Quote from: Aglondir;1120910You might find Players roll all the dice interesting.

If people are not willing to play it that also means they are not willing to buy it.  I have to think about what the customers will want.

This said let me explain my idea.  Basically d20 with attribute score serving as the end point before failure.  Say say the attribute is 15.  Any roll of 16, or higher is failure with nat 20 as critical failure.

"Oh sounds like roll low d20," you may say.  Just wait for this more.

GM determines difficulty which starts at one and goes up.  For our example let us say the difficulty is five.  That means any roll of five, or less is failure with nat one being critical failure.

"Gee...  Two critical failures?  That doesn't sound like fun."

Hold up there is a counter to this.  For any roll between 6 to 15 is a success.  In fact getting a 6, or a 15 is critical success.  Than means with any roll there is a 10% chance of critical failure, but a 10% chance of critical success.

"Okay so mechanically it looks sound, but what does this make this so special?"

Say your trying to sneak into a enemy camp to steal some battle plans.  Getting that sweet TR range will get you what you want.  Getting that sweet six, or fifteen will get you more than what you want.  That said the failures could actually be different.  If you under shoot it and didn't over come difficulty you had alerted the night watch.  A critical failure would mean they spotted you.  That said if you over shoot it, then you avoided the guards just to completely fail in finding those plans.  Worst if it was nat twenty, then you may have gotten the wrong plans that the enemy general discarded because it sounded like a bad idea.  Can you imagine the army of your king preparing for plans that the enemy general does not plan on actually using?  Talk about major disadvantage.  Four mechanical results, but with the possibility in having seven very different outcomes in role play.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1120924If people are not willing to play it that also means they are not willing to buy it.  I have to think about what the customers will want.

This said let me explain my idea.  Basically d20 with attribute score serving as the end point before failure.  Say say the attribute is 15.  Any roll of 16, or higher is failure with nat 20 as critical failure.

"Oh sounds like roll low d20," you may say.  Just wait for this more.

GM determines difficulty which starts at one and goes up.  For our example let us say the difficulty is five.  That means any roll of five, or less is failure with nat one being critical failure.

"Gee...  Two critical failures?  That doesn't sound like fun."

Hold up there is a counter to this.  For any roll between 6 to 15 is a success.  In fact getting a 6, or a 15 is critical success.  Than means with any roll there is a 10% chance of critical failure, but a 10% chance of critical success.

"Okay so mechanically it looks sound, but what does this make this so special?"

Say your trying to sneak into a enemy camp to steal some battle plans.  Getting that sweet TR range will get you what you want.  Getting that sweet six, or fifteen will get you more than what you want.  That said the failures could actually be different.  If you under shoot it and didn't over come difficulty you had alerted the night watch.  A critical failure would mean they spotted you.  That said if you over shoot it, then you avoided the guards just to completely fail in finding those plans.  Worst if it was nat twenty, then you may have gotten the wrong plans that the enemy general discarded because it sounded like a bad idea.  Can you imagine the army of your king preparing for plans that the enemy general does not plan on actually using?  Talk about major disadvantage.  Four mechanical results, but with the possibility in having seven very different outcomes in role play.

Sounds similar to the old Posthuman version of Degenesis.

IIRC it had an action score that was the sum of your stat and skill.  Then the GM set a difficulty.  You needed to roll between those 2 values on 2d10.  If the  difficulty was above your action score then you can not succeed.  If you rolled above the action score the failure was because it was outside your ability.  If you failed by rolling under the difficulty it was because you actually messed it up.

Critical results were doubles on the dice.  So you had a crit success if you rolled between the diff and action score with doubles, but a crit fail if you rolled outside that range and had doubles.

Quote from: rgalex;1120930Sounds similar to the old Posthuman version of Degenesis.

IIRC it had an action score that was the sum of your stat and skill.  Then the GM set a difficulty.  You needed to roll between those 2 values on 2d10.  If the  difficulty was above your action score then you can not succeed.  If you rolled above the action score the failure was because it was outside your ability.  If you failed by rolling under the difficulty it was because you actually messed it up.

Critical results were doubles on the dice.  So you had a crit success if you rolled between the diff and action score with doubles, but a crit fail if you rolled outside that range and had doubles.

Honestly I wasn't thinking of that which is funny because Degenesis was the first PoD that I paid for on RPG Drivethru.

Quote from: Aglondir;1120910You might find Players roll all the dice interesting.

Which is about the extent of it in Symbaroum.  It's basically just flips things - so you can easily flip it back.

Quote from: Aglondir;1120910You might find Players roll all the dice interesting.

I use a system like that in my own game (and kudos for them using 11+ instead of 10+) but I do it as an option. I'll write a character's attack score as +3 [14] so I can either have them roll everything or the DM can roll everything depending on the situation.

Locking the game to "players roll all the dice" just take the flexibility out of it and leads to issues when there are things that could more easily be resolved via DM rolls (such as stealth or search checks).

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1121849I use a system like that in my own game (and kudos for them using 11+ instead of 10+) but I do it as an option. I'll write a character's attack score as +3 [14] so I can either have them roll everything or the DM can roll everything depending on the situation.

Locking the game to "players roll all the dice" just take the flexibility out of it and leads to issues when there are things that could more easily be resolved via DM rolls (such as stealth or search checks).

It's not locked.  Piece of piss to change it back.  PC and NPCs use the same rules so only players roll is actually pointless anyway.  (And it's not even consistent certain abilities that NPCs have don't even work unless the GM rolls.

"Only players roll" is an ideologically suspect bit of flawed design born of hatred for GM power.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1122054"Only players roll" is an ideologically suspect bit of flawed design born of hatred for GM power.

Yeah whatever.

Symbaroum is not a narrative game in any way shape or form.  

It's a ruleswise a dull and rather pedestrian fantasy heartbreaker tied to a 90s style metaplot setting (which is one of the best ever examples of the type - as frustrating as it is.

The book seems to feel that the purpose of only players roll is to stop the GM fudging.  They could have just advised the GM not to fudge but well...there's gestures at sandboxing in the game that seem like the designers have heard about the OSR but don't really get it.  Their implementation of only players roll is utterly trival and seems to have a simliar spirit behind it.

They even sold a GMs screen - presumably so you can not roll the dice behind it.

The setting is cool, but the system while neat in principle suffers from clearly not having been playtested.  Nevertheless if someone actually likes the game but is put off only because it says the GM shouldn't roll dice then they're a complete idiot.  

Just roll the fucking dice if you want.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1122054"Only players roll" is an ideologically suspect bit of flawed design born of hatred for GM power.

I actually came up with a way for implementing diceless GMing in my system that had nothing to do with ideology--it's just the way the system turned out mechanically. I just use a d20+Mod mechanic where difficulty is expressed as a negative modifier rather than a target number, and you just have to roll 10+ to score success. When making opposed rolls, you use your opponent's modifier as a difficulty modifier rather than both sides rolling, and either side can roll. This means that GM's can optionally just have players roll everything using the opponent's ability as a difficulty modifier--if characters attack, they roll using the opponent's defense as difficulty, if they defend, the roll against the opponent's attack as difficulty, etc.

There was no ideological motivation behind the design, it's just something that could be done the way I setup ability rolls, so I included the option if GM's don't want to roll anything.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1122054"Only players roll" is an ideologically suspect bit of flawed design born of hatred for GM power.

Or hatred of the fairly common "I-get-to-see-your-rolls-but-you-don't-get-to-see-mine" practice which GMs have been known to abuse. (Yes, you can abuse lying about what a flat value is too, but generally for not nearly as long.)

I can also see rules like this coming in very handy in combats where the GM is running a lot of foes, or where he's getting fed up with the constant mental math -- there are GMs who are much better at coming up with ideas and scenarios than at calculating the odds for an opponent.

Enough players like rolling dice enough, and like the curve-flattening effect of both sides rolling dice enough, that I doubt "only players roll" is ever going to take off as a primary core mechanic -- I would certainly never design a game around it. But it can be a useful backup. (If I recall correctly the BUFFY iteration of the Unisystem incorporates just such an optional mechanic for just such time-saving reasons.)