A recent thread included a post relating how in a particular group the GM did all the die rolling, stat tracking etc. allowing the players to concentrate on 'roleplaying' instead of 'gameplaying' and receive all descriptions of action and resolution in real world terms instead of game mechanics.
This is probably a very rare approach (although I have used it a couple times over the years) but has its own distinct advantages.
Have any of you tried something like this? How did it go? Would you participate in it as a player? Is taking the dice away from the player really affecting the outcome given its just a randomization method and isnt affected by which hand actually does the rolling?
First we had the gimmick of "only the players roll", which I never got...now you're proposing only the GM roll? I humbly submit the approach of having neither GM nor players roll, but a lackey specially employed for the purpose, with a unique livery.
The idea of "no GM rolls" really appeals to me because I have a thing for reducing the GM's workload, but I've never actually run things that way. Mostly because it would take some better-applied-elsewhere effort to retro-fit most systems to work that way smoothly.
The idea of "GM rolls everything" just seems straight up unappealing. The GM is busy enough under normal circumstances and most players engage in a surprising level of magical thinking when it comes to dice.
I have played this way. It absolutely requires a trustworthy GM.
It can add greatly to immersion, but I find players like rolling dice.
I do like the approach of playing with no character sheets, getting away from playing to the rules... but I've always played where Players (and GM's) rolled their own dice for the things they represent (the GM representing the world). It's just more fun and feels active.
I am at the opposite end of the scale, I prefer games where the players make all the dice rolls. I don't really find what is suggested in the OP appealing.
Quote from: The_Shadow;915993First we had the gimmick of "only the players roll", which I never got...now you're proposing only the GM roll? I humbly submit the approach of having neither GM nor players roll, but a lackey specially employed for the purpose, with a unique livery.
Im not proposing anything, its already being done. A Dice Lackey sounds good too though!
Quote from: DavetheLost;915997I have played this way. It absolutely requires a trustworthy GM.
It can add greatly to immersion, but I find players like rolling dice.
Yes, its a key ingredient in merging the Role and the Game to some, maybe most. I have found some players are almost embarrassed to 'play make believe' without the accoutrements of a game to disguise it.
D&D was first played like that. The reason being that there was only one set of the polyhedrals. Seems that changed soon after the players could get their own dice. But it gets mentioned as a GMing style fairly regularly. Some players all but demand it. Others despise it.
I've used it for some sessions. But as other have commented. Usually players like to roll for their own characters. And some GMs dont like it as its more work for them. Some enjoy it and personally Im ok either way. But I prefer to let the players roll as it saves time and frees me up to DM.
Even more than other things like the old debates about whether D&D armor class should be positive or negative, I feel this one falls under the category of "it doesn't matter." Unless you are worried that the players might fudge dice rolls, or you as the DM want to reserve the right to fudge your own, it genuinely doesn't matter who does the rolling.
Now if you wanted to truly separate the characters from the game mechanics and only worry about their characters' perspective and decisions, I can see the value of the DM having the character sheets. That would be an interesting twist.
My very first player, a buddy way back in 1976, was curious about this game thing me and a couple others were doing but wasnt into reading rules and all that nonsense. He wanted to try it out but asked me straight up if he could just 'tell me what his guy is doing' and I take care of the rest. We tried it with old OD&D and Greyhawk and had a great time. It had a completely different feel to when I GMd the conventional way with my regular group. Without his hands on management of the game mechanics our exchange at the table became much more story based. (He never said "I attack" for instance but rather "I come in low with my sword, keeping my shield up high" - that sort of thing) The experience had a profound affect on how my gaming developed from that point onward.
Yes, I sometimes do that if the players don't mind and want things to go quickly.
Especially in games over Internet.
It can help for rules and situations where the players shouldn't necessarily know what the odds of success are, which to me makes a lot of sense. In real life, we have a sense for how good we are and how likely things are to succeed, and we experience doing them, but not with numerical precision. In a game, not only does telling the players what exact number they need to roll give too much precision, but it also can reveal things they shouldn't be able to catch by knowing what the die roll is. I can substitute the missing information in words, e.g. ("You feel like that should have worked, but somehow it didn't quite work..."). Many players will immediately notice and bring a lot of attention to analyzing why they made their roll by 1 but failed, which doesn't leave much room for subtle effects that the character might not notice that quickly, so it can lead to an OOC meta investigation.
That's solved by GM rolling, if done consistently. If the GM suddenly needs to roll for you though, the PC's notice that. Unless you introduce enough noise, which is what I do a lot of with players who do want to roll their dice. I roll uncertainty dice and assess minor modifiers to contribute to the noise so when there is some cause the players don't know about, it doesn't stand out like a sore thumb.
Quote from: rgrove0172;916009My very first player, a buddy way back in 1976, was curious about this game thing me and a couple others were doing but wasnt into reading rules and all that nonsense. He wanted to try it out but asked me straight up if he could just 'tell me what his guy is doing' and I take care of the rest. We tried it with old OD&D and Greyhawk and had a great time. It had a completely different feel to when I GMd the conventional way with my regular group. Without his hands on management of the game mechanics our exchange at the table became much more story based. (He never said "I attack" for instance but rather "I come in low with my sword, keeping my shield up high" - that sort of thing) The experience had a profound affect on how my gaming developed from that point onward.
I've done a lot of this, especially since I like to run GURPS with all the rules, plus house rules, plus stuff the PCs don't know all about, often for players who don't know GURPS. It can work quite well if you do it well. You of course should give them the practical knowledge their character has but they don't, in English form.
Having just the GM roll is old as time. I used to do it, even up to my 2E days. Then I moved to having them roll for stuff like attack, but I would still roll for damage. Now I have players roll those things for their character.
I've thought about doing it, but never really liked the idea. Besides, my players have always really liked rolling dice. Some groups in the past have had an almost superstitious belief that if they don't roll the dice, they aren't in control of the character. Logically, it doesn't matter who initiates the random number generator, but to them it was vitally important.
Quote from: Onix;916048I've thought about doing it, but never really liked the idea. Besides, my players have always really liked rolling dice. Some groups in the past have had an almost superstitious belief that if they don't roll the dice, they aren't in control of the character. Logically, it doesn't matter who initiates the random number generator, but to them it was vitally important.
Yes, I am sadly familiar. Favorite dice also come into play at times. Please...
I tried this a few times with my group, but I found player engagement dropped a little when they weren't rolling. I think players just enjoy taking part in the nuts and bolts of the game. Online gaming (like pbp), I generally prefer GM rolls everything - it's just simpler that way.
You need a certain group, but it can work great with the right GM. There was a CoC GM at the LA Cons who would run games where you got a half page description of your PC and a picture of them, then everything else was narrated. He was a good GM and it worked for CoC because so much of the game is investigation and combat is pretty FUBAR. Because the GM had a reputation for running very immersive games, it worked since he drew in players who were all about the Mythos adventure and not the game system.
The same GM ran Traveller and D&D a couple times in that manner, and I felt that technique worked best with CoC.
I like players to roll for themselves when appropriate. I also like to roll for them when appropriate: certain skill checks like hiding, listening, checking for traps; the usual suspects. I've had some player want to roll even those, depending upon their own "luck" and not the GM's, as it were. If they can maintain metadata outside of the game, I am okay with that approach as well. As for taking the dice away, my players aren't children. They can give them up if they wish, but I'd never take them away. I'm not some controlling jerk with daddy issues, after all. :)
Quote from: DavetheLost;915997I have played this way. It absolutely requires a trustworthy GM.
It can add greatly to immersion, but I find players like rolling dice.
I agree with both parts of your second sentence: I can see it adding something to the experience for certain games, but the people at my table like to roll those bones.
The first sentence is kinda a given: I don't play with people I don't trust not to cheat at a dang game. We are talking elf-games, after all. :)
I'd have a hard time convincing my current group to allow the GM to roll everything as they are all former players from nigh textbook examples of bad and even killer GMs. And they like the game part and are "not interested in just sitting there hearing a story that they vaugly pilot" as one put it since it takes away from them the option to embellish and puts it mostly in the GMs hands. Some really dont like that.
As usual. Varries massively from table to table group to group player to player.
I prefer to have the players roll as much as possible because I think it makes them feel more involved. I only roll for players if there is a concrete reason to do so.
Quote from: darthfozzywig;916081I agree with both parts of your second sentence: I can see it adding something to the experience for certain games, but the people at my table like to roll those bones.
The first sentence is kinda a given: I don't play with people I don't trust not to cheat at a dang game. We are talking elf-games, after all. :)
When you mention cheating it reminded me of a player I had back in the early 80s. He was a coworker and had heard of D&D but knew nothing about it other than it of Satan. (You guys remember Pat Robertson's crusade Im sure) I was without a group at the time so we enjoyed a little one on one gaming and he really took to it. We ended up completing a very satisfying campaign which ended with the character usurping the throne. It was awesome. It was then, as we welcomed in a couple newly available players, that he dropped the bomb on me. He had been cheating.
I used a home made DM screen at the time, a nice tall wall of foam board between us that screened my notes and maps and also gave me a purchase for reference pages and the like. We each did our own rolling on or own sides and I never even considered checking he reported die rolls. He admitted to me that over all those months he had consistently used made up die results when it was convenient. He would sometimes allow himself to fail when it wasn't all that harmful and tried not to be to obvious with the successes but probably fudged his own dice 75% of the time.
I was shocked, I mean blown away but I have to be honest. It really didn't hurt the game at all, we had a blast. I suppose it should have made some big difference but it didn't. Of course with other players coming in he would have to stop and did, but only lasted a couple of sessions before moving off.
Quote from: rgrove0172;916094I was shocked, I mean blown away but I have to be honest. It really didn't hurt the game at all, we had a blast. I suppose it should have made some big difference but it didn't. Of course with other players coming in he would have to stop and did, but only lasted a couple of sessions before moving off.
To you and maybee me it mitght not have hurt the game if the story was enguaging. But its still taking from us those elements of chance and choice and swapping in an illusion to tell a story or to add "drama" etc. The DM is no longer a neutral arbiter. "Hah-ha! Fooled you!" doesnt sit well then you sit down to a table expecting fair play.
Players like to roll dice. In fact, I get them to do many of "my" rolls - check for wandering monsters, damage for traps sprung against them, and so on. And when someone's character goes down they take great pleasure in rolling for the monsters against the rest of the party.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;916098Players like to roll dice. In fact, I get them to do many of "my" rolls - check for wandering monsters, damage for traps sprung against them, and so on. And when someone's character goes down they take great pleasure in rolling for the monsters against the rest of the party.
I've taken to letting my players roll for wandering monsters as well. It's funny even to them now to hear the groans when someone rolls a one!
Quote from: Omega;916097To you and maybee me it mitght not have hurt the game if the story was enguaging. But its still taking from us those elements of chance and choice and swapping in an illusion to tell a story or to add "drama" etc. The DM is no longer a neutral arbiter. "Hah-ha! Fooled you!" doesnt sit well then you sit down to a table expecting fair play.
Im not sure what direction you are coming from there. I felt like the only person that really got cheated was him. All those amazing successes, the critical hits, the last second 'pull it out of your ass' good luck felt genuine and amazing to me as I didn't know they were contrived. For him, with the result known before hand and never in doubt, it had to have lost a little drama, or so I tell myself.
Quote from: Harlock;916079I like players to roll for themselves when appropriate. I also like to roll for them when appropriate: certain skill checks like hiding, listening, checking for traps; the usual suspects.
Yep. I also find that in systems that have persuasion skills rolling the dice for the players allows a more natural feel to the conversation since I can work the result into the NPC reaction so the NPC accepting or rejecting based in part on the die roll seems less artificial and obvious. Which most of the players seem to like or prefer.
Quote from: Skarg;916010In real life, we have a sense for how good we are and how likely things are to succeed, and we experience doing them, but not with numerical precision.
That's one of the big things I like about GM-only rolling, and also the reason I'm always baffled by people who insist that a die-rolling mechanic is inferior because it doesn't provide transparent probabilities. If I want to jump a stream in real life, I know "I'm almost certain to make it", not "I have a 97% chance to make it".
Other reasons I like it include making it easier for new players to just join the game (they don't need to read the rules if they're not interacting with them) and a general distaste for system-mastery-based playstyles.
But, yeah, I was opposed to running a game that way at first, because of the extra work it would make for me, but my players pushed me to try it (well, most of them... there was one who didn't like the idea because of dice superstitions, but he agreed to try it and seemed ok with it once he did) because they didn't want numbers or mechanics getting in the way of the roleplaying experience.
Quote from: rgrove0172;916094It really didn't hurt the game at all, we had a blast. I suppose it should have made some big difference but it didn't.
I'm glad you can reconcile what a crappy thing your friend was doing, cheating the whole time.
You may have decided that you enjoyed the experience irrespective of his cheating, but it certainly hurt the game. Indeed, you two weren't really playing the same game, but only one of you knew it.
Some folks like to roleplay without rules or dice, they just collectively decide how things unfold. That's fine, but without rules and a means of arbitration, there isn't a game. Still can be a fun activity, of course.
Cheating is a whole other thing, however.
Quote from: nDervish;916179That's one of the big things I like about GM-only rolling, and also the reason I'm always baffled by people who insist that a die-rolling mechanic is inferior because it doesn't provide transparent probabilities. If I want to jump a stream in real life, I know "I'm almost certain to make it", not "I have a 97% chance to make it".
It's just that "I have a 97% chance to make it" on a percentile roll translates more easily, for most people, than calculating the odds of, say, a pool of mixed die types, into "I'm almost certain to make it." So transparent probabilities might also aid a GM who is doing all the rolling, so they could give quicker estimates to Players asking about the seeming difficulty of things.
Of course, Skarg is still on point with his comment. I haven't played without Player rolls but I'd happily give it a try.
Quote from: Simlasa;916215It's just that "I have a 97% chance to make it" on a percentile roll translates more easily, for most people, than calculating the odds of, say, a pool of mixed die types, into "I'm almost certain to make it." So transparent probabilities might also aid a GM who is doing all the rolling, so they could give quicker estimates to Players asking about the seeming difficulty of things.
Of course, Skarg is still on point with his comment. I haven't played without Player rolls but I'd happily give it a try.
Having done it I can say its alot more legwork for the DM. And personally it feels like Im taking something away from the players. Hard to describe.
What I do roll myself normally are things the PCs wouldnt know was going on if they failed the roll. Someone just tried to read their mind for example. Or someone sneaking up on them. Otherwise I prefer the players roll their own to hits, saves, checks, etc.
Quote from: Omega;916273Having done it I can say its alot more legwork for the DM. And personally it feels like Im taking something away from the players. Hard to describe.
I'm guessing it depends on the game group. Except for the DCC group I'm in most of the games I play don't really involve much dice rolling.
As for taking something away from the players... I'd assumed that this idea would be something the whole group would agree on, at least as an experiment... otherwise it wouldn't happen. Not some bossy GM thing.
By a strange coincidence the game I just purchased and began a solo adventure on last evening has 100% of the rolls made by the players. No game mechanic rolls are made by the GM whatsoever. Ive heard of such games but never encountered one. Players attacks monster, rolls dice. Monster attacks player, attack hits unless player avoids etc. Player persuades NPC, rolls dice. NPC persuades player, player rolls to avoid.
complete reversal from what I intended this thread to discuss.
Theres a few of those out.
Some were made simpley because no one wanted to be the DM and so someone made a system where everyone is a mini-DM.
Some were made to shackle or outright do away with a DM in reaction to various slights recieved from DMs real or imagined. Taken to sometimes pathological hatred levels.
Some are just experimentation with a kewl idea. Because.
Quote from: rgrove0172;916101Im not sure what direction you are coming from there. I felt like the only person that really got cheated was him. All those amazing successes, the critical hits, the last second 'pull it out of your ass' good luck felt genuine and amazing to me as I didn't know they were contrived. For him, with the result known before hand and never in doubt, it had to have lost a little drama, or so I tell myself.
People who cheat often don't realize what they're missing. When you omit a random roll, you literally don't know what you missed... and in a non-railroad game, every event can affect the entire rest of the story.
This doesn't work with everyone, but I tend to have (and/or cultivate) players who, though some really love rolling their own dice, also appreciate that I may have interesting reasons to be adding modifiers or rolling other dice because there are things it's best if they don't know about which make the game more interesting.
Ive had players provide a list of rolls for me to use for hidden results like notice, detection etc. They were that controlling. Id have a list of 20 or so numbers they rolled before the game and check one off each time I needed a roll they shouldn't know about. Wow, but you do what you have to sometimes.
Quote from: rgrove0172;916414Ive had players provide a list of rolls for me to use for hidden results like notice, detection etc. They were that controlling. Id have a list of 20 or so numbers they rolled before the game and check one off each time I needed a roll they shouldn't know about. Wow, but you do what you have to sometimes.
Odd. But people often are.
Quote from: Bren;916448Odd. But people often are.
Odd? Gamers? Surely thou jest!
Jesteth.
Jesteseses.
Quote from: rgrove0172;916414Ive had players provide a list of rolls for me to use for hidden results like notice, detection etc. They were that controlling. Id have a list of 20 or so numbers they rolled before the game and check one off each time I needed a roll they shouldn't know about. Wow, but you do what you have to sometimes.
I actually used that once as a test. Had the players pre-roll for hidden rolls and then just checked each as went. The players kinda liked it.
Handed out an index card each and told them roll 10 times and note it down. In 5e I just have each characters passive score noted.
I think "only players roll" is a terrible idea. I think "only the GM rolls" is also a pretty bad idea, from the point of view of game-design.
Quote from: rgrove0172;916414Ive had players provide a list of rolls for me to use for hidden results like notice, detection etc. They were that controlling. Id have a list of 20 or so numbers they rolled before the game and check one off each time I needed a roll they shouldn't know about.
I like that idea for stuff where you wouldn't want them to know there's a check... like, any time the GM asks for a Perception roll it implies there's something to percieve.
I was playing online over the weekend using Fantasy Grounds and there's a hidden roll box in one corner... for when players shouldn't know what the results are... like for move silently or hide. That got me thinking I could just put a small dice tower on the table for Players to drop dice into... with the results end hidden from view. I'd like that as a Player too... that way I still get to roll... but won't know the result.
Quote from: The_Shadow;915993First we had the gimmick of "only the players roll", which I never got...now you're proposing only the GM roll? I humbly submit the approach of having neither GM nor players roll, but a lackey specially employed for the purpose, with a unique livery.
Can he have a pop-o-matic bubble upon a glittery platform?
Quote from: RPGPundit;917451I think "only players roll" is a terrible idea. I think "only the GM rolls" is also a pretty bad idea, from the point of view of game-design.
If only players roll then you get the problem of. "What is the point of having a GM?" Assuming theres a GM at all.
With only the GM rolls its not bad design. But it does put alot more work on the GM. Thake that a step further and only the GM knows your HP. Even more bookkeeping for the GM. Possibly great for players obsessed with immersion or dice-o-phobes. Probably horrible for GM haters and those who just like to handle their own tasks.
Quote from: Opaopajr;917510Can he have a pop-o-matic bubble upon a glittery platform?
Only if its mounted on the lackey's chest.
Quote from: Omega;917568Only if its mounted on the lackey's chest.
There's probably a LARP costume for that. :p
Quote from: RPGPundit;917451I think "only players roll" is a terrible idea. I think "only the GM rolls" is also a pretty bad idea, from the point of view of game-design.
Care to comment on why players rolling only is a poor mechanic?
Quote from: Omega;917567If only players roll then you get the problem of. "What is the point of having a GM?" Assuming theres a GM at all.
With only the GM rolls its not bad design. But it does put alot more work on the GM. Thake that a step further and only the GM knows your HP. Even more bookkeeping for the GM. Possibly great for players obsessed with immersion or dice-o-phobes. Probably horrible for GM haters and those who just like to handle their own tasks.
Umm...rolling the dice is about 5% of I do as a GM. I think most others would agree.
Quote from: rgrove0172;917710Umm...rolling the dice is about 5% of I do as a GM. I think most others would agree.
The system does affect how much time is spent rolling the dice as the GM. In an abstract combat game like some versions of D&D rolling for the "monsters" doesn't take up much time. In a game with more crunch, especially a game with a lot of tactical choices then rolling the dice (which includes figuring out what action to make and what dice the requires which in some systems is dependent on player choices and actions) can take significant time and attention by the GM. Especially if, at the same time, the GM has to assist or prompt one or more of the players who don't quite remember or grok the system details.
So as a GM it is not so much the rolling of the dice per se, but that plus the preceding decision making and the recording of the results. An abstract combat system like OD&D/AD&D or Star Wars WEG D6 is a lot less work than something a bit crunchier such as RQ3 or Honor+intrigue.
Quote from: Opaopajr;917510Can he have a pop-o-matic bubble upon a glittery platform?
Your idea lacks gravitas. I was thinking more of a Jeeves-like butler, who rolled the dice on a felt-covered silver platter, and gently cleared his throat to indicate that results awaited.
Quote from: The_Shadow;917926Your idea lacks gravitas. I was thinking more of a Jeeves-like butler, who rolled the dice on a felt-covered silver platter, and gently cleared his throat to indicate that results awaited.
but I'm American so there needs to be a Bald eagle, an American Flag, a gun and a cowboy in there somehow. A cowboy with an American flag on his chest and a Bald Eagle on his shoulder comes in, rolls the dice and then whoops and shoots his wheel gun in the air or something like that.