too. After I tried this, I couldn't go back to traditional GM rolling dice games. It makes games much faster.

And about the freezing bubble creature, it's not bad form if it's a hard move. ;)

Quote from: cranebump;967145None of this changes. The only thing at issue is who gets to roll the dice. The GM is still controlling when that happens. Black Hack doesn't have a narrative control system. No Fate Point. No Luck. It's just a different mechanic.

If it was "just a different mechanic" and changed absolutely nothing, why do it?

You're actually trying to argue your best-case-scenario, and the very best argument you've got is that it's a pointless fad/gimmick.

Quote from: RPGPundit;968393If it was "just a different mechanic" and changed absolutely nothing, why do it?

You're actually trying to argue your best-case-scenario, and the very best argument you've got is that it's a pointless fad/gimmick.

The rolling for Defense is pretty much a Save. Not even a new mechanic. Only big difference is the saves are now templated upon the standard six attributes.

I see a potential to speed up combat processing, especially if I have a large table. I no longer become a processing chokepoint to mundane tasks. I'd just point to a player, "Orc hits you with his ax, roll under your STR for Defense," and then process their open roll. Then I can take these quick breathers in combat to jot notes, imagine improv, roll ad hoc content, etc.

Same as before, just delegated away some busywork. And moving it to the open shuts down any dice fudging paranoia. (Also, I have outrageous bad luck, so the less I roll the better for actual play challenge. And knowing those with outrageous good luck, I can see how this makes their GM play better. Dice Gods are a thing. ;) )

Quote from: RPGPundit;968393If it was "just a different mechanic" and changed absolutely nothing, why do it?

Because there is a change, in cognitive economy and attention focusing.

For example, in a multi-opponent combat every player rolls for their own character, but the GM has to roll for each opponent, if the game has basic arithmetic and the NPCs have different values, you have the GM running several arithmetic operations per round.

Granted, 99% of it is simple addition, but on top that you have spells slots, hit points, conditions, positioning, bonuses/penalties and rulings, there is a lot of juggling involved. Player-facing rolls off-load some of that cognitive demand back to the player; if you are number-savvy this might not be important for you, but at least in my case, every bit of work I can pass over helps (which is I why I usually ask a player to keep track of initiative on heavy-crunch games).

On the other hand, the more dice people roll the more engaged they seem to be with the game. I can't recall the source right now, but there is a study about the correlation between system interaction and player engagement. In essence, rolling out of turn keeps players focused on the action and the game, which can be an issue in crunchy game where rounds take a long time.

And after all that, player-facing is just aesthetically pleasing for some folk :)

Cheers!

Quote from: RPGPundit;968393If it was "just a different mechanic" and changed absolutely nothing, why do it?

You're actually trying to argue your best-case-scenario, and the very best argument you've got is that it's a pointless fad/gimmick.

No my argument is that dice are being rolled by different hands. There is no "reduction of GM power/authority (which is your contention). Among the reasons to do it this way, based on the rules, the reviews I've read, and my own experience with player-facing through Dungeon World, are (1) frees GM to do other things (not my argument, and I don't find no dice rolling take undue time), and (2) keeps players more involved (a strong argument--there's not much of an "off turn" if you're making all the resolution rolls). Now if any of this makes you feel less king of the castle, I would offer that that's a personal problem, not the inevitable result of having your dice taken away. (Speaking of--I imagine the GM could still make the monster damage rolls, if they wanted to).

Of course, tanaka and opa already made much better arguments than I did.

Quote from: RPGPundit;968393If it was "just a different mechanic" and changed absolutely nothing, why do it?

You're actually trying to argue your best-case-scenario, and the very best argument you've got is that it's a pointless fad/gimmick.

I 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.

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.

Going to chime back in here, and agree wholeheartedly with the benefits of the player facing concept.  I was watching a couple of videos online, looking for some actual play of the black pack. I stumbled upon one video, a tradition nakmgame, i think they were running a dungeon called Stone Hell, and there was a table for the players and just sitting there staring at the GM while he dies announced results and wrote things down. While this is a typical mode of play, and fine for most tables, including mine,  I think a strong argument can be made that player facing does keep players occupied and invested.

Quote from: Opaopajr;968422I see a potential to speed up combat processing, especially if I have a large table.)

As I said previously, I ran my game this was for about a year and a half in my 3e campaign and didn't see any improvement in speed. Mostly because my players would somehow automatically lose their dice every minute or so. But, I had setup my notes such that it was possible for anyone to make any roll (monsters had BAB and a Defence DC (11+BAB) that the player would roll against. Both numbers were on the character sheet so either roll was fine).

If speed of play is a concern, I found other methods far more effective; damage roll over and pre-rolling are methods that get the best results.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;968897As I said previously, I ran my game this was for about a year and a half in my 3e campaign and didn't see any improvement in speed. Mostly because my players would somehow automatically lose their dice every minute or so. But, I had setup my notes such that it was possible for anyone to make any roll (monsters had BAB and a Defence DC (11+BAB) that the player would roll against. Both numbers were on the character sheet so either roll was fine).

If speed of play is a concern, I found other methods far more effective; damage roll over and pre-rolling are methods that get the best results.

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

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 (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2017/06/rpgpundit-reviews-kaigaku.html), 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. :D
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. :D

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! :D

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).

Quote from: Opaopajr;970464What exactly are you railing against? :confused: At this point I am confused. Have you read Black Hack or its variants yet? :cool:

At this point, it's a subjective style argument about what constitutes a "traditional" RPG. Pundit doesn't know the system, but has evidently decided it is GM-unfriendly because it takes away his dice. He's concocted some other reasons since that one, but, at this point, it smells of someone who's made an utenable point, probably knows it is, but is bound and determined to back it up, anyway, by golly! (which sounds a lot like Sean Spicer's job description)

Whatever Pundit's reasoning, I find it ironic that he would determine, from one aspect, that a light systems like BH disempowers the GM. As a system with a lot to fill in, it reads as just the opposite. I mean, it's really just very basic characters, a set of attributes, simplified threat creation and item tracking. There's nothing in there about philosophy (no mention of the GM as a caddy for the players, nor a bow to letting "the fiction drive the action" [though, as a simple system, it probably does that, implicitly]. If anything, it sounds very much like an old-school, theater of the mind style of game, which would make it pretty traditional, with the exception of the dice-rolling mechanic. Taking Pundit's example of whether you can "GM fiat" a hit, well, nothing says you can't. Since the rolls function as saves, you can still easily use save for half damage (meaning you're going to get hit by the attack, either way). Of course, it doesn't say you CAN do that, but I don't think we need a GM "Bill of Rights" tacked on to assume the privilege of asserting authority.


One thing I neglected to mention (or think of) when I went off on my rant about Pundit being the pot calling kettle when it comes to casting aspersions on how to "properly" game, was the leveling mechanic BH uses to differentiate between monsters who are bigger threats, i.e., the +1 per level over the player level bonus to the die roll, making it tougher on the PCs. I think (though I could be wrong), that Pundit may have been making a point about the game not being fair to monsters, since it is player facing (or perhaps not being a proper challenge?). The bonus due to level differentiation would, for example, make an encounter with a dragon suicide (or very tough) for a low-level party. That is, if I interpreted the rule correctly.

In any case, I am not entirely sure I will run it, but I'm intrigued by the simplicity of the system. I would tack on my on usage system though, or rather copy DW's equipment protocols. Speaking of, you can pretty much port DW monsters over, as well, though you'd have to tack on levels to get some sort of scaling in there. Other than that, they're similar to BH monsters: Armor Rating, Damage Rating, Tags indicating special moves, etc. Pretty simple. And with a lot of space for GM creativity, thought, and judgment.

Quote from: RPGPundit;970416Is 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?

At this point, it's starting to sound like an "East Coast/West Coast" OSR rap battle, albeit one-sided. Does it fucking matter what his credentials are? He made a game some people are interested in. From what I've gathered (which isn't much, mind you), the only thing he really gives a shit about is having something simple, flexible, and easy to run.

Quote from: RPGPundit;970416Is 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?

He seemed to get a lot of attention when he was putting The Black Hack together, mostly on G+, I didn't know him either but saw people being excited that The Black Hack had 'finally' been released so he obviously did some effective online engagement during the design process.

Quote from: Voros;970543He seemed to get a lot of attention when he was putting The Black Hack together, mostly on G+, I didn't know him either but saw people being excited that The Black Hack had 'finally' been released so he obviously did some effective online engagement during the design process.

He also followed up with an addendum of options, clarification called "additional things."

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.

I'm just not convinced by your argument that players rolling dice is anathema to traditional roleplaying, Pundie. It is interesting watching your regressive tendencies cause you to slowly scrabble your way further and further back up the history of roleplaying games. I look forward to your circa-2021 rants about how only swine would try to play an RPG anywhere except Dave Arneson's basement.

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!"

Can be effective, but relatively less important in classic versions of D&D where periodic saving throws serve to keep the players periodically mechanically engaged off-turn.

Quote from: CRKrueger;969533Free the GM...to do what?  Black Hack is such a simple system there's nothing to do.

If you can get your players up to speed in this type of system so that don't have to handhold them through every defense roll, I've found that it can be fairly effective when running large groups of opponents to quickly divvy them up: Two orcs are attacking you. Three orcs are attacking you. Make your defense rolls. (You need the right kind of players for this to work, however.)

More generally, I've found player-faced combat mechanics generally free me up to think about the next action of the NPCs and/or how NPCs near the combat are reacting to it while the players are taking care of the mechanical aspects.

(None of this applies specifically to the Black Hack, which I'm unfamiliar with.)

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;970412Sidebar:
You removed initiative?
How'd that work?

Not OP, but with smaller engagements you can generally just have everyone declare their actions, resolve them simultaneously, and then figure out what happened. When I ran OD&D, I used a simple "PC outcome trumps NPC outcome" -- so if a PC's attack, for example, killed a goblin, then the goblin's attack for that round would be canceled even if they would have otherwise hit, but even that's not necessary.

This becomes increasingly difficult as the number of combatants increases, so I eventually instituted a phased combat round (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/7842/roleplaying-games/justins-house-rules-for-odd) inspired by the Perrin Conventions to make things more manageable while still avoiding the use of an initiative system.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;970738More generally, I've found player-faced combat mechanics generally free me up to think about the next action of the NPCs and/or how NPCs near the combat are reacting to it while the players are taking care of the mechanical aspects.

(None of this applies specifically to the Black Hack, which I'm unfamiliar with.)

When I'd been running Savage Worlds with a group for awhile, I eventually just let players know the Parry and Toughness scores of opponents after the first attack. I also used minis with tokens to track Shaken and Wounded status. It meant that players could roll an attack, roll damage and apply it to the target on their own with no calculation on my part. As SW uses cards for initiative, I didn't even need to let people know when to go.

My imagination was free to focus on describing what was going on. I also found when NPC actions came up I was a little more on the ball creatively. It can be easy as GM during combat to just slip into number crunching mode. adjudicating everything coldly and efficiently. Having some time in each round where I could ignore mechanics helped avoid that.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: cranebump;970496(which sounds a lot like Sean Spicer's job description)

Easy...we've ALL been warned, multiple times.  Take a lap.

Quote from: Baulderstone;970765When I'd been running Savage Worlds with a group for awhile, I eventually just let players know the Parry and Toughness scores of opponents after the first attack. I also used minis with tokens to track Shaken and Wounded status. It meant that players could roll an attack, roll damage and apply it to the target on their own with no calculation on my part. As SW uses cards for initiative, I didn't even need to let people know when to go.

My imagination was free to focus on describing what was going on. I also found when NPC actions came up I was a little more on the ball creatively. It can be easy as GM during combat to just slip into number crunching mode. adjudicating everything coldly and efficiently. Having some time in each round where I could ignore mechanics helped avoid that.

Yeah, I can see that. I also see Justin's point that in a big humanoid battle the kind D&D is famous for, having each player roll all the dice for their attackers at once can speed things up.  When running D&D, I pretty much ran it like you did, with players rolling their own attacks and having damage ready for me.  I can see new players maybe getting "into the zone" quicker with a system like this.

Quote from: CRKrueger;970899Yeah, I can see that. I also see Justin's point that in a big humanoid battle the kind D&D is famous for, having each player roll all the dice for their attackers at once can speed things up.  When running D&D, I pretty much ran it like you did, with players rolling their own attacks and having damage ready for me.  I can see new players maybe getting "into the zone" quicker with a system like this.

I do that all the time without any particular game mechanics for it.  In D&D 5E, for example, "All of you have two goblin archers attacking you.  Roll and attack against yourself with these modifiers.  If it hits, roll this damage.   Meanwhile, I'll handle what the other two goblins are doing, the burly one and the one with feathers in his hair."  I've done that with people that barely know how to roll their own attacks yet, and it causes a little confusion for a couple of minutes the first few times you do it.  After that, it's smooth as silk, and I can freely drop in or out of that mode as needed, even by the round.

Quote from: Opaopajr;970464Yes, 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:

Yes I have. And I'm railing against how for no good reason other than disempowering the GM, the GM is forbidden from rolling dice in combat.

Quote from: RPGPundit;971418Yes I have. And I'm railing against how for no good reason other than disempowering the GM, the GM is forbidden from rolling dice in combat.

How about we flip this, and you tell us why you think a GM should roll the dice? Is there a "good reason" for that? Because it really just seems like one method of task resolution. The Disempowerment argument makes no sense, because the GM still controls when dice rolls are made, and cannot control what comes up on the dice once they are rolled.

The way I see it, you have two arguments that have any weight:
(1) "I want to fudge dice behind a screen, and this only works when I am allowed to roll."
(2) "I own all these fucking dice and I intend to USE THEM!"

In both cases, you just skip the Black Hack. Or you just skip it anyway, without some philosophical rationale about how it disempowers GMs, because it just doesn't. It does take away the GM's dice, though, which, to me, is reason enough for folks to skip it, because most everyone likes to roll dice, including GMs. How else would you have those stories about "the red dice of doom" (which my players used to tell after a particularly lucky night of rolls for me using them). Beyond that, I can say that, having run without any dice rolls (outside random table rolls for dungeon/campaign stuff), I didn't feel one bit less in charge than I did with the dice. I did miss rolling sometimes, though.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;964352There seem to be like  a gazillion supplements coming out for this. Has anyone here actually taken it for a spin? General thoughts on the experience?

Never even heard of it until I saw this thread. Unless I'm misunderstanding, it sounds like another version of D&D? I already have D&D and don't use it since I like other games better. From what I see in the forum I'm an outlier as I don't really understand the appeal of D&D and games based thereon.

Quote from: Dumarest;971440Never even heard of it until I saw this thread. Unless I'm misunderstanding, it sounds like another version of D&D? I already have D&D and don't use it since I like other games better. From what I see in the forum I'm an outlier as I don't really understand the appeal of D&D and games based thereon.

Pretty much is D&D, but really simplified. I'm an see using pasting elements of Dungeon World (equipment, monsters) into this basic mechanic, along with dumping the BH spells for Labyrinrh Lord or b/x ones. I guess I like the mechanic, and some of the other bits, but not necessarily the whole system. Then again, I'll likely run it to see how it works first. Only way to be fair.

Quote from: RPGPundit;969493Why? 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.

Absolutely no argument there. I had a gamer in my group (for a time) that drank and gargled with that koolaid, and to this day, we could never get him to articulate exactly what his issue was with GMs and trust. Nobilis and Dogs in the Vineyard were his darling games, and he insisted on calling games by their author's title, rather than the trade name of the game. Just fricking odd. We stopped playing with him, and the problem nicely went away.

Hmmm, interesting point (re: the lack of immersion). And a complaint I've made about FATE in particular, though it doesn't share that particular rolling trait. I wonder if it's the more "game-ish" nature of the games you cite that leads to this. Player characters become the centre point by default in the system, enforced by the system, with the system revolving around their choices. Contrast with traditional games, where the same thing can happen to high level characters when actual challenges to their power become rare and/or contrived. There's probably a psychological component there worth looking into one day, if I'm ever that bored...

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;971605Absolutely no argument there. I had a gamer in my group (for a time) that drank and gargled with that koolaid, and to this day, we could never get him to articulate exactly what his issue was with GMs and trust. Nobilis and Dogs in the Vineyard were his darling games, and he insisted on calling games by their author's title, rather than the trade name of the game. Just fricking odd. We stopped playing with him, and the problem nicely went away.

Hmmm, interesting point (re: the lack of immersion). And a complaint I've made about FATE in particular, though it doesn't share that particular rolling trait. I wonder if it's the more "game-ish" nature of the games you cite that leads to this. Player characters become the centre point by default in the system, enforced by the system, with the system revolving around their choices. Contrast with traditional games, where the same thing can happen to high level characters when actual challenges to their power become rare and/or contrived. There's probably a psychological component there worth looking into one day, if I'm ever that bored...

I got news for you and Pundit. The PCs are the center of the universe, as far as the game goes. Regardless of system, it is all about what they do. Yes, the world rolls on around them, and reacts to their incursion when necessary. But there's just no game without the PCs. Pundit's issue is ego, pure and simple. That, and he likes dice. Rather than admit that, we get this ridiculous and untenable philosophical argument that dice=empowerment.

On that: Pundit's assertion that creatures, and by extension, the GM, have no influence on the game simply because the GM isn't rolling the dice fails to address the breadth and scope of true threats/actions in any game. If it's just about the dice rolls, then such things as putting plots in motion, making clever tactical decisions, parlaying, treachery, calling for reinforcements, misdirection, choosing the high ground, spell casting, clever use of magical items, and all the other things a GM can do other than roll a dice are moot, and you wouldn't need a GM at all. you'd play a board game, because you wouldn't care about the challenges a GM can create that go beyond the dice. (By the way, the tactical stuff aside, the creatures CAN affect character stats in BH, through level difference, and invoking disad, to name two mechanical aspects. So, Pundit is wrong on that, too, likely because he saw a "swine ghost," and didn't think the whole thing through before firing off an errant salvo).

All this isn't to say that some systems do not move away from the traditional role of the all-powerful and godlike GM. Some will, and whether that approach has merit is outside the scope of this thread. It's pretty obvious that BH simply isn't one of those systems. It still has the GM doing all the things a GM typically does, except rolling the dice. Just using my short list of various options, above, it's pretty obvious that there's more to running a game than rolling the dice. In fact, I would offer here that dice rolling is the least important thing a GM does.

Quote from: RPGPundit;971418Yes I have. And I'm railing against how for no good reason other than disempowering the GM, the GM is forbidden from rolling dice in combat.

The GM rolls enemy Hit Dice for enemy HP, and also rolls for enemy damage, in combat. :cool:

I think you are a touch too busy ascribing nefarious motives to the rather innocuous. :)

Quote from: Opaopajr;971628I think you are a touch too busy ascribing nefarious motives to the rather innocuous. :)

To be fair, that is his raison d'être. :p

Maybe there's a Domino theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory) for RPGs. If you let D&D start with player facing rolls, pretty soon the rest of the game might fall under the influence of communism...I mean, storygaming.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;971662Maybe there's a Domino theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory) for RPGs. If you let D&D start with player facing rolls, pretty soon the rest of the game might fall under the influence of communism...I mean, storygaming.

All I know for sure is that we don't stop them in Vietnam, GMs in Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, and even Japan will not be able to roll their dice behind their GM screens.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;971662Maybe there's a Domino theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory) for RPGs. If you let D&D start with player facing rolls, pretty soon the rest of the game might fall under the influence of communism...I mean, storygaming.

Maybe Pundit could give arms and training to the OSR Mujahideen to slow the spread of this corrupting influence on the hobby.

I think the perfect weapon would be The Pundit Hack. The GM rolls all the dice, and if the players so much as dare touch them, the GM is allowed to shoot them in the face.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;971696I think the perfect weapon would be The Pundit Hack. The GM rolls all the dice, and if the players so much as dare touch them, the GM is allowed to shoot them in the face.

Or the Game Daddy variant where he has his daughter shoot you in the face if anyone touches his dice.

Quote from: Baulderstone;971697Or the Game Daddy variant where he has his daughter shoot you in the face if anyone touches his dice.

Player: "Don't shoot me!"
GM: "Don't worry, I won't shoot you."
Player sighs in relief.
To daughter: "Shoot him."
Player shits pants.

I approve of the direction this thread has taken. :D

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;971751The next thing you know, the Swine will be releasing RPGs in which no one rolls dice. Fucking Swine.

I see what you did there...

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;971698Player: "Don't shoot me!"
GM: "Don't worry, I won't shoot you."
Player sighs in relief.
To daughter: "Shoot him."
Player shits pants.

Lol one vote for The Game Daddy variant. :D

Quote from: Itachi;971785Lol one vote for The Game Daddy variant. :D

I stole that from a movie, but I couldn't remember which one until now: De Palma's Scarface:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=958GzzqgWnw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=958GzzqgWnw)

Just imagine Scarface is pissed off because Frank touched the dice.

wow, now I can't read Pundit's missives without that fake Al Pacino Cuban accent in my head. It's kinda awesome.

Quote from: cranebump;971427How about we flip this, and you tell us why you think a GM should roll the dice?

I covered this already: because the GM should control the world; and a 'world' where the players roll the dice creates an impression of a world where only the player's characters are real, and everything else is just window-dressing.

Quote from: cranebump;971610I got news for you and Pundit. The PCs are the center of the universe, as far as the game goes. Regardless of system, it is all about what they do.

I see you're unfamiliar with RPGs.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;971662Maybe there's a Domino theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory) for RPGs. If you let D&D start with player facing rolls, pretty soon the rest of the game might fall under the influence of communism...I mean, storygaming.

I know you were trying to be funny, but that's exactly the reason why the Storygamers, having found that trying to push heavy-handed obvious storygames with no success at all for years, have now dedicated themselves to making games that pretend to be popular styles of regular-RPGs (OSR games, Cthulhu, etc etc) but are altered with storygaming elements.  It's entryism.

Depends on how you define storygame I guess. Seems like a story/boardgame like Tales of the Arabian Nights or T.I.M.E Stories probably far outsell any TTRPG with the exception of D&D.

Quote from: RPGPundit;972226I see you're unfamiliar with RPGs.

An weak, albeit unsurprising, response, as is your insipid insinuation that "dice control=world control." The dice aren't part of the game world. They're an adjudication mechanism whose results cannot be controlled once rolled, no matter whose hands do the rolling. (Why is this not obvious to you?)

The way your responses read, it sounds like your beef isn't about the game world. It's about the real world, and you wanting to be in charge of it. It's about your own sense of self-importance in your role as GM. Evidently, you see your game as a power struggle or a turf war with the players. So, rather than just admit you like to roll dice, and be done with it, you have to make this ridiculous argument about usurpation of your "mother, may I?" power.

Take it easy, Duncan. Your players aren't Macbeth. But they are certainly more important than the make believe shit in your campaign. Without them, you're just some dude sitting alone at a table with a gazetteer and some notes.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;971751PCs being POV characters and PCs being the center of the universe are two different things. (Which is not to disagree with your overriding point: PCs being point of view characters is more than justification enough for the mechanics to be player-faced. Not that it really requires justification.).

That's an accurate interpretation of my point. And you know what? I want them to believe it's all about their characters. Because, in the end, who gives a flying fuck about my "finely tuned" campaign creation? I swear, there are GMs out there who value their maps and notes more than the people at the table. I'm sure some aspect of GMing is ego, but the other side of that is sublimating a good portion of that for the sake of your table, which is exactly what we expect players to do (and what some GMs, evidently, have difficulty doing).

P.S. I'd like to give up on this dice argument, but Pundit's bullshit responses have me incensed.

Quote from: RPGPundit;972226I see you're unfamiliar with RPGs.

QuoteI know you were trying to be funny, but that's exactly the reason why the Storygamers, having found that trying to push heavy-handed obvious storygames with no success at all for years, have now dedicated themselves to making games that pretend to be popular styles of regular-RPGs (OSR games, Cthulhu, etc etc) but are altered with storygaming elements. It's entryism.

Lol. Is this guy for real?

Quote from: Itachi;972295Lol. Is this guy for real?

Like I said: it's a lot cooler if you picture Tony Montana saying it, rather than Daniel Plainview.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;972299Like I said: it's a lot cooler if you picture Tony Montana saying it, rather than Daniel Plainview.

Sound advice. Now about a thread lockdown! Stat!

(https://media.giphy.com/media/EyAiUnM8fdvLq/giphy.gif)

Well this escalated quickly. :confused:

Anyhoo, a useful question came up about what to so with PC v. PC combats. At first I gave pause, because each PC rolling for attack and then defense basically meant contested rolls, which sorta short circuits the hack's reason for being -- reducing busywork. But then I just realized it's easily resolvable by just making it either attack rolls or defense rolls only, or alternating between the two in successive rounds! The point is resolution, not granular pyrotechnics, so the GM's judgment is what matters in moving the game forward from everyday in-fighting.

Quote from: Opaopajr;972416Well this escalated quickly. :confused:

Anyhoo, a useful question came up about what to so with PC v. PC combats. At first I gave pause, because each PC rolling for attack and then defense basically meant contested rolls, which sorta short circuits the hack's reason for being -- reducing busywork. But then I just realized it's easily resolvable by just making it either attack rolls or defense rolls only, or alternating between the two in successive rounds! The point is resolution, not granular pyrotechnics, so the GM's judgment is what matters in moving the game forward from everyday in-fighting.

I'd probably go the contested rolls route actually. Unless you have a very unusual campaign model, PC vs. PC combat will be rare enough to offset that it takes just a little longer to resolve. In fact, the contested rolls will add to the sense of drama.

In any case, it is a case of how simple systems make it easy for the GM to bend the system as needed for unexpected situations.

Quote from: cranebump;972250The way your responses read, it sounds like your beef isn't about the game world. It's about the real world, and you wanting to be in charge of it. It's about your own sense of self-importance in your role as GM. Evidently, you see your game as a power struggle or a turf war with the players. So, rather than just admit you like to roll dice, and be done with it, you have to make this ridiculous argument about usurpation of your "mother, may I?" power.

Take it easy, Duncan. Your players aren't Macbeth. But they are certainly more important than the make believe shit in your campaign. Without them, you're just some dude sitting alone at a table with a gazetteer and some notes.

Guy who thinks GMs must not be trusted with rolling dice accuses regular gamers of being paranoid.

If a GM rolls dice straight up no fudging. What the difference between the GM rolling it or the player? Isn't the same thing being accomplished?

Secondly if removing dice from the GM somehow removes their empowerment. What happens to a game that removes dice from both sides altogether?

Quote from: RPGPundit;972618Guy who thinks GMs must not be trusted with rolling dice accuses regular gamers of being paranoid.

I never said GMs should not be trusted with rolling dice. I said you can't control the dice results, so it doesn't matter who rolls the dice. I also said that you're a control freak, in case that got lost in translation.

Until you actually run a system where you don't roll as a GM, I humbly suggest you STFU about whether it disempowers you or not. Seeing as how I have, and you haven't, your qualifications to make actual relevant comments on that subject are nil. You STILL only have to say, "I prefer to roll dice," and we're done here. Instead, you've turned this into, "I sense something outside my comfort zone, and I am frightened and angry."

For the record, my foray into "non-regular" gaming over the last 30 yearns is a 20-something session Dungeon World campaign we wrapped up in May. The rest has been typical, old school shit, same as you play, albeit without the Everest-sized chip on the shoulder, the incredibly thin skin, the ego all out of bounds with actual accomplishment, and the permanently closed mind.

Quote from: Ronin;972673If a GM rolls dice straight up no fudging. What the difference between the GM rolling it or the player? Isn't the same thing being accomplished?

Secondly if removing dice from the GM somehow removes their empowerment. What happens to a game that removes dice from both sides altogether?

There isn't. However, our resident fascist also doesn't like that the attack and defense rolls in Black Hack are character-centered. He also seems to believe that player-centered is disempowering for the GM, despite never having actually played that way.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;971756

QuoteThe next thing you know, the Swine will be releasing RPGs in which no one rolls dice. Fucking Swine.

I see what you did there...

Apparently it was still a little too subtle for the guy who designs diceless game and then rants about how imaginary "swine" are trying to take his dice away with no sense of self-awareness whatsoever.

Quote from: cranebump;972701I never said GMs should not be trusted with rolling dice. I said you can't control the dice results, so it doesn't matter who rolls the dice.

I really don't get what Pundit rails against, or why he sees a fundamental, game-philosophical, politics-changing difference.

I am with him in that I, as a GM, prefer rolling my dice. But my reason is not that I don't trust players or that I don't want them to feel "special" or "empowered". I like to be part of the game part of an RPG, I want to be surprised by dice rolls - my own dice rolls, just like any player.
I could see why player-facing rolls are good for some GMs and games. A GM has so much to do and adjudicate behind his screen that it could be a relief to not having to bother which dice to take up and look up the skills for each of his 5-8 NPCs or monsters. But that's why I prefer games with lean stat blocks, so that's not a bother for me to begin with.

QuoteYou STILL only have to say, "I prefer to roll dice," and we're done here. Instead, you've turned this into, "I sense something outside my comfort zone, and I am frightened and angry."

For the record, my foray into "non-regular" gaming over the last 30 yearns is a 20-something session Dungeon World campaign we wrapped up in May.

And this is even more confusing as I remember that years back we had threads discussing whether DW was a proper RPG or a Storygame, and it was Pundit who defended DW (much to my surprise, really) as the black sheep, the almost trad variant of the pbtA family, and yes, a real RPG.
And now "only players roll" is a conspiracy to infiltrate and destroy proper RPGs?

(I have other beefs with DW but the player facing rolls are not among them. Those I don't like for petty reasons of taste, and that's just my problem.)

The question of what happens in PvP situations is way more interesting in discussing the merits of player-facing rolls. And I don't necessarily mean PvP combat but any situation where it's important to decide who goes first, who succeeds first, who notices what.
And physical conflicts on top of that.

Quote from: Dirk RemmeckeThe question of what happens in PvP situations is way more interesting in discussing the merits of player-facing rolls. And I don't necessarily mean PvP combat but any situation where it's important to decide who goes first, who succeeds first, who notices what.
And physical conflicts on top of that.

That may be problem with PbtA family of games. They are great for "soft PvP" (manipulation, intrigue, coertion, threats, heated arguments, etc) but the "hard PvP" (actual fights) may feel awkward if you prefer structured "rounds" of combat.

Quote from: Itachi;972802That may be problem with PbtA family of games. They are great for "soft PvP" (manipulation, intrigue, coertion, threats, heated arguments, etc) but the "hard PvP" (actual fights) may feel awkward if you prefer structured "rounds" of combat.

Concur. We had something of an impending PvP in our DW game, but the players worked in out in part because we weren't sure how to adjudicate it fairly.

Well, to be fair, the games that produced all player-facing rolls didn't come out of a design philosophy dedicated to making GM's lives easier.  That's why YOU like it.  These games came out of the Forge/Indie philosophy, which as we talked about in another thread, was a backlash against the metaplot and GM Story Railroads of the 90s.  The whole point was giving players more power through OOC mechanics, and in many cases actually limiting GM power.

To people who never ran GM Story Railroads, and know how to GM, these mechanical corrections weren't and aren't needed as our players never lacked freedom to control their character AS their character.

At this point I see player-facing rolls as a fad.  Of course games that have narrative aspects to them are jumping on the bandwagon, and I'm sure a couple of them are doing it partly for ideology.  I kind of doubt most are though.

Most systems I play at this point are opposed rolls, so there's no point to player-facing.  Going back to D&D I doubt I'd adopt player-facing, for one thing, you always run into the PvP issue, which never feels quite right, although it would be easier in Black Hack than Xworld.

I would argue that with no GM rolls, the feel of the game is different.  When the GM rolls, the Orc misses.  Sure you can describe it as you dodged or parried, or the Orc slipped or whatever, but what happened was the Orc missed.  When you shift that to player-facing, everything is contingent upon the players rolls.  It plays not as much like a RPG, but more like a Choose Your Own Adventure book where the entries were "The Orc attacks, roll to defend.  If you roll a X you succeed."   It puts the GM in the role of storyteller and the players in the role of determining everything that happens.

Mathematically, the Orc rolling a Critical Hit on a 20 and you rolling a Critical Failure on a 1 are the same, but the feel of the cause and effect is different.  There's no sense of anything being out of the player's control, as anything bad that happens to them is by their own roll.  Since that's not how the reality of our world or any simulated world works, then the very nature of it is dissonant.  It's technically not an OOC mechanic, but it kinda feels like it.

It totally speeds up some people's games to great effect though, so more power to them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;973079Well, to be fair, the games that produced all player-facing rolls didn't come out of a design philosophy dedicated to making GM's lives easier.  That's why YOU like it.  These games came out of the Forge/Indie philosophy, which as we talked about in another thread, was a backlash against the metaplot and GM Story Railroads of the 90s.  The whole point was giving players more power through OOC mechanics, and in many cases actually limiting GM power.

  Only for folks who think this idea is somehow new. :) My first exposure to the idea was in the article "Defend Yourself!" in Dragon #177 (January 1993) by Blake Mobley, who sold it as a way to speed up the game and simplify DM bookkeeping. What really made it attractive to me was the Dragonlance: Fifth Age game, which was one of those "metaplot and GM Story Railroads of the 90s" :) and promoted it as freeing the Narrator to focus on story and drama rather than rules management.

Quote from: CRKrueger;973079I would argue that with no GM rolls, the feel of the game is different.  When the GM rolls, the Orc misses.  Sure you can describe it as you dodged or parried, or the Orc slipped or whatever, but what happened was the Orc missed.  When you shift that to player-facing, everything is contingent upon the players rolls.  It plays not as much like a RPG, but more like a Choose Your Own Adventure book where the entries were "The Orc attacks, roll to defend.  If you roll a X you succeed."   It puts the GM in the role of storyteller and the players in the role of determining everything that happens.

This is no different in GM dice roll systems, as the GM is still adjudicating based on player actions. Further, players determine what's going to happen whether the GM rolls dice or not, unless the GM is railroading them, which has nothing to do with dice. If anything GM dice roll sets the ref in an "adversarial" role, since, by rolling to hit, you're "attacking" the players characters (which is fine, too --lots of folks, including me, play that way).

That said, if the rolls are in the open, it doesn't matter who rolls the dice, which has been my point (and others') all along in this back and forth. Yeah, it. An "feel" like you're not affecting your group by not rolling. But, in determining the world details, plus how monsters attack, when, whom, and so on, you're still directing the flow of the game as you always do. It's just a question of whether you feel like you should be rolling, or, for some GM's (possibly) the sadistic delight of hacking up PCs "yourself."

Beyond that, your comments about "feel" are reason enough to say, "fuck that, I'd rather rolll dice," and I'd be behind that sentiment all day long. But, really, everything else the GM does is the same, whether rolling or not, and I feel like conflating a philosophical argument into that about "empowerment" (as we've seen offered in this thread by others) is just bullshit. The better argument is the one you're making here--"this does not feel like the type of game I want to run." Anybody can understand that.

QuoteMathematically, the Orc rolling a Critical Hit on a 20 and you rolling a Critical Failure on a 1 are the same, but the feel of the cause and effect is different.  There's no sense of anything being out of the player's control, as anything bad that happens to them is by their own roll.  .

I still don't see how "rolling random numbers=control," but the inverse of this is that, if the player fails the roll, they can't bitch about my loaded GM dice.:-) I will agree it feels good to crit, of course. I'm personally not worried whether the players feel in control or not. In fact, if they do feel more in control, they probably feel more invested. I also know that I feel perfectly in control as far as GMing goes whether I have/roll the dice or not, and it is hard for me to understand why anyone else would feel like they had less control. As has been mentioned already, you have the substance of the created universe at your command. What else do you need, really?

I don't know whether I'll run Black Hack or not, or whether I'll roll dice next time or not. But I don't mind players making rolls. Never have. They make the WM rolls all the time, which is a lot of run for me when the players stare down each other for their buddy not only rolling up a WM, but also producing a dragon who happens be flying by.:-)

You're misunderstanding me, it's not about "control" as in power dynamics, ie. WHO has it, me or you.  It's about control as in "do I as a player have control over something my character does not."  It's not a Viking Hat Issue, it's a Character Immersion Issue.

Placing all rolls in the player's hands, having nothing happen to the character that the player doesn't roll for, while the GM just narrates supports the idea that this roleplaying session is a story that I am both roleplaying in as my character and looking at from the OOC story point of view.  Which, of course, is exactly why you see games with a more narrative/story approach increasingly use player-facing rolls.  For some, that's the point of the mechanic.  Not everyone, sure, but you can't claim it isn't there.

Quote from: CRKrueger;973090You're misunderstanding me, it's not about "control" as in power dynamics, ie. WHO has it, me or you.  It's about control as in "do I as a player have control over something my character does not."  It's not a Viking Hat Issue, it's a Character Immersion Issue.

Placing all rolls in the player's hands, having nothing happen to the character that the player doesn't roll for, while the GM just narrates supports the idea that this roleplaying session is a story that I am both roleplaying in as my character and looking at from the OOC story point of view.  Which, of course, is exactly why you see games with a more narrative/story approach increasingly use player-facing rolls.  For some, that's the point of the mechanic.  Not everyone, sure, but you can't claim it isn't there.

Still don't completely buy it, and here's why: In a system like Black Hack, plenty of things can happen that players do not roll for, because the GM is in charge of when rolls are made, not the player. Now, something like DW does have triggers for character rolls (I.e., "when you..., roll..."). But I played it, and ignored triggers plenty of times. I was still in charge of when rolls were made, and many things happen that required no rolling whatsoever. There ARE triggers though, and it could be argued that, in ignoring them, I was missing the point of DW, but I can tell you I was never just a auxiliary piece of the puzzle. Even with the triggers, I was still interpreting dice results, just as any GM would, in any traditional system. And the dice rolls in that system ARE about what characters can do. There aren't any rolls that do not spring from a character feature or action. So, I'm not sure what you're saying a player can do that a character can't, unless you're referring to something I'm not familiar with.

But let's skip all that and say I agree with you that all those aforementioned mechanics are there in some systems, and that those systems are about putting more in the player's hands. Okay, fine. But guess what? Black Hack, the subject at hand, doesn't have them. It isn't narrativist. It's just a roll-under, player-facing, task resolution mechanic. The amount of dice rolls to make and such, have no story triggers. You call for them, just as you would if you were GMing anything else "traditional." There's also nothing in BH that says you can't make summary rulings as a GM. It's firmly traditional, from the GM standpoint, except for its dice resolution mechanic, which is about character skill, more than anything else (which a GM can easily tweak by adopting a system of mods, if so desired).

Anyway, I can concede that some systems use player facing mechanics to more readily prompt story elements (I can see that, sure). But Black Hack isn't one of them. Further, there is just no argument anyone can give me that "rolling dice=empowerment," which is, really, the only real issue I've been going on and on about. As long as I have final say, I'm empowered. This includes something like DW, where I could whip up anything I wanted, just like other systems. I was still running world reactions, all the way. And I was still deciding when to roll and when not to. As far as authority goes, I had it. Anything beyond that is just nuts and bolts, imho.

Quote from: cranebump;973103Still don't completely buy it, and here's why: In a system like Black Hack, plenty of things can happen that players do not roll for, because the GM is in charge of when rolls are made, not the player.

Yeah but the Kobold never actually critically hits you.  You critically fail to dodge.  So it's not "Remember that time that crazy Kobold went Duelist on you?" it's "Remember when you let that Kobold almost take off your hand?"

Now sure, you can narrate any dice result any way you want and as I've said multiple times, the math is the same.  However the strict separation of GM=Narrate, Player=Play the game feels effectively different, even though it isn't really.  I'm not even talking as a GM not being able to roll dice, I'm talking as a player rolling dice for everything.  It doesn't seem like for IC roleplaying I should be the one to always "roll to find out what happens".  Actions of others I do not want to be rolling for, even partially.

I never said Black Hack was a narrative system, I was saying that's where you commonly see the player-facing mechanic these days, so it's not like there wasn't a link back to the days of "brain damage".  That's what sets off Pundit's Swine Detector.

To me, Black Hack just seems like someone New Schooled the Fuck out of OD&D.  I don't have an opinion on the author's design ethos or ideology.

Quote from: CRKrueger;973111Yeah but the Kobold never actually critically hits you.  You critically fail to dodge.  So it's not "Remember that time that crazy Kobold went Duelist on you?" it's "Remember when you let that Kobold almost take off your hand?"

Player's have always made their own saves against spells from NPC magic-users in D&D, and I have never seen this problem.You're just engaging in imaginary theorycrafting.

What Baulderstone says. All times we played PbtA games, the NPCs had as much volition and concreteness as in any other game, and we remember times when NPC A or B did X or Y, again, as in any other game.

Quote from: CRkruegerI'm not even talking as a GM not being able to roll dice, I'm talking as a player rolling dice for everything. It doesn't seem like for IC roleplaying I should be the one to always "roll to find out what happens". Actions of others I do not want to be rolling for, even partially.

Players do not roll for everything. They only roll for actions relating directly to their characters. At least in the games I know that use the concept (PbtA, Numenera).

Quote from: Itachi;973117Players do not roll for everything. They only roll for actions relating directly to their characters. At least in the games I know that use the concept (PbtA, Numenera).

Same with the White Hack. The GM still rolls for things like wandering monsters, etc. The player only rolls for things directly affecting them.

Quote from: Baulderstone;973114Player's have always made their own saves against spells from NPC magic-users in D&D, and I have never seen this problem.Your just engaging in imaginary theorycrafting.

No, actually I'm telling you what it feels like to me having played games where the player rolls for everything.  I'm not assuming you're being a disingenuous dick making a false analogy because I'm saying something you don't like, how about showing the same courtesy and not conflating me with Pundit. Thanks much.  :D

Generally, in published D&D, the rules mostly work the same for everyone.
When someone casts a spell, whether is it ME or the NPC, the attacker rolls for damage if there is any, the target saves to resist.  That's how magic works, period, for both.
When someone makes an attack, the attacker rolls, the defender's defense is assumed. That's how it works for both.

Depending on version of D&D I may be able to parry like a Cavalier or use some fight defensively Feat, but the GM as the Giant can still roll a 20 and knock me across the room no matter what I do.  Sometimes things are more properly handled in the hands of others besides me and my character.  

"You roll for what your character does" is so natural and intuitive that to disrupt that begs the question: "Why?"  What is the purpose?  I can see the argument for speed.  It's just not worth the tradeoff in how the game feels for me.

Quote from: Itachi;973117What Baulderstone says. All times we played PbtA games, the NPCs had as much volition and concreteness as in any other game, and we remember times when NPC A or B did X or Y, again, as in any other game.


Players do not roll for everything. They only roll for actions relating directly to their characters. At least in the games I know that use the concept (PbtA, Numenera).

Quote from: Baulderstone;973119Same with the White Hack. The GM still rolls for things like wandering monsters, etc. The player only rolls for things directly affecting them.

Directly affecting them, yes, including things over which they really should not have complete mechanical control over because the character does not, which is why PvP kind of falls flat in these systems.  The asymmetric nature of gameplay reinforces the notion of a 4th wall awareness that these are the protagonists, again which is exactly WHY you see this being used more and more in games with a more story/narrative element.

I love it how System Matters, except when someone doesn't like it, then they're fooling themselves and every other sort of wrong that can be dreamed up.

Quote from: CRKrueger;973124Directly affecting them, yes, including things over which they really should not have complete mechanical control over because the character does not, which is why PvP kind of falls flat in these systems.  The asymmetric nature of gameplay reinforces the notion of a 4th wall awareness that these are the protagonists, again which is exactly WHY you see this being used more and more in games with a more story/narrative element.

I love it how System Matters, except when someone doesn't like it, then they're fooling themselves and every other sort of wrong that can be dreamed up.

Hey, man, I think it's fine if you don't like it. Can't say I have the same "feel" about it, but I can see why others would, and can understand why you'd wanna play something else. I'm not sure whether Black Hack would enforce the storygaming aspect or not, since it doesn't have the same codified, narrative elements, but I suppose it could. I have no reason to assume how it plays. Yet.

Quote from: CRKrueger;973111Yeah but the Kobold never actually critically hits you.  You critically fail to dodge.  So it's not "Remember that time that crazy Kobold went Duelist on you?" it's "Remember when you let that Kobold almost take off your hand?

Now sure, you can narrate any dice result any way you want and as I've said multiple times, the math is the same.  However the strict separation of GM=Narrate, Player=Play the game feels effectively different, even though it isn't really.  I'm not even talking as a GM not being able to roll dice, I'm talking as a player rolling dice for everything.  It doesn't seem like for IC roleplaying I should be the one to always "roll to find out what happens".  Actions of others I do not want to be rolling for, even partially.

Right. So it's a preference thing, sure. I get that it feels counterintuitive because it's upside down. I can't vouch for how it is to flip it in the BH, because Attack/Defense is separate. It was easy in DW, because it was one dice roll, one result, one adjudication. This other thing may be different, but there ARE roll under systems, right? How are those narrated?(CoC?)

QuoteI never said Black Hack was a narrative system, I was saying that's where you commonly see the player-facing mechanic these days, so it's not like there wasn't a link back to the days of "brain damage".  That's what sets off Pundit's Swine Detector.

I understand you didn't mention BH. I was just trying to stay on subject, with regards to the effects of player facing and BH maybe not fitting the same mold you discussed.

As for Pundit, I may understand why his detector went off, but it's clear it needs an adjustment in this case (or maybe, in all cases, because that just seemed like paranoia.

QuoteTo me, Black Hack just seems like someone New Schooled the Fuck out of OD&D.  I don't have an opinion on the author's design ethos or ideology.

Well, roll under ability checks isn't new school. But I guess player facing qualifies. I guess the equipment usage mechanic might.  The rest looks pretty traditional, honestly (I don't like the fighter special ability, though). Anyway, I don't think his intention is anything other than speed and flexibility. If there's an ethos beyond that, I don't know what it is. And I can't say much else, because I haven't bothered to run it. Seeing as how I'm going to be living in the RPG desert soon (so it appears), I'm not sure when I'll be able to do that. Might suck, for all I know.

Quote from: cranebump;973147Well, roll under ability checks isn't new school. But I guess player facing qualifies. I guess the equipment usage mechanic might.  The rest looks pretty traditional, honestly (I don't like the fighter special ability, though). Anyway, I don't think his intention is anything other than speed and flexibility. If there's an ethos beyond that, I don't know what it is. And I can't say much else, because I haven't bothered to run it. Seeing as how I'm going to be living in the RPG desert soon (so it appears), I'm not sure when I'll be able to do that. Might suck, for all I know.

Holy crap, this thread exploded...

Several comments in no particular order:

1. "Player facing rolls" have always been in RPGs, going by different names: simple tasks, unopposed checks, or saving throws. I would bet my RPG collection that 90% of RPG systems have a "Player rolls Vs. Static number" someplace... So I don't get what's so "new" about them.

2. So, someone said... "hey, you know how easy and quick it is for me to adjudicate a TN and have the Player roll, why can't I do that with combat and opposed rolls... I mean, attack rolls in D&D are already player-facing"

3. I have never in my life narrated a missed roll as the PC being a mumbling imbecile; for me and my players, an outcome doesn't depend on who rolls the dice, but rather how it is described.

4. For me Black Hack solves one of my major quips with D100 engines... you have on your character sheet a perfectly simple percentage chance, and then the game fucks it up by using opposed rolls (which involves conditional probabilities, so a 50% fighter attacking a 50% kobold has a 25% chance -give or take depending on system nuances- of actually hitting... blegh).  

5. Yes, it makes the game more predictable; if you like surprises and unexpected outcomes, it's BORING, because the system is more stable.

6. Some people like everyone rolling dices (Cortex, GURPS) others like one side rolling more dice than the other (GUMSHOE) others like player making all the dice rolls (PBtA, Cypher) and some people don't like dices at all (Amber), it's awesome that we have games that appeal to the whole spectrum.

7. And I will say it again, technology is not ideological by itself, the use we give it and how we interpret it, is.

Quote from: CRKrueger;973122No, actually I'm telling you what it feels like to me having played games where the player rolls for everything.

Not liking the players rolling for attacks against them is fine. It's not like I always them myself, but they can be handy from time to time. Just don't pretend you were merely expressing some personal preference when you are using arguments like this:

QuoteWell, to be fair, the games that produced all player-facing rolls didn't come out of a design philosophy dedicated to making GM's lives easier. That's why YOU like it. These games came out of the Forge/Indie philosophy, which as we talked about in another thread, was a backlash against the metaplot and GM Story Railroads of the 90s. The whole point was giving players more power through OOC mechanics, and in many cases actually limiting GM power.

You were making the argument that it doesn't matter that it works for people. It is ideologically tainted because your nebulous enemies have used it in the past. That's just sad.

Quote from: CRKrueger;973079Well, to be fair, the games that produced all player-facing rolls didn't come out of a design philosophy dedicated to making GM's lives easier.  That's why YOU like it.  These games came out of the Forge/Indie philosophy, which as we talked about in another thread, was a backlash against the metaplot and GM Story Railroads of the 90s.  The whole point was giving players more power through OOC mechanics, and in many cases actually limiting GM power.

QuoteGenerally, in published D&D, the rules mostly work the same for everyone.

You have to qualify this with "mostly" because the only time D&D had monsters and PCs work the same was in 3.5/Pathfinder, and that was fucking terrible. One of D&D's greatest strengths is that there are all kinds of PC-related mechanics that don't crossover to NPCs in order to make the game more manageable to run. Having players roll for defense is entirely in line with many decisions in D&D's basic design.

If I thought it was ideologically tainted, I would have said so instead of saying I dunno what the Black Hack guy's ideology is, but he's probably not concerned about that, and a lot of people use it specifically for speed so more power to them.  You're arguing against things I literally said the opposite of.  Crane and others were wondering what was setting Pundit's Swine-sense tingling, so I explained.  It's not a coincidence what kind of games deploy player-facing rolls, although in this case it may certainly be completely disconnected from any "story" concerns and simply be to cut and minimize as much as possible.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;973458But I'm not following the logic here. In fact, if we accept your initial assertion, it seems almost certain that the exact opposite is true here: If the mechanic is constantly making the player think in terms of their character's experience (so that they think of how they reacted to the orc's attack as opposed to visualizing themselves doing nothing while the orc attacked them), that would seem to encourage an IC POV, not an OOC one.

It's the asymmetry that kills it for me.  Every time I attack, I roll.  I could roll great, or I could suck, but the action comes from the attacker.  When it shifts only for players, then it's not based on the type of action, it's based on who does it.  You can narrate either way however you want, certainly (and I think that's kinda the point) but the monster never rolls that 20, there is no memorable monster action, ever, unless you specifically narrate to translate and repurpose character failure into monster success.

We're not focusing on me because I'm the attacker, we're focusing on me because I am playing a PC, not an NPC.
We're not focusing on me because I'm the defender, we're focusing on me because I am playing a PC, not an NPC.
At that point, the 4th wall awareness starts creeping in.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;973458Sure. But I'm not really clear why you feel that thrusting or swinging your sword at the orc is inherently something you do but attempting to parry or dodge the orc's blow is not.

Because in D&D at least, the "action needing a die roll" part is attacking and the "abstracted" part is defending.  Now some versions do have some defense options, but still the system is set up for the attacker to be the determinative actor in the process as far as die rolling goes, even though the process represents an abstracted combat round.  It could be the other way around, with rolling for defense, but again, it's the asymmetry that's the real issue.

Quote from: Ronin;972673If a GM rolls dice straight up no fudging. What the difference between the GM rolling it or the player? Isn't the same thing being accomplished?

Secondly if removing dice from the GM somehow removes their empowerment. What happens to a game that removes dice from both sides altogether?

You get a Storygame based system which works out to effectively be a cooperative Mother-May-I.  Like the fan favourite, Amber.

Quote from: cranebump;972701Until you actually run a system where you don't roll as a GM, I humbly suggest you STFU about whether it disempowers you or not. Seeing as how I have, and you haven't, your qualifications to make actual relevant comments on that subject are nil.

Yes, because having never had a colonoscopy, obviously you can't have any context to imagine if it will be an unpleasant experience or not.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;972741Apparently it was still a little too subtle for the guy who designs diceless game and then rants about how imaginary "swine" are trying to take his dice away with no sense of self-awareness whatsoever.

No, it's just a moronic argument.

Amber and its derivatives have no dice-rolling, but they give a much higher amount of power to the GM than D&D.

The motivation is completely different than the Storygames-derived initiative to remove the power of GMs to control their game and force them to follow the structure mandated by the game designer.  It's precisely the opposite, in fact.

Quote from: CRKrueger;973079Well, to be fair, the games that produced all player-facing rolls didn't come out of a design philosophy dedicated to making GM's lives easier.  That's why YOU like it.  These games came out of the Forge/Indie philosophy, which as we talked about in another thread, was a backlash against the metaplot and GM Story Railroads of the 90s.  The whole point was giving players more power through OOC mechanics, and in many cases actually limiting GM power.

To people who never ran GM Story Railroads, and know how to GM, these mechanical corrections weren't and aren't needed as our players never lacked freedom to control their character AS their character.

At this point I see player-facing rolls as a fad.  Of course games that have narrative aspects to them are jumping on the bandwagon, and I'm sure a couple of them are doing it partly for ideology.  I kind of doubt most are though.

Most systems I play at this point are opposed rolls, so there's no point to player-facing.  Going back to D&D I doubt I'd adopt player-facing, for one thing, you always run into the PvP issue, which never feels quite right, although it would be easier in Black Hack than Xworld.

I would argue that with no GM rolls, the feel of the game is different.  When the GM rolls, the Orc misses.  Sure you can describe it as you dodged or parried, or the Orc slipped or whatever, but what happened was the Orc missed.  When you shift that to player-facing, everything is contingent upon the players rolls.  It plays not as much like a RPG, but more like a Choose Your Own Adventure book where the entries were "The Orc attacks, roll to defend.  If you roll a X you succeed."   It puts the GM in the role of storyteller and the players in the role of determining everything that happens.

Mathematically, the Orc rolling a Critical Hit on a 20 and you rolling a Critical Failure on a 1 are the same, but the feel of the cause and effect is different.  There's no sense of anything being out of the player's control, as anything bad that happens to them is by their own roll.  Since that's not how the reality of our world or any simulated world works, then the very nature of it is dissonant.  It's technically not an OOC mechanic, but it kinda feels like it.

It totally speeds up some people's games to great effect though, so more power to them.

Precisely right.

Quote from: cranebump;973088That said, if the rolls are in the open, it doesn't matter who rolls the dice, which has been my point (and others') all along in this back and forth. Yeah, it. An "feel" like you're not affecting your group by not rolling. But, in determining the world details, plus how monsters attack, when, whom, and so on, you're still directing the flow of the game as you always do. It's just a question of whether you feel like you should be rolling, or, for some GM's (possibly) the sadistic delight of hacking up PCs "yourself."

Every sentence in this paragraph betrays a different facet of your massive fucking ignorance about the role of the GM in an RPG.

Quote from: RPGPundit;974063Every sentence in this paragraph betrays a different facet of your massive fucking ignorance about the role of the GM in an RPG.

And every post you make betrays your massive fucking ignorance of basic, human nature, you overbearing, hermetic, scared-shitless-of-real-people, piece of shit, right-wing, fascist, it's-not-Asperberger's-I'm-really-this-fucked-in-the-head, asshole. PROVE that one thing I wrote isn't part of what aGM does (in a real game with real people, not Pundit-land, where we eat tiny, wedge-shaped, shit sandwiches and dote on our own outsized ego over our rather minor accomplishments in frogland).

PROVE something. You chime in on CK's post as an exemplar of your argument. That post was about "feel." Didn't objectively prove anything, but at least it offered an actual rationale. But doesn't address anything other than player-facing "feels wrong." That's an acceptable rationale, albeit, still a subjective one. At least he offered an actual point.

As for you...

PROVE something, jackass. You want to discuss the subject, discuss it.  But, again, quit assuming you're the expert on anything. You're not. You're a self-anointed blowhard, expounding on a niche hobby, and doing so in consistently narrow terms. You bitch about the OSR Taliban? Look in the mirror, fuckwit. Just because you name yourself "Pundit" doesn't mean you are one (unless "Pundit" means "delusional jackass" in Uruguay).

Quote from: RPGPundit;974061No, it's just a moronic argument.

Amber and its derivatives have no dice-rolling, but they give a much higher amount of power to the GM than D&D.

The motivation is completely different than the Storygames-derived initiative to remove the power of GMs to control their game and force them to follow the structure mandated by the game designer.  It's precisely the opposite, in fact.

Oh, good god, dumbass--when you play your fucking DCC game, you're also following "the structure mandated by the game designer." It's merely a different structure. But, because it makes you feel better about yourself, you assume it's the "correct" structure. Your massive, fear-based need for control is showing again, jackass. Admit the subjectivity of your bullshit claims and move on. It's what real people do.

P.S. Black Hack isn't a story game, by the way. Remember that? The subject of the thread, that you conflated with the rest of your scary phantoms?

Quote from: RPGPundit;974059Yes, because having never had a colonoscopy, obviously you can't have any context to imagine if it will be an unpleasant experience or not.

Your imagination means less than flea shit, compared to the actual experience. But that's okay--tell us how your imagination on the beaches of Normandy is the same thing as dude who was there. I'll bet it's EXACTLY the same.:-/

P.S. You should get a colonoscopy, by the way. They could go through your mouth.

Quote from: CRKrueger;973079Well, to be fair, the games that produced all player-facing rolls didn't come out of a design philosophy dedicated to making GM's lives easier.  That's why YOU like it.  These games came out of the Forge/Indie philosophy, which as we talked about in another thread, was a backlash against the metaplot and GM Story Railroads of the 90s.  The whole point was giving players more power through OOC mechanics, and in many cases actually limiting GM power.

I dont know whether I like it or not. I like the design philosophy, which focuses on simplicity, speed, and flexibility. There's no story mechanics in it, but if there were, it wouldn't scare me, because I ran the DW campaign, which did have them, and I did not feel less empowered at all. This simply looks like a flipped mechanic.

QuoteTo people who never ran GM Story Railroads, and know how to GM, these mechanical corrections weren't and aren't needed as our players never lacked freedom to control their character AS their character.

Sure. But BH doesn't seem to be making any attempts at correcting anything. It just uses a d20-based, CoC mechanic, and gives players all the rolls.

I appreciate that you feel the need to chime in to explain why Pundit is being an asshole, but, really, there's no need. Why don't we just leave it as "he's a fucking asshole who can't handle other games real people play" and assess the actual thread question, rather than troll down the corridors of supposed threats detected by Herr Pundit's overzealous Gestapo-mechanism? You say the mechanical mode has a "feel" you don't dig. I get that. But it's just not a story game. And this discussion is really all about whether someone prefers to roll the dice or not. It's been blown out of proportion by the fundamentalist Cardinal of Uruguay, who fancies himself as a free speech advocate (but one who hates those who actually say the words).

Quote from: CRKruegerWell, to be fair, the games that produced all player-facing rolls didn't come out of a design philosophy dedicated to making GM's lives easier. That's why YOU like it. These games came out of the Forge/Indie philosophy, which as we talked about in another thread, was a backlash against the metaplot and GM Story Railroads of the 90s. The whole point was giving players more power through OOC mechanics, and in many cases actually limiting GM power.

That's impossible for anyone to say. There's a bazillion different games that use the "player-facing" concept: The Black Hack, Cinematic Unisystem, Numenera, Amber, Symbaroum, Blades in the Dark, Dread, Apocalypse World, etc. If you didn't asked each author about that, there's no way to precise the reason each one adopted it.

Quote from: Itachi;974150That's impossible for anyone to say. There's a bazillion different games that use the "player-facing" concept: The Black Hack, Cinematic Unisystem, Numenera, Amber, Symbaroum, Blades in the Dark, Dread, Apocalypse World, etc. If you didn't asked each author about that, there's no way to precise the reason each one adopted it.

Which is why I didn't say why any one particular author adopted it, just that the idea didn't come out of a group brainstorming to try to reduce GM's load in mass combats. :D The games that use them are also those with OOC narrative mechanics or link back to the Forge, again, to explain the Pundit Aggro.

Please tell me we're not going to do the whole "System Matters - except when we're arguing on theRPGSite" thing again.  God that's tiring.

(Also Amber is diceless, no one rolls, and relies mostly on GM-Fiat, so attempting to lump it in as "player-facing" is either trolling Pundit, who you're not replying to, demonstrates lack of knowledge of Amber, or is a deliberate falsehood.)

But some of those games' authors may have adopted the concept for the reason of "speeding up the game and liberating the GM". That's my point. Whatever the historical context the concept appeared, we can't precise what purpose each author had in mind when using it subsequently, which makes Cranebump reasons as valid as anyone.

And some of those games work as much in-character as D&D (as much as a game of let's pretend where you play polyhedrons to decide actions allows one to stay in-character, that is :D), so I don't see how the concept is inherently linked to out-of-characterness.

Quote from: Itachi;974174But some of those games' authors may have adopted the concept for the reason of "speeding up the game and liberating the GM". That's my point. Whatever the historical context the concept appeared, we can't precise what purpose each author had in mind when using it subsequently, which makes Cranebump reasons as valid as anyone.

And some of those games work as much in-character as D&D (as much as a game of let's pretend where you play polyhedrons to decide actions allows one to stay in-character, that is), so I don't see how the concept is inherently linked to out-of-characterness.

As someone who likes narrative aspects in RPGs, I hope you're aware that your definition of what interferes with IC-immersion is going to differ with mine.

BTW..coincidence check...

Anyone who doesn't like OOC or narrative elements at all feel like jumping in and saying how much they like "players roll"?

That kind of person is unlikely to play any new systems at all or be open to anything 'different' mechanically. We have posters here on the forum praising others for half-assedly dismissing games so they can continue to ignore anything made after 1988.

And didn't we establish earlier in this thread that the player rolling approach prefigured the herectical and decadent Forge by many years? So these ideas existed long before the Forge embraced them and can be used today for many reasons.

Not that I consider the supposed reason the Forge embraced it some terrible thing, course there's been no evidence presented to prove that that was the reason they did it either. I'm sure different designers found different reasons that they liked it.

In terms of the nominal subject at hand, TBH, I'm not really taken with the played-rolls approach per se. I didn't even consider it that significant as the game is pretty much a minimalist version of D&D. The kind of fury such a mechanical change can evoke certainly seems all out of proportion.

As I said earlier if a newbie was introduced to TBH I highly doubt they'd find the player rolls approach even remotely disruptive. It is only decades of habit that make us feel it as something that novel.

Quote from: Itachi;974150That's impossible for anyone to say. There's a bazillion different games that use the "player-facing" concept: The Black Hack, Cinematic Unisystem, Numenera, Amber, Symbaroum, Blades in the Dark, Dread, Apocalypse World, etc. If you didn't asked each author about that, there's no way to precise the reason each one adopted it.

It's also an optional rule in Unearthed Arcana for D&D 3.5, and it's explicitly stated as being a way of speeding up combat for the DM.

Quote from: CRKrueger;974177BTW..coincidence check...

Anyone who doesn't like OOC or narrative elements at all feel like jumping in and saying how much they like "players roll"?

Well, we've been immersion advocates, "soldiers in the trenches" as it were, on this forum and elsewhere for years. I just found Black Hack does what I've been doing for years when I brain fatigue mid-game. (Usually after food break. I blame digestion stealing precious bloodflow! :D ) I'd tell a player to roll for me out in the open, or behind a screen to dramatically reveal after my GM narrative translation, and we'd move on. Worked really well when I'd feel a migraine or low blood sugar coming on and I needed to wrap up a scene.

So this just formalizes this player-forward technique I've been using into a full system core of its own. It still seems to retain all the GM flexibility to deviate and adjudicate as before. In fact, the PVP question is a good example where the system says nothing proscriptive -- and it's all about GM deviation and adjudication.

Quote from: CRKrueger;974177BTW..coincidence check...

Anyone who doesn't like OOC or narrative elements at all feel like jumping in and saying how much they like "players roll"?

I am not as earnest in my dislike of those things as you are, but my play style definitely tends to avoid them. With player rolls, while I haven't played the black hack, I have done exactly what Opaopajr says and had players roll things purely to save time or brain energy on my end when the session has gone on for a long time or when there is simply so much going on, I can use the free brain space to focus on other things. My impression from this thread, is a lot of people like the black hack mechanics for its time saving qualities. Though again, I haven't played the game so no idea how it is in practice.

When it comes to games that do have player facing mechanics, I am not opposed to them on principle. But I will admit, it seems a little it would take me getting used to simply because I am more accustomed to games where the players roll for their stuff and I roll for my stuff (and any time that doesn't happen has been an exception used to save time but not the normal approach to play). So I don't think player facing would disrupt my sense of immersion as much as it would just be weird for me. I imagine I would get used to it over time.

I do wonder about Player Versus player though and how that is handled in those system. That would be my first concern.

Brendan and Opa: True, every GM has had players roll for stuff because he was busy, fried, tired, whatever, but the player was still rolling for the Orc...

I'll agree rolling for an NPC is certainly more disruptive to IC-Immersion for the player than rolling their own defense on a roll-by-roll basis.

But the normal symmetry between PC and NPC remained, and still does, and probably still will, at your table, right?

Quote from: Voros;974180That kind of person is unlikely to play any new systems at all or be open to anything 'different' mechanically. We have posters here on the forum praising others for half-assedly dismissing games so they can continue to ignore anything made after 1988.

And didn't we establish earlier in this thread that the player rolling approach prefigured the herectical and decadent Forge by many years? So these ideas existed long before the Forge embraced them and can be used today for many reasons.

Not that I consider the supposed reason the Forge embraced it some terrible thing, course there's been no evidence presented to prove that that was the reason they did it either. I'm sure different designers found different reasons that they liked it.

In terms of the nominal subject at hand, TBH, I'm not really taken with the played-rolls approach per se. I didn't even consider it that significant as the game is pretty much a minimalist version of D&D. The kind of fury such a mechanical change can evoke certainly seems all out of proportion.

As I said earlier if a newbie was introduced to TBH I highly doubt they'd find the player rolls approach even remotely disruptive. It is only decades of habit that make us feel it as something that novel.

This. Thanks for expressing my thoughts better then myself, Voros.

Quote from: CRKrueger;974307But the normal symmetry between PC and NPC remained, and still does, and probably still will, at your table, right?

I think I missed much of this conversation; can you clarify what you mean by symmetry between NPC and PC (just want to make sure I understand how it relates to this).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;974330I think I missed much of this conversation; can you clarify what you mean by symmetry between NPC and PC (just want to make sure I understand how it relates to this).

The rules for actions function similarly.

For Example:If the rules state that for casting a spell, the caster rolls damage and the Target makes the saving throw, like in D&D, then that is true whether the Caster and Target are PC or NPC.

PC Caster, NPC Target = PC rolls damage, NPC Saves
NPC Caster, PC Target = NPC rolls damage, PC Saves.

Quote from: CRKrueger;974370The rules for actions function similarly.

For Example:If the rules state that for casting a spell, the caster rolls damage and the Target makes the saving throw, like in D&D, then that is true whether the Caster and Target are PC or NPC.

PC Caster, NPC Target = PC rolls damage, NPC Saves
NPC Caster, PC Target = NPC rolls damage, PC Saves.

I have to split for my Monday game in a minute so I may miss something in my response here (if so it is because I in a rush).

I don't think this is something I've genuinely worried about too much since the transition to 3E and 4E so I am just attempting to figure out whether this actually comes up in my WHOG sessions (which is the only game I am running right now). I do have a few time saving techniques that probably get into this territory. Ideally that isn't what i am doing, but sometimes I find it a necessity. For example when there are large scale battles involving thirty NPCs, I won't have them roll individually unless they are fighting a player character. Otherwise I just asking each a value and have them roll off against each other to save time. Similarly, if I am in a real rush to make an NPC and it fights with a PC, I may just assign a vague attack value and damage value, rather than get into its individual abilities. Similarly when I am making NPCs I have two methods. For characters that are important, I make them just like PC, but for more minor characters when I often do a condensed stat block and back all their special abilities right into the entry. This would be like making a wizard on the fly but inventing all their spells in small little entries below the stats so you don't have to go looking things up or remember anything during play (you just have those abilities you made whole cloth for that character). Again though, mainly these are time saving devices I use. The core system still functions the same, but there are corners where PCs and NPCs are operating differently.

Y'know, I used to be vehemenently opposed to saves from PC spells because it seemed unnecessarily unfair. Instead of a floating AC, often changed by gear (and where money can buy resistance), Saves were the "fixed AC" that was nowhere near as easily modified by buying gear (lucky if you could stumble on magic items that improved them). So I know exactly where you are coming from in an immersive context.

Back then, I wanted magic to roll vs. AC just like 5e does now with most attack spells. I've since mellowed out and come to embrace the old way as a functioning logic unto itself.

However, since Black Hack's "Saves" (Defenses) are directly tied to Attribute stats, just like Attacks are, I don't have any reluctance left because they are working off the same pool of values. Granted it now becomes a game of trying to symmetrically Attack with your best stat, while Defend (Save) with your best stat, but I'm the GM and should know how to read your Attribute stats as In-Character perceivable strengths and weaknesses for NPCs to avoid that.

e.g. High DEX gun bunny needs to be challenged outside their quickly-obvious-to-others strengths.

Again, it becomes its own representational logic that works well for itself. And thus I can readily immerse as before! :p

Quote from: cranebump;974107Oh, good god, dumbass--when you play your fucking DCC game, you're also following "the structure mandated by the game designer."

When running DCC, it is explicitly understood the GM can do whatever the fuck he likes.

While you could in theory claim the same about the Black Hack, in practice "player-facing" and "GM never gets to roll" were both Storygamer inventions specifically designed to make it harder for the GM to do whatever the fuck he likes.

QuoteP.S. Black Hack isn't a story game, by the way. Remember that? The subject of the thread, that you conflated with the rest of your scary phantoms?

No, it's not a story game, but it makes use of mechanical concepts taken from the Storygamer/Forge movement.

Quote from: cranebump;974108Your imagination means less than flea shit, compared to the actual experience. But that's okay--tell us how your imagination on the beaches of Normandy is the same thing as dude who was there. I'll bet it's EXACTLY the same.:-/

Certainly not. But careful research on what went on during D-Day is enough to make me thank Kek that I didn't have to be one of the poor bastards that had to fight there.

Quote from: RPGPundit;975400No, it's not a story game, but it makes use of mechanical concepts taken from the Storygamer/Forge movement.

You've really managed to take your dogmatic paranoia to an even-more-hilarious-than-usual level, Pundie.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;974383The core system still functions the same, but there are corners where PCs and NPCs are operating differently.

Yeah. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of PCs and NPCs operating on the same mechanical chassis, but I've found that in most systems modeling NPCs with the detailed complexity of a PC is largely a waste of time that doesn't pay any meaningful dividends that are visible at the gaming table. Running OD&D and Numenera really served to remind me that "pick a number, there's your NPC" makes for really easy prep and improvisation.

I am curious, though, to see whether or not stat block discontinuity is perceived as the same sort of deal-breaker as dice-rolling discontinuity by those who find the latter objectionable and/or a dirty action of heresy by filthy traitors.

I played Marvel Saga it had the same approach. I prefer rolling dices and be part of the fun than giving target numbers like I am some sort of accountant.

Quote from: John Scott;975639I played Marvel Saga it had the same approach. I prefer rolling dices and be part of the fun than giving target numbers like I am some sort of accountant.

"I have fun rolling dice!" is an entirely valid reason to not like this system.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;975633Yeah. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of PCs and NPCs operating on the same mechanical chassis, but I've found that in most systems modeling NPCs with the detailed complexity of a PC is largely a waste of time that doesn't pay any meaningful dividends that are visible at the gaming table. Running OD&D and Numenera really served to remind me that "pick a number, there's your NPC" makes for really easy prep and improvisation.

This.

Quote from: RPGPundit;975400When running DCC, it is explicitly understood the GM can do whatever the fuck he likes.

I'll admit I don't know what a "story game" is aside from those little bags of dice with symbols on them that you can roll to prompt your imagination, but I always thought that in every RPG the GM can do "whatever the fuck he likes." Please tell me you don't wait for explicit consent from a game designers to have fun with your game in the way you enjoy it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;975400When running DCC, it is explicitly understood the GM can do whatever the fuck he likes.

While you could in theory claim the same about the Black Hack, in practice "player-facing" and "GM never gets to roll" were both Storygamer inventions specifically designed to make it harder for the GM to do whatever the fuck he likes.

Are you claiming that this single mechanical change somehow prevents the GM and players from using the Black Hack for playing a stripped down version of D&D, which the game is clearly intended to do? That seems unlikely.

Quote from: Baulderstone;975657"I have fun rolling dice!" is an entirely valid reason to not like this system.

As I said earlier, this is me.  I bought all these colouful things for the express purpose of using them when I run games.

Quote from: Baulderstone;975657"I have fun rolling dice!" is an entirely valid reason to not like this system.

As a gamer i am used to throw cards or dice at the table. A system designed not allowing me to do that felt unatural to me. I had some fun but probably the game wasn't meant for me.

I came from video games and CCGs, so dice were never a really big deal for me. Went to a distributor show, indulged in a few "Mug of Dice for a $1," never got around to buying dice again. (Was easily supplemented by gift bag goodies free dice, or 'orphans' on the street, at the end of shows, etc.)

For me, the artistry on the card or dice is appreciated, but not so great a burning desire to shuffle or roll them. I am a defective gamer. :( :p

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Dumarest;975679I'll admit I don't know what a "story game" is aside from those little bags of dice with symbols on them that you can roll to prompt your imagination, but I always thought that in every RPG the GM can do "whatever the fuck he likes." Please tell me you don't wait for explicit consent from a game designers to have fun with your game in the way you enjoy it.

It isn't  just that many storygames explicitly state as a rule "the GM cannot just change the rules as written"; that would be bad enough, but obviously as you say it would be something that a GM could just ignore.

It's that one of the things storygamers have dedicated themselves to, in design terms, is to create rules that intentionally make it very difficult for the GM to just change whatever he likes. It is hard-wired into the rules that the GM can't just alter things, at least not without massively rewriting or simply throwing away such rules.

"Player facing" rules and players-only dice-rolling are some examples of that, because they remove the opportunity for the GM to just alter the rules, and create a sense of player entitlement, where they feel like they would be legitimately justified in objecting if the GM just altered the game.

Quote from: Voros;975709Are you claiming that this single mechanical change somehow prevents the GM and players from using the Black Hack for playing a stripped down version of D&D, which the game is clearly intended to do? That seems unlikely.

Not as such. But it does prevent the GM from having some of the same latitude to just DIY wing-it in terms of what dice mechanics he chooses to use, or if he simply chooses to fudge.
One of the reasons for the GM Screen was so the GM could roll dice and then not actually bother to even look at them.

Quote from: RPGPundit;976338"Player facing" rules and players-only dice-rolling are some examples of that, because they remove the opportunity for the GM to just alter the rules, and create a sense of player entitlement, where they feel like they would be legitimately justified in objecting if the GM just altered the game.

And yet this thread was prompted because of the "gazillion" variants people have put out for it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;976339Not as such. But it does prevent the GM from having some of the same latitude to just DIY wing-it in terms of what dice mechanics he chooses to use, or if he simply chooses to fudge.
One of the reasons for the GM Screen was so the GM could roll dice and then not actually bother to even look at them.

"The GM can't fudge dice rolls"  is a pure positive for me. I don't think it ever serves a game to call for a call for a dice roll then ignore the result because it didn't fit with the narrative you are you are trying to tell.  

However, if you like fudging dice rolls, the Black Hack still give you plenty of opportunity. In your review of Kaigaku, you state, "The Black Hack system has several features I strongly dislike. More than that, distrust. Because they are the kind of things Forge assholes came up with. First: the GM isn't allowed to roll dice." This simply isn't true, and I am not the first person to state it in thread, but you keep insisting on it.

According to the rules, the GM makes damage rolls, so you can still use hidden rolls and protect players from untimely deaths if that is your thing. The GM also makes wandering monster checks as well, so you can always use that as an excuse to rattle your dice pointlessly and not look at them if your game needs fake drama to keep players invested.

There is no place at all in the book where the GM is forbidden from rolling dice.

Quote from: RPGPundit;976338"Player facing" rules and players-only dice-rolling are some examples of that, because they remove the opportunity for the GM to just alter the rules,

How, exactly?

Logically speaking, you must be claiming that it's impossible to fudge the results or alter any mechanic which involves the players rolling the dice. But that's obviously not true. And even if it were true, such a conclusion would need to extend to ANY system featuring player rolling, not just player-faced mechanics. The only mechanics you would find acceptable would be GM-faced mechanics in which only the GM rolls the dice.

We'd also have to logically conclude that, if fudging / mechanical alteration is dependent on the GM rolling dice, that diceless systems would be unalterable for the GM. Which is also clearly nonsense.

Quote from: RPGPundit;976339Not as such. But it does prevent the GM from having some of the same latitude to just DIY wing-it in terms of what dice mechanics he chooses to use, or if he simply chooses to fudge.

I never thought that you would defend GM fudging.

Because, what could be reasons for a GM ignoring rolls?

• The result runs against his story. (Storytelling)
• The result kills his favourite NPC. (Mary Sue)
• The result kills a PC. (Playing favourites)
• The result deviates from his prep. (Lazyness or railroading)
• The result deprotagonizes the player (and the GM is a fan of the players).
• The roll was never called for, as the result was already in the mind of the GM. (Illusionism)

I can see good reasons for fudging some rolls ... like on a random table where I have a hard time applying the result (because I can't rationalize it, or I don't have the stats ready, or another line in the table immediately catches my imagination and the game would continue more smoothly if I just went with it).
Neither of which were made impossible or verboten by The Black Hack.

QuoteOne of the reasons for the GM Screen was so the GM could roll dice and then not actually bother to even look at them.

I am a defender and propagator of GM screens, but my screen is mainly used for

• hiding my notes, monster stats, and maps!
  
• sticking Post-its with PC info to it
• having often-needed tables handy
• hiding rolls that PCs know nothing about (stealth, surprise, detection, disarming traps)

Btw, The Black Hack Kickstarter came with a screen...

Quote from: Baulderstone;976402And yet this thread was prompted because of the "gazillion" variants people have put out for it.

Have you seen any variants that change the system to bring back monsters actually rolling to attack?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;976547How, exactly?

Logically speaking, you must be claiming that it's impossible to fudge the results or alter any mechanic which involves the players rolling the dice. But that's obviously not true. And even if it were true, such a conclusion would need to extend to ANY system featuring player rolling, not just player-faced mechanics. The only mechanics you would find acceptable would be GM-faced mechanics in which only the GM rolls the dice.

The point is, again, it creates an EXPECTATION in the players of the rules going a certain way. THEY, not the GM, are in control of the rolls, THEY have the system on their side if they want to cry foul at some GM ruling.

To change something, the GM would have to openly enter into conflict with his players, and this immediately take the game OUT of Immersion, and into the realm of people squabbling over rules here in the  material world.

Quote from: RPGPundit;977053Have you seen any variants that change the system to bring back monsters actually rolling to attack?

I have not. I have only read the core book. And as I have said repeatedly, there is nothing wrong with disliking the game because you as a GM want to roll the monster attacks. I like to roll for monsters myself.

I only got into this thread because you were flat out lying about the game.

Quote from: RPGPundit;977054The point is, again, it creates an EXPECTATION in the players of the rules going a certain way. THEY, not the GM, are in control of the rolls, THEY have the system on their side if they want to cry foul at some GM ruling.

To change something, the GM would have to openly enter into conflict with his players, and this immediately take the game OUT of Immersion, and into the realm of people squabbling over rules here in the  material world.

You are actually afraid to openly make a ruling at a table as a GM when dealing with people face-to-face? The only way you can try and control your game is to skulk behind a GM screen, fudging dice and hoping nobody notices what you are doing?

But since you are afraid the game won't let you change things, maybe this quote will make you feel better:

Quote from: David BlackIn the DIY community tradition the GM is encouraged to grow the game in the direction that suites [sic] them and their table.

There. The designer has granted permission for the GM to change the rules.

Quote from: Baulderstone;977068I have not. I have only read the core book. And as I have said repeatedly, there is nothing wrong with disliking the game because you as a GM want to roll the monster attacks. I like to roll for monsters myself.

I only got into this thread because you were flat out lying about the game.



You are actually afraid to openly make a ruling at a table as a GM when dealing with people face-to-face? The only way you can try and control your game is to skulk behind a GM screen, fudging dice and hoping nobody notices what you are doing?

It isn't about fear. It's about the breaking of Immersion. You know, the single fundamental point of the RPG experience?

QuoteThere. The designer has granted permission for the GM to change the rules.

Lovely, but then what's the point if the rules changes required to make the game effective for Emulation mean that you would no longer be playing the Black Hack?

Quote from: RPGPundit;977642Lovely, but then what's the point if the rules changes required to make the game effective for Emulation mean that you would no longer be playing the Black Hack?

Because it's fun?

The thing is about house ruling is at what point does it stop being fun and start being 'work'.  This threshold is different for everyone.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;977673The thing is about house ruling is at what point does it stop being fun and start being 'work'.  This threshold is different for everyone.

That's true enough. Same can be said for the rules bloat we saw in D&D2e and 3rd - 3.5. Only so many supplemental systems can be enjoyed before they become overbearing.

Quote from: Baulderstone;977068You are actually afraid to openly make a ruling at a table as a GM when dealing with people face-to-face? The only way you can try and control your game is to skulk behind a GM screen, fudging dice and hoping nobody notices what you are doing?

Pundie's support of fudging is a matter of record. What he appears to be claiming is that he can't figure out how to fudge a result if the players are rolling the dice: Like, he's never figured out how to have a PC in D&D "miss" an orc they should have hit; or given the orc a few extra hit points so that it doesn't die when it was supposed to.

I'm sure he thinks he's making some sort of point about the game. But all I'm hearing is someone describing their own gross incompetence. I'm completely baffled how someone could spend decades supposedly running RPGs while being a proponent of fudging, but have no idea how to do some of the most basic versions of it without... how did he put it? Openly entering into conflict with his players and squabbling over the rules?

Utterly bizarre.

Quote from: RPGPundit;977642Lovely, but then what's the point if the rules changes required to make the game effective for Emulation mean that you would no longer be playing the Black Hack?

You argue that this game somehow stops the GM from altering the rules and this is a problem. I point out the the designer actively encourages the GM to mess with the rules. You are now arguing that if the GM changes a rule, he is no longer playing the same game and this is a problem. Your position is completely incoherent.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;977694Pundie's support of fudging is a matter of record.

I find fudging and wanting strict immersion are incompatible. In a group with fudging, the players usually figure it out at some point. I know I often do. That's always the complete death of any immersion for me. I'm fine with "rulings not rules" as a GM style, but when a GM rules that dice are being used, I expect the dice to decide the matter. If the dice are simply being used as a prop, my belief in the whole system of the game evaporates. It's all just a narrative the GM is making up.

I'm fine with 'monsters always hit, roll to defend' (ala Black Hack and Whispering Vault)... but as a Player I don't want to be rolling for the monsters' attacks, not all the time anyway. It's a subtle difference but I want my mental space and actions and dice rolling to be focused on my character(s) alone.
As a GM I want to roll for the monsters because it's fun.
So Black Hack sounds interesting/fun to me... but DW stuff not so much.
Is it that hard to change DW to have the GM roll the monster attacks?

As for fudging, I definitely do not like it... but I do like GMs making secret rolls and, sometimes, making rolls with no purpose just to put Players on edge.

Are you sure players roll for monster attacks in DW? That's weird. I thought it was like other PbtA games where NPC damage is a fixed number applied when moves dictate.

Quote from: Simlasa;977832As for fudging, I definitely do not like it... but I do like GMs making secret rolls and, sometimes, making rolls with no purpose just to put Players on edge.

I'm fine with hidden rolls. They certainly have their uses. I'm iffy on purposeless rolls. A GM behind the screen rolling dice and looking stuff up can sometimes just end being the equivalent of a video game load screen. There are times it can build tension, but I think GMs can overuse it. As you say, "sometimes" it can be good.

Quote from: Itachi;977892Are you sure players roll for monster attacks in DW?

I'm not sure of anything about DW, never read it or played it, but that's how it was described to me. If Players aren't making dice rolls for their opponents then that's one less thing keeping me from it as a Player... though I think there are other reasons I wouldn't enjoy it as a GM.

You don't make opponent rolls in DW or the Black Hack. In TBH you roll to see if you avoid your opponents attack.

Not a fan of fudging; it just makes me wonder why you are using dice if you want to select a result? The only time I roll dice behind a screen is for things where the players or PCs wouldn't know the outcome, like "Did that guard notice me?" and "Did she believe my lie about the overheated overdrive?"

Quote from: Voros;977942You don't make opponent rolls in DW or the Black Hack. In TBH you roll to see if you avoid your opponents attack.

What about in PBTA games? I think I sometimes mix up DW and PBTA.

In other PbtA games players only roll for actions pertaining to their characters.

Eg:
Sigrid the shieldmainden thrust her spear at you. What do you do?
I raise my shield and wait for an opening to close in stab her with my saex.
Ok, roll [relevant stat].
I rolled an 8. That's "success with a cost.. or a tough choice", right?
Yep, here is your tough choice: you see a chance to close in and stab her, but not without receiving a graze from the spear. What do you do?
I take the chance.
Ok, take 2 damage from the spear graze. You stab her in the ribs for 3 damage. She backs off and you see fear in her face. What do you do?

Quote from: Baulderstone;977815You argue that this game somehow stops the GM from altering the rules and this is a problem. I point out the the designer actively encourages the GM to mess with the rules. You are now arguing that if the GM changes a rule, he is no longer playing the same game and this is a problem. Your position is completely incoherent.

No, I'm saying there's a threshold where you have to change so much that you might as well be playing a totally different game. If you can't understand that it's a matter of degrees, that's your problem.

QuoteI find fudging and wanting strict immersion are incompatible. In a group with fudging, the players usually figure it out at some point.

You shouldn't pay much attention to Justin. He is wrong about everything. For a start, he assumes that what I'm talking about is fudging to enforce some kind of story.

QuoteI know I often do. That's always the complete death of any immersion for me. I'm fine with "rulings not rules" as a GM style, but when a GM rules that dice are being used, I expect the dice to decide the matter. If the dice are simply being used as a prop, my belief in the whole system of the game evaporates. It's all just a narrative the GM is making up.

There's many occasions where the GM wants the dice to decide, but not the way the rules say they would. He has the right to do so. The GM has the right to change the rules at any time. There's also times when he doesn't want the dice to decide but precisely to maintain immersion it's better to not let the players in on that fact.

Quote from: RPGPundit;979001You shouldn't pay much attention to Justin. He is wrong about everything. For a start, he assumes that what I'm talking about is fudging to enforce some kind of story.

In an effort to deal with his personal inadequacy, Pundie lies about what people said and hopes no one will notice.

Must be a day ending in y.

QuoteThere's many occasions where the GM wants the dice to decide, but not the way the rules say they would. He has the right to do so. The GM has the right to change the rules at any time. There's also times when he doesn't want the dice to decide but precisely to maintain immersion it's better to not let the players in on that fact.

Pundie still can't figure out how to fudge the results of a die roll when the players are rolling the dice. Everyone else in the thread remains baffled by his incompetence. Film at 11.

Quote from: Itachi;978057In other PbtA games players only roll for actions pertaining to their characters.

Oh, OK... then I'd misunderstood what people were telling me. Not that your example makes me want to play... I think I'd have other issues besides who rolls the dice.