So the question is who rolls the dice in a combat attack?

This can be done a lot of ways.  D&D physical attack is the attacker rolls and the defender doesn't.  In D&D magic, the attacker doesn't roll and the defender rolls a saving throw.

Mathematically, all 3 of these simple cases can be made equivalent by adjusting the skills
a)   attacker skill + d6 vs defender skill +d6, highest wins
b)   attacker skill + 2d6 vs defender skill, highest wins
c)   attacker skill vs defender skill + 2d6, highest wins

One could also say the DM always rolls the dice, probably to avoid distracting the players from the game fiction with math, or the player always rolls the dice, to reduce the DM's work load.

Since any of these can be made mathematically equivalent, I think the choice comes down to the satisfaction of rolling the dice, the added feeling of control when you're actively defending by rolling a die rather than just waiting to be hit, time required to execute an attack, computational simplicity, avoiding distraction from the game fiction, engagement, and workload.

So in your perfect game, who rolls the dice?

For me, I prefer opposed rolls.  It's slightly more work to execute, but I feel that the added feeling of control and added engagement are worth the effort.

As GM, I prefer it when the players always roll -- like in Cinematic Unisystem or Powered-by-the-Apocalypse games.

It frees up the physical stuff I need to be involved in, and simplifies handling.

Quote from: Mishihari on August 24, 2022, 12:55:03 AM
D&D physical attack is the attacker rolls and the defender doesn't.  In D&D magic, the attacker doesn't roll and the defender rolls a saving throw.

I like this the best. Having a player roll an attack vs every target of a Fireball etc slows the game hugely, as I saw in 4e D&D.

Rolling dice is fun. Splitting it between players and GM is the best solution if the system permits.

Situations where an NPC is making a saving throw or reacting it's probably the GM, situations where a PC is being active and/or attacking it's the Player.  Most GMs and players can work out other situations.

I prefer a split, mainly for the fun or rolling the dice and the GM making some rolls where the players don't fully need to know the details.  (In my case as GM, still in the open, but not necessarily calling out all the modifiers.)

I also prefer systems simple enough that things like allied NPC rolls or even monsters attacks can be handed over to the players when it suits me and not when it doesn't. This is particularly effective in large numbers of weak attacks, as it simulates for the players the feeling of it all happening at once, confusion as people call out they are hit, etc.  Plus, I enjoy it when a player rolls a critical hit against themselves, and the reaction this provokes from the group. Admittedly, this enjoyment is not shared by all the players, and thus has to be used only when appropriate.  In a mixed fight of a lot of such weaker opponents and a handful of stronger ones (or at least, more mysterious in their capabilities) that I'm rolling for, even better.

As an experiment, I once ran a long session in which I rolled all the dice, and never discussed the numbers with my players. I just described everything to them in "in game" terms. All of my players said afterwards that they hated it. There were a number of reasons why, but the most cited were that they enjoyed rolling dice, and that they felt they needed to see the numbers to make informed decisions.

My ideal is that players roll most things; attacks on monsters, defending against monsters, etc.; but with mechanics for the GM to sub in their own rolls; monster defenses, monster attacks, etc.; to the degree they desire.

For some GMs this might mean rolling for every last mook, for most I suspect it would be rolling for bosses and major NPCs while letting mooks use static numbers, some might even be happy rolling no dice at all... but the choice is up to the individual GM where their own preference lies.

Naturally, the system I wrote uses this approach.

Players roll their stuff. I roll mine.
In the idd cases I just judge based on what happens. Like if a player burned themselves I'd have them roll the damage.

When the player takes an action, giving them the tools to resolve it speeds up play.  If I announce my attack, but the defender has to roll, that could potentially require the participation of two people.  Having two people being ready and prepared (one of whom was actively planning and one who is potentially expecting NOT to take an action and is on a smoke break) is a harder lift. 

I think ideally both the attacker/attackee should be paying attention, especially since sometimes there are special abilities that might come into play depending on the results of the attack.  But since that's not a 100% thing like the actual resolution, I like the person declaring the action to handle their rolls.

When an action results in being disabled or a major negative condition, I do like the defender getting the chance to 'roll out' from it.  This has nothing to do with resolving actions faster and instead is a nod to human psychology.  If someone beats your Will check and you fall asleep, it feels like there was nothing you could do.  If you roll a save and fail, you can at least feel that you had a chance. 

Quote from: Mishihari on August 24, 2022, 12:55:03 AMSo in your perfect game, who rolls the dice?

Ever since 3e, I've been writing stats like this:   AC [15] +4 and  BAB +6 [17]

The number in parenthesis is the target number and the plus is added to a d20. So an attack can either be a d20+6 vs 15 to hit or a d20+4 vs a 17 to "dodge". I do this for skills as well.

What this means is any attack or skill check can be rolled by either party with the exact same probability of success. I can roll all the dice or I can have the players roll all the dice or change it up as needed.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on August 24, 2022, 10:39:57 AMf someone beats your Will check and you fall asleep, it feels like there was nothing you could do.  If you roll a save and fail, you can at least feel that you had a chance.

I noticed this effect as well. It is completely illogical, but if a player rolls badly and gets hit, that player feels responsible. If I roll, it isn't as "fair."

I dislike rolling dice for multiple NPCs but players dislike rolling dice for them too (although they like rolling their own dice).

I haven't found a perfect solution. At least, I do not roll for damage, taking the average.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 24, 2022, 10:50:18 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on August 24, 2022, 12:55:03 AMSo in your perfect game, who rolls the dice?

Ever since 3e, I've been writing stats like this:   AC [15] +4 and  BAB +6 [17]

The number in parenthesis is the target number and the plus is added to a d20. So an attack can either be a d20+6 vs 15 to hit or a d20+4 vs a 17 to "dodge". I do this for skills as well.

What this means is any attack or skill check can be rolled by either party with the exact same probability of success. I can roll all the dice or I can have the players roll all the dice or change it up as needed.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on August 24, 2022, 10:39:57 AMf someone beats your Will check and you fall asleep, it feels like there was nothing you could do.  If you roll a save and fail, you can at least feel that you had a chance.

I noticed this effect as well. It is completely illogical, but if a player rolls badly and gets hit, that player feels responsible. If I roll, it isn't as "fair."

I have heard that this is one reason why Games Workshop made armour saves the last point in the process. It was more satisfying to have a last chance to save your own soldier.

In my observations, I've noticed that players like rolling dice to give them the illusion of control. This is why so many systems have more dice rolls in combat than they really need: e.g. roll to hit, roll to dodge, roll to damage, roll to soak. These rolls can be streamlined to just the players rolling to hit and to avoid being hit, which gives players the illusion of control and avoids any harebrained impetus to add more rolls to make them feel in control but is more streamlined than using opposed rolls for everything.

For example:
Player: I roll to hit the goblin with my sword. *rolls dice*
GM: *compares result* You make a glancing blow to his arm. He lashes out with a spear. Roll to defend.
Player: I raise my shield. *rolls dice*
GM: *compares result* The spear bounces off your shield.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 24, 2022, 11:36:52 AM
In my observations, I've noticed that players like rolling dice to give them the illusion of control. This is why so many systems have more dice rolls in combat than they really need: e.g. roll to hit, roll to dodge, roll to damage, roll to soak. These rolls can be streamlined to just the players rolling to hit and to avoid being hit, which gives players the illusion of control and avoids any harebrained impetus to add more rolls to make them feel in control but is more streamlined than using opposed rolls for everything.

For example:
Player: I roll to hit the goblin with my sword. *rolls dice*
GM: *compares result* You make a glancing blow to his arm. He lashes out with a spear. Roll to defend.
Player: I raise my shield. *rolls dice*
GM: *compares result* The spear bounces off your shield.

I don't entirely disagree but also in fairness adding extra dice steps can help the immersion of the game.

Knowing precisely that your character failed to parry but only your dwarven-made plate saved you from damage is a different experience to being told that in the aggregate the orc's attack failed to inflict any damage.

The players roll for their characters and I roll for all NPCS, Monsters and anyone else.

I have been gaming for a long time and that's how it has been since I started over 30 years ago.